FOOTNOTES:
[62] See later.
[63] "Irascor facto bipedis vehementer aselli."
[64] "Blasphemias cuiusdam in ecclesiam Dei ore sacrilego debacchantis."
[65] This imaginary personage was supposed to have been the founder of the sect of Pickhards or Beghards, a vague designation which was applied to many mediæval heretics, but more particularly to the Waldenses.
[66] See Chapter VI.
[67] Lord Peter was the last of the illustrious family of Rosenberg.
[68] The red rose was the device of the lords of Rosenberg.
[69] Rosenberg died in 1611. The Bohemian uprising against the House of Habsburg began in 1618, and the battle of the White Mountain—the term of Bohemian independence—was fought in 1620.
[70] See Chapter VI.
[71] In Bohemian rota (see note, p. [161]).
[72] Probably an allusion to the celebrated Doctor Jessenius, rector of the University of Prague, whom the Bohemians employed in their negotiations with Hungary, and who was famed for his eloquence. His tongue was cut out before he was decapitated, and his body was quartered after death.
[73] This was the name given to the members of the Provisional Government formed at Prague in 1618 after the Defenestration.
[74] See Chapter IV. p. [157].
[75] Historie o puvodu Jednoty ("History of the Origin of the Unity"), quoted by Jireček.
[76] Of English works on this subject, I may mention the "Extract of the Letter of the late Bishop Jablonsky to his Excellency C. Zinzendorf: As touching the succession of Episcopal Consecration; the Bohemian Brethren have got their Ordination from the Waldenses about the year 1467, and have kept the same carefully and without interruption." Printed in Acta Fratrum Unitatis in Anglia, 1749, as Appendix VII.
[77] That the choice was made by the drawing of lots, which is here only hinted at, is more fully explained in the later accounts of Brother Jaffet and Komenský; they tell us that the brethren chose nine of their number, and then intrusted a boy who was unaware of their intentions with twelve slips of paper; of these, nine were blank and three contained the word "Jest." The nine chosen men then drew the slips of paper, and all those containing the word "Jest" were drawn; this was considered as signifying that God wished the Unity to have three spiritual chiefs.
[78] In Bohemian úzky, literally "narrow."
[79] In Eastern Bohemia, between the towns of Wildenschwert and Pardubic.
[80] In the Journal of the Bohemian Museum (Časopis Musea Království Českého) for 1886.
[81] See Chapter IV.
[82] The Bohemian word roh signifies "horn" in German and English.
[83] I quote the name as given by Dr. Jireček.
[84] This passage recalls Dante's "Pape Satan! Pape Satan Aleppe!" (Inferno, Canto VII.).
[85] See later.
[86] The Latin passage is written in that language in Blahoslav's (Bohemian) work, which I quote. The Latin spelling is also that of Blahoslav.
[87] This, no doubt, refers to some theological difference between Lucas and Blahoslav.
[88] See Chapter VI.
[89] See Chapter VI.
[90] The passages quoted in Latin are in that language in Blahoslav's Bohemian book. I shall continue quoting Blahoslav's writings as he published them, without further mention of the fact. The constant use of Latin words and phrases is a particularity of Blahoslav.
[91] See Chapter VI.
[92] See my Bohemia, an Historical Sketch, p. 270.
[93] Following the Bohemian writers, I thus describe jointly the Lutherans, Utraquists, and Bohemian Brethren, who were united in their opposition to Rome.
[94] See my Bohemia, an Historical Sketch, p. 299 et seq.
[96] See Chapter VI.
[97] See Chapter VI.
[98] Those who wish to study the life of Komenský in greater detail should read Mr. Keatinge's biographical and historical introduction to his recently published English version of the Didactica Magna. The biography of Komenský is founded on the best German and Latin authorities. It is only occasionally that mistakes occur, as when it is stated (on page [1] of the introduction) that the Unity "took a position midway between the Utraquists and the Roman Catholics." The Utraquists were, on the contrary, nearest to Rome, and some of them were indeed prepared to accept all its teaching if the right to receive communion sub utraque, in the two kinds, were granted them. The Brethren were of all Bohemian reformers most antagonistic to the Church of Rome, and refused to recognise all institutions which, according to their views, had not existed in the primitive Church.
[99] See Chapter VI.
[100] Komenský alludes to the confiscation of the estates of the nobles who belonged to the Unity. The peasants on their estates were generally of their faith, and were treated more mildly than on other estates. Komenský therefore uses the word "subject" (oddaný) instead of "serf."
[101] See my Bohemia, an Historical Sketch, pp. 397 and 398. Want of space prevents my repeating the short account of Kotter's "prophecies" given there.
[102] As late as in 1657 Komenský, in his Lux in Tenebris, republished the prophecies of Kotter, Ponatovská, and Drabik, The last-named disreputable prophet will be mentioned later.
[103] Mr. Keatinge: The Great Didactic. Mr. Keatinge's preface contains much interesting information concerning Hartlib and his friends.
[104] This table of contents can be found in my Bohemia, an Historical Sketch, p. 403.
[105] Bohnslav Lescynski was the grandfather of Stanislas Lescynski, for some time King of Poland.
[106] Published in Mr. Patera's Korrespondence Komenského.
[107] I have retained Komenský's plan of dividing his letter into numbered paragraphs, but want of space has obliged me to abridge the letter considerably, and I have omitted altogether one or two paragraphs of little interest.
[108] See later, p, 286.
[109] According to Dr. Kvacsala's calculation. Dr. Zoubek only enumerates 137 books. The difference is caused by the uncertainty whether certain rewritten books, sometimes republished in a different name, should be counted twice. Mr. Keatinge's book contains a list of 127 books of Komenský.
[111] My translation of the Labyrinth of the World was published by Messrs. Swan Sonnenschein in 1901. The book now forms part of Messrs. Dent's "Temple Classics."
[112] The book has recently again been translated into English (probably from the German version) by Mr. W. Monroe, under the name of the School of Infancy. The book contains a "bibliography of Comenian literature," from which one would fancy that Bohemian works were purposely excluded, if two books written in that language, published respectively at Omaha and Racine, U.S., did not figure in the list.
[113] The first edition of the book was Latin and Bohemian. Anglo-Latin versions are numerous, the last having been published at Oxford in 1800. There are also French, Greek, Polish, Dutch, Swedish, and Hungarian editions of the Janua, as well as some that, besides the Latin version, are printed in several modern languages.
[114] In the Latin version of the Janua this reads as follows:—"Qui cupit capit omnia," a rather contestable statement, that is very characteristic of Komenský.
[115] I quote from the Elzevir edition of 1611, edited by Duez, which is written in the languages mentioned above. The passage, of course, varied in each edition according to the languages in which it was published.
[117] Though nothing would have appeared more revolting to the pious Komenský, his ideas here somewhat recall the twofold sun of the Emperor Julian.
[118] I have written with more detail on Komenský's "pansophy" in my Bohemia, an Historical Research. Further study of Komenský's works on pansophy has not given me a higher opinion of their value.
[119] It may interest some readers to know the complete table of contents of the enormous volume, which is divided into four parts:—
Part I.
1. De primis occasionibus ... relatio. 2. Didactica Magna. 3. Schola materni gremii. 4. Scholæ vernaculæ delineatio. 5. Janua Latinæ linguæ, primum edita. 6. Vestibulum. 7. Proplasma templi Latinatis. 8. De sermonis Lat. studio dissertatio. 9. Prodromus pansophiæ. 10. Variorum de eo censuræ. 11. Pansophicorum conatuum dilucidatio.
Part II.
1. De novis ... occasionibus. 2. Methodus linguarum novissima. 3. L. L. vestibulum. 4. L. L. Janua nova. 5. Lexicon Januale Latino-Germanicum. 6. Grammatica Latino-vernacula. 7. De atrio relatio. 8. Quædam de his doctorum judiciis, novæque disquisitiones.
Part III.
1. De vocatione in Hungariam relatio. 2. Scholæ pansophicæ delineatio. 3. De Pans. studii obicibus. 4. De ingeniorum cultura. 5. De libris. 6. De schola Triclassi. 7. Erudit schol. pars I. Vestibulum. 8. Erudit schol. pars II. Janua. 9. Erudit schol. pars III. Atrium. 10. Fortius redivivus. 11. Præcepta morum. 12. Leges bene ordinatæ scholæ. 13. Schola Ludus. 14. Laborum schol. coronis.
Part IV.
1. Vita gyrus. 2. Vestibuli auctuarium. 3. Pro Latinate Januæ apologia. 4. Ventilabrum sapientiæ. 5. E. labyrinthis scholasticis exitus. 6. Latium redivivum. 7. Typographæum vivum. 8. Paradisus ecclesiæ reductus. 9. Traditio lampadis. 10. Paralipomena didactica.
[CHAPTER VI]
BOHEMIAN HISTORIANS OF THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
The period subsequent to the Hussite wars was very favourable to the development of the Bohemian language, and especially to that of historical studies. The stirring events of the times directed general interest to the great political and religious struggle; for these words are nearly synonymous when we deal with the century that preceded the battle of the White Mountain (1620), with which the aspirations of the Bohemians for ecclesiastical as well as for political independence ended for a time. The constant references to the Divinity, the prayers and hymns which are inserted in historical works of a mainly secular character, prove that in Bohemia political and religious controversies were at that period even more closely connected than in other countries.
Other causes also contributed to the increase of intellectual activity which we find in Bohemia at the beginning of the sixteenth century. I have already referred to the "humanist" movement, which, in consequence of the religious isolation of Bohemia, reached that country late, but for a time had the greatest influence on the intellectual development of the land. I have also already alluded to the foundation and beginnings of the community of the Bohemian Brethren, which greatly influenced the literary as well as the political condition of Bohemia. The brethren from the first attached great importance to the study of history, and they had established archives at Senftenberg, and afterwards at Leitomischl. A school of writers on history sprung up among them whose works—judging by the scanty remains that have reached us—possessed both great value and great beauty of style. The greater part of these works has been lost long ago. The brethren who constituted the most advanced fraction of the party which desired Church reform were naturally most hated and dreaded by the Jesuits, to whom the return of Bohemia to the Roman Church must principally be attributed. The writings of the brethren were thus specially marked out for destruction. Among the historical works that are probably irretrievably lost is that which was, according to all accounts, the most valuable, Blahoslav's History of the Unity. Yet even the existent works of members of the brotherhood, such as Bilek, Blahoslav, Březan, Žerotin, to speak of historians only, sufficiently vouch for the high degree of culture which the brethren had attained. They attached great importance to the grammar of their language, and many of their works were, as already recorded, models of Bohemian style.
The political condition of the country also then favoured the development of the national language, which was during this period—and during this period only—almost exclusively used by historians. During the reigns of the kings of the House of Luxemburg the Bohemian language had to a great extent lost ground. King John was known to dislike the Bohemian language, and though this dislike was by no means shared by his son Charles, yet even the foundation of the University of Prague (though that university afterwards became a national one) was not at first favourable to the development of the Bohemian language. It was at first principally frequented by foreigners, and German and Latin were almost exclusively used there.
Of the contemporary chroniclers of the Hussite war many still wrote in Latin. Yet the Hussite movement undoubtedly favoured the development of the Bohemian language, if it was only by the isolation from the rest of the Western world which the religious separation produced. A great impetus was also given to the cultivation of the national language by the circumstance that a few years before the beginning of the sixteenth century (in 1495) the Bohemian law courts decided to carry on their proceedings in the national language. The law courts of Silesia and Moravia had already previously substituted Bohemian for the Latin language, which they had previously used. Of yet greater importance was the fact that Bohemian at this period became the language exclusively used at the "diets" or meetings of the three "Estates" of Bohemia. In the minds of many Bohemians the preservation of the national language was closely connected with the conservation of their political and ecclesiastical independence. As late as in 1615, only five years before the final collapse of Bohemia, the Diet decided that all those who became naturalised Bohemians should be bound to instruct and educate their children in the language of the country. It may be noticed that this fervent devotion to the national language, which has often astonished foreigners, is a marked feature also in the revival of Bohemian literature and in the present nationalist movement.
Among the most recent writers on Bohemian history it has become the fashion to depreciate the social and intellectual condition of Bohemia in the years that preceded the battle of the White Mountain; they perhaps endeavour thus to attenuate the sentimental feeling of regret for the great defeat which a few Bohemians still cherish. That the political results of the battle of the White Mountain, which consisted in the establishment of an absolute but orderly government; were advantageous to Bohemia, and, indeed, saved the country from anarchy, is certain. Yet it is no less certain that nobles and citizens, such as Peter of Rosenberg, Charles of Žerotin, Budovec of Budova (mentioned in the last chapter), Harant of Polžic, Bartoš Pisář, Sixt of Ottersdorf, Skála ze Zhoře (who all belong to the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century), were intellectually vastly superior to the men of similar rank and position who lived a century later, after many years of absolutist government.
It is noteworthy that among the historians of the period with which I am dealing, the majority are men who themselves played a part in the political life of their time. The Bohemians of this period were—partly, though by no means exclusively, through the influence of "humanism,"—penetrated with a blind, almost superstitious, love of learning for its own sake. They seem always to have aspired to the "tall mountain citied to the top, crowded with culture." This, indeed, applies not only to the humanists, literary men, or translators of classical works, but also to many of the practical and matter-of-fact politicians of the time. Witness Peter of Rosenberg, who died deploring "that he had not sufficiently cultivated the study of literature;" or Harant of Polžic, whose constant show of classical erudition is striking, if sometimes tedious, and who, even when in immediate peril of life, could not refrain from a classical allusion.
The two earliest historians who belong to this period both sprang from the class or "estate," as it was called, of the citizens; they both held important municipal offices at Prague, and they have both described short but momentous episodes in Bohemian history, in which they had played a conspicuous part.
Bartoš Pisář (Bartholomew the writer), author of the Chronicles of Prague,[120] may be considered one of the most valuable Bohemian historians. Bartholomew obtained the by-name by which he is known because he had, though a linen-draper by trade, frequently sought employment of a literary character. We are, indeed, told that he neglected his business for his literary pursuits, and that whilst his wife was selling linen in the marketplace, Bartholomew spent a large part of his time in transcribing ancient manuscripts. He held a municipal appointment at Prague for some time, and documents are still existent which were copied out by Bartholomew.
It is certainly a proof of the extension of education and of the intellectual activity of the time, that Bartoš, a tradesman, should have undertaken, and successfully undertaken, to write an important historical work. Bartholomew's chronicle deals indeed with a very limited subject, the troubles which, during the years 1524 to 1537, occurred in Prague; they were caused by the rivalry of two ambitious upstarts, John Pasěk and John Hlavsa. During the weak reign of King Louis these men both strove to obtain supreme authority in the city of Prague, which thus became the scene of great tumults and disturbances. Though dealing with an apparently unimportant subject, Bartholomew's book is of the greatest interest in giving a striking picture of the town-life of Bohemia in the sixteenth century. Religious controversy was the one engrossing interest among the citizens, and the "Catilinarian individuals" (as a recent Bohemian writer has called them), who contested for the government of Prague, used religion as a pretext for their ambitious endeavours. The rivals, indeed, both belonged to the so-called Utraquist Church, which prided itself in being directly based on the teaching of Hus. This Church was the Established Church of Bohemia, from the time of the Council of Basel and the signing of the so-called "compacts" (1436), to the battle of the White Mountain (1620).
Very characteristic of Bartholomew's manner are his accounts of the disturbances of Prague, which formed the original motive for his book. It is very evident to a student of Bohemian history that in this portion of Bartholomew's work light and shade are very unequally divided; there was really very little to choose between the two demagogues, Pasěk and Hlavsa, whose rivalry caused the disturbances at Prague. But Bartholomew's style is here often quaint and picturesque; and I think I could give no better specimen of it than by translating his portraits of the rival Cleons of Prague. Bartholomew writes: "Concerning those two persons, John Hlavsa and Master John Pasěk, they both appeared as two brilliant lights, not only in Prague, but also within the 'estate' of the townsmen generally; for God had granted to both of them an enlightened intellect, and eloquence greater than is usual among men; yet they differed greatly with regard to their character. Though in his manner Pasěk appeared inclined to kindliness, yet the immense and inexorable malice of Cain ruled him, while on the, contrary Hlavsa was guided by his peaceful and yielding nature.
"Pasěk was born at Old Knin, of poor parents; his mother had been a huckstress; as to his father, I have been unable to ascertain anything certain. Therefore, to avoid erring against truth, it is often fitter to give room in my book only to the statements of men who are trustworthy and sensible, rather than believe the assertions of certain people. Pasěk then was a poor school-servant, and later on a schoolmaster. Afterwards he proceeded to the University of Prague, where he became a bachelor and master of arts. Then, ever rising in the world, he was chosen by the citizens of the old town of Prague as their chief town-clerk.... He was afterwards chosen as alderman, and by his practice in the law courts also gained large possessions, and his general fortune in the world ever increased; for God is able to raise a needy school-servant to high rank, as is said in God's Scripture in the Psalms. And now, besides the coat-of-arms which he had already received, a title, as a further honour, was bestowed on him. He thus acquired the right of calling himself John Pasěk of Vrat, obtaining thus a name that well befitted his individuality, for it is true that he overturned and overthrew much.[121] He then became excessively cruel, immoderately severe, and tormented the people intolerably and unjustly.... Indeed, he once said openly to some people (for he was unable to conceal his revengefulness, in which few were equal to him), 'Do not quarrel and dispute much in words with your enemy, but wait till he is crossing a bridge; then draw away his feet from under him so that he may fall in.' This also he said boastingly: 'I am unable to be so good a Christian as that I could forgive my enemies what they have done against me.'"
Of Hlavsa Bartholomew writes: "John Hlavsa was born in the town of Střibro (Mies), of honest and orderly parents, who belonged to the estate of the townsmen. He also, having previously been a needy scholar, afterwards became a schoolmaster. Then, after he married, he rose in the world, and during the reign of King Vladislav obtained a coat-of-arms with the title of 'Liboslav.' Having an enlightened intellect and great talents, he was elected an alderman, and soon obtained the highest rank in that court. How much good he did for the king and the estate of the townsmen, that is known to many in Bohemia and elsewhere; but as to the merits of the other (Pasěk) there is silence. Thence, in consequence of the king's taking away his appointments from the one (Hlavsa) and giving them to the other (Pasěk), great hatred and jealousy sprung up between them and spread widely; for it is the result of vain worldly vanity that every one desires honours for himself and not for others. And yet we must truthfully admit (let who will be angry with me) that through these discords much benefit and profit was obtained, rather from the deeds of the one who had not obtained the degree of master[122] (Hlavsa) than from those of the other, as I have already stated. In consequence of the differences between these two parties arose, one called that of Pasěk and the other that of Hlavsa, and this extended to many. Many also took part in these dissensions, and were enraged against one another; the consequence was a lamentable persecution of one party by the other."
Bartholomew, like most Bohemian historians of his time, lays no claim to impartiality, and he attacks the Utraquists of the moderate faction almost more ferociously than the partisans of Rome. Bartholomew was certainly "a good hater," and his portrait of Archbishop Rokycan is distinctly unfair. He indeed gives a totally incorrect account of the negotiations of the Bohemian Utraquists with the Eastern Church,[123] for the purpose of discrediting Rokycan by insinuating that he had been treated with contempt by the dignitaries of the Greek Church. Bartholomew, as already noticed, often extends his narrative beyond its immediate subject, and he has the taste for theological controversy which was innate in almost all Bohemians at that time. The last part of Bartholomew's book deals with the election of Ferdinand I. as King of Bohemia in 1526; it has considerable historical value, and has been largely used by the writers who have reconstructed Bohemian history in the present century. Bartholomew died in 1535, it is not certain at what age.
The political career of the next historian with whom I shall deal, Sixt of Ottersdorf (born about the year 1500), was similar to that of Bartoš the Writer; but Sixt appears to have taken a more prominent part in the events which he related, and, differing herein from Bartoš, he is by no means chary of references to his own person. Like Bartholomew, Sixt belonged to the estate of the citizens. His talents and learning—we are told that he studied for some time in foreign lands for the purpose of acquiring a thorough knowledge of the Greek language—raised him to a prominent position among the citizens of Prague. As early as in 1537 we hear of him as town-clerk of the old city of Prague, and he was chancellor of the town in the momentous year 1546. His political career as well as his writings prove him to have been a zealous partisan of the ancient privileges of the Bohemian "Estates." Ferdinand I. of Habsburg had in 1526 succeeded the weak sovereigns of the Jagellonic dynasty as ruler of Bohemia. His constant though often occult purpose was to strengthen the royal prerogative and to limit the power of the Bohemian Diet or Parliament. It seemed indeed at one time probable that Ferdinand I. would accomplish this task, which his grandson finally successfully achieved after the battle of the White Mountain. In this struggle between the king and the "Estates" Sixt took an active part, and an episode of this struggle (which lasted intermittently from 1526 to 1620) is the subject of his memorable work, entitled the History of the Troubled Years in Bohemia, 1546 and 1547.
To no literature is the sentence "Habent sua fata libelli" more truly applicable than to that of Bohemia. While the writings of Bartoš and Sixt, and indeed those of the other historians also with whom I shall deal in this chapter, remained almost unnoticed up to the beginning of the present century, Hajek of Libočan's Bohemian Chronicles were widely known and circulated from the moment that the book appeared. Hajek's work was dedicated to Ferdinand I., and produced under the auspices of that sovereign, who, indeed, appointed officials for the purpose of examining the contents of the book before its appearance.
When, after the battle of the White Mountain, all independent works of an historical character were suppressed and many were completely destroyed, Hajek's chronicle became, and continued for nearly two centuries, the one source of information to which the few writers on Bohemian history went. Many of the foolish, displeasing, and untruthful tales referring to his country, which a Bohemian so often finds in the writings of foreign lands, can be traced to Hajek. It is in his work that we find that account of Zižka's death which has been so often repeated, though it is as entirely contrary to all we know of that great warrior as it is to the reports of the contemporary chroniclers. Hajek tells us that Zižka, when dying, ordered that his body be flayed and then thrown to the wild beasts, and that his skin should be used as a drum.[124] This and so many other foolish tales have greatly contributed to the totally false interpretation of ancient Bohemian history that is current up to the present day.
The Hussitenkrieg of Theobaldus, and Lenfant in his Histoire des Guerres Hussites (George Sand's authority for her Jean Zǐžka and her Comtesse de Rudolstadt), both borrow extensively from Hajek. As the works of Theobaldus and Lenfant were recognised authorities on Bohemian history up to the end of the eighteenth century, Hajek's tales have been repeated by many writers (for instance, Carlyle), who had probably never heard of his name.
Since the beginning of the present century it has become possible to study freely the documents that refer to the ancient history of Bohemia. The result has been that the glory of the "Bohemian Livy," as Hajek was formerly called, has been completely obscured. It has been proved that Hajek's work is totally untrustworthy, and that he not only copied from earlier writers without any attempt at criticism, but that he was often intentionally mendacious, and for party purposes distorted his account of historical events. The great Bohemian historian Palacký's judgment on Hajek has often been quoted. Palacký wrote: "Hajek is the most narrow-minded slyboots, the most naïve humbug, and the apparently most innocent calumniator whom I have met in the course of my historical studies."
It is hardly necessary to mention that at a period when the rule "Scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum," was ignored by all Bohemian historians, Hajek's work shows traces of party spirit almost on every page. The author, who was a Romanist priest, writes as a strong Catholic, and as a strong partisan of the Bohemian aristocracy. Among the adherents of Rome, who were then few in number in Bohemia, and who were Hajek's principal protectors, were found several of the greatest Bohemian nobles. These Catholic lords were always the most decided enemies of the Bohemian cities, while the Utraquist and Protestant nobles—though their caste pride may have been as great—regarded the townsmen as valuable allies in their struggle against the sovereign, while the democratic character of the community of the "Bohemian brethren" naturally also influenced the nobles who belonged to it.
In his preface already Hajek enters into the question of the rank and precedence among the Bohemian estates, of course in a sense favourable to his patrons. He writes: "Some have, for the purpose of disparaging the estate of the nobles and that of the knights, dared to maintain that the estate of the townsmen is the first, and dates from the foundation of Prague. The estate of the nobles, they say, sprung up afterwards, when they (the nobles) acted as officials, and other men were intrusted to their rule; then, they say, many years later the estate of the knights was created, when the king allowed them (the knights) to bear a device on their shield because of certain deeds and brave exploits. But both these statements are untrue." Hajek here writes in contradiction to a Utraquist historian, Martin Kuthen, who had stated that the origin of the Bohemian estates was that mentioned above. Kuthen's work, which has little value and requires no further notice, was then very much read, and it has even been said that Hajek was instructed to write his work as a refutation of that of Kuthen.
Of Hajek's chronicle, which (as was customary in those days) begins with the deluge, and which ends with the coronation of his patron Ferdinand I., the earliest part is by far the most attractive. Dealing with an almost entirely mythical period, and one in which it was nearly impossible to introduce political and ecclesiastical controversies (though even here Hajek occasionally does so), the author is at his best. He borrows largely from Cosmas and from Dalimil, whose influence even on Hajek's manner of writing can be traced in the early part of his book. Hajek's style, indeed, always varies greatly according to the authorities which he is using. His account of the foundation of Prague is very curious.
But even in Hajek's accounts of semi-mythical occurrences the insincerity and dishonesty that characterise him are often apparent. Cosmas and Dalimil related the legends and traditions of their land just as they had reached them from the earliest available oral or written depositions. Hajek, on the contrary, always assumes the part of a conscientious and systematic historian. He indeed mentions Tacitus, Ptolemy, Strabo, Orosius, and a limited number of mediæval writers among the authorities whom, according to his statement, he had consulted. Hajek's object was to join together various, often contradictory, tales, and to give them the shape of a chronologically consistent record of the lives of the Premyslide princes. Was it for this purpose necessary to alter traditional dates? That appeared to Hajek a matter of no great importance!
Writing as a fervent partisan of Rome, Hajek of course judges Hus and Jerome of Prague severely. Of the latter he tells us: "In 1400 there arrived in Prague, coming from England, a young man who had gone there for the purposes of study, Jerome by name, a citizen of the new town of Prague, the son of one Albert (Vojtěch).... This Jerome had brought books with him from England, into which he had copied out some of the writings of 'John the Englishman,' whom they call Wycliffe. This man had by his teaching corrupted first a town in England called 'Oksa' or 'Oksonia,' and afterwards the whole English kingdom." Of Hus, Hajek tells us that he was originally a good and pious man, but that he came under the influence of two Englishmen, "Jacob the Bachelor" and "Conrad of Kandelburgk" (=Canterbury). These men used to visit (according to Hajek!) the young masters of the university, spreading Wycliffe's teaching and perverting many from the true faith. At last "Master John of Husinec, Master Jerome of Prague, Jacob of England, and Conrad of 'Kandelburgk' were like one man." This account of the origin of the Hussite movement—totally incorrect, as so many of Hajek's statements—yet proves that the writer was indeed the "narrow-minded slyboots" Palacký has called him. By greatly exaggerating the English influence on the foundation of Hussitism, and stigmatising it as a foreign movement, Hajek, as he well knew, greatly injured the Hussites; for the intense national feeling that has always animated the Bohemians has produced among them an often exaggerated distrust of foreign interference.
With all its faults, Hajek's work will always find readers. His style, though varying according to the authorities which he is using, is generally animated, a priceless merit in his pedantic age. An interest also is connected with Hajek's chronicles which the author could not have foreseen, and would not have desired. Hajek's work, sanctioned by the Roman Church, and therefore accessible to the people, continued to be read when every other book on the early history of Bohemia disappeared. It is thus to a large extent through Hajek's chronicles that the Bohemians preserved some recollection of their former greatness. A copy of Hajek's chronicles went down from generation to generation among the Bohemian peasantry, and was cherished as an heirloom. As a lover would rather that evil be spoken of his love than that her name remain unmentioned, thus the Bohemians welcomed eagerly even hostile accounts of the deeds of Zižka, Prokop, and the other leaders under whose guidance Bohemia had once defied all Europe.
Of Hajek's life little is known, and that little is by no means to his credit. The year of his birth is uncertain, but we know that when very young he left the Utraquist Church, in which he was born, became a Roman Catholic, and took orders in that Church. We read of him as preaching in the Church of St. Thomas at Prague in 1524, and by the aid of some Catholic nobles he obtained in 1527 the deanery of Karlstein. Later he obtained other ecclesiastical dignities. Of all these honours he was subsequently deprived in consequence of an accusation of having embezzled money belonging to the Church. It has been suggested, though on insufficient evidence, that Hajek wrote his chronicles for the purpose of regaining the lost favour of his patrons. In 1544 Hajek, perhaps as a reward for his book that had appeared in 1541, obtained the provostship of Stará Boleslav (Alt Bunzlau), but of this dignity he was again deprived in 1549 because of various offences against canon law. Hajek died in 1553.
Several minor historians belong to this period. I have already mentioned Martin Kuthen. The History of the Emperor Charles IV., King of Bohemia, by Prokop Lupáč; (published in 1584), also deserves special notice. The book is of interest to English readers, as the author has inserted in it a considerable portion of a ballad describing the death of King John at the battle of Crécy, which was probably written shortly after that event.
The most prominent historians of this period were probably the members of the community of the "Bohemian Brethren." This is, however, unfortunately little more than a conjecture. The works of the brethren were specially singled out for destruction during the Catholic reaction. Mere fragments remain, and even with regard to these doubts as to their authorship often exist. The writings of Professor Goll, who has with admirable skill and ability reconstructed the early history of the brotherhood, also throw incidentally much light on the literary activity of the brethren. The greatest historian among them was probably Brother Blahoslav, whose Historie Bratrska ("History of the Brotherhood") was greatly admired; the book is known to us only by quotations in some contemporary works which have been preserved. As already mentioned, Blahoslav devoted much time to the study of the grammar of the Bohemian language, and he was celebrated for the beauty of his style. It is, therefore, probable that in the History of the Brotherhood we have lost not only a valuable historical document, but also a masterpiece of Bohemian prose-writing. With the exception of a short Latin treatise on the history of the brotherhood, the writings of Blahoslav that have been preserved are not of a historical character; I have therefore referred to him more fully in the last chapter.
In connection with Blahoslav I shall mention a work that was formerly often attributed to him; this is the Captivity of John Augusta. Recent research has proved that this book was really written by the young clergyman John Bilek, Augusta's companion during his captivity. It is, however, probable that the first part of the work was revised by Blahoslav. The book deals with the imprisonment of John Augusta, bishop of the Bohemian Brethren, who was accused of having participated in the negotiations with the German Protestant princes, into which some Bohemians had entered in 1546 and 1547.[125]
Bilek, Augusta's companion in captivity, has with touching simplicity described his sufferings, the treachery of Schönaich, town-captain of Leitomischl, the tortures which Bilek and Augusta underwent, their long imprisonment in the castle of Pürglitz (or Křivoklat), their attempts to communicate from their prison with their brethren who were at large, the relief of their sufferings through the intercession of Philipina Welser, wife of the Archduke Ferdinand, and their final liberation. The book, written in a truly saintly spirit, never reveals the slightest animosity against the officials who were treating Augusta and his companion so cruelly. When narrating the tortures that were inflicted on Augusta for the purpose of forcing him to admit the complicity of the Brotherhood in the supposed conspiracy, Bilek simply writes: "The officials then ordered that he (Augusta) should again be put on the rack, because of the questions mentioned before; but it did not last long, as he had become quite silent and swooned away. I think, had they but continued a little longer, he would have died during the torture."
Bilek's simple account of the daily routine and the little incidents of prison life, often recalling Silvio Pellico, is both interesting and touching. I will give one quotation referring to the attempt of the prisoners to establish communications with their friends outside the prison. Bilek writes: "After they (the prisoners) had been in prison some time, a year and a half and ten weeks, in the year 1550, God our Lord wrought a great miracle; He opened to them in their solitude and concealment a secret and concealed path, by means of which their friends could visit them, receive news of them, and also convey news to them. And this happened thus. Among the warders who guarded them, and who had received rigid instructions how they were to guard them, was a servant who knew them slightly, and knew also what sort of men they were; for he had formerly been an artisan at Leitomischl. He knew that they were enduring all this suffering, not because of any crime, but for the sake of the religion; and he felt a certain compassion for them. This man risked all, and permitted that they should receive from the brethren and from their friends everything they required; and he also undertook to forward secretly their friends' communications to them, and their own to their friends. He began doing this in 1550, before the Vigil of St. Paul's Confession, and continued doing so up to the year 1553. He conveyed to them the letters and communications of their brethren and dear friends, and he supplied them with ink, paper, and everything that is required for writing. A few books also he brought them and other things which they required, money and tapers; and they accepted these things with no slight fear, principally with regard to the servant; for he might have forfeited his life had it been discovered that he had given us these things. As regards themselves, they had commended their souls to God and His grace, whatever might befall them; they knew that they were acting rightly, and had therefore little fear for their own persons; rather did they rejoice that God had granted these things to them, and they accepted them with gratitude and thanksgiving, and praised their Lord God for this." The fact that so large a part of the historical as well as of the theological writings of the brethren has been destroyed enhances the value of Bilek's book. The passages quoted above give a true insight into the inner life of the Brotherhood; they give evidence of their invincible courage and absolute reliance on God, which gave them great strength, as well as of their exaggerated subserviency to even unjust temporal authorities, which sometimes made them poor politicians.
Of Bilek little is known but what he himself tells us in his book. He was a clergyman of the Brotherhood, and acted for a considerable time as secretary to Augusta, the head of the community. He died at Napajedl in Moravia in 1581, at the age of sixty-five. As already mentioned, his book was formerly attributed to Blahoslav, and only recent researches have awarded the authorship to Bilek.[126]
Very noteworthy among the historians of the Brotherhood is Wenceslas Březan. To him Palacký's remark, that the Bohemians cared more for their history than for the biographies of their historians, is particularly applicable. Neither the year of the birth nor that of the death of Březan can be accurately ascertained; it has been conjectured that he was born about the year 1560, and died about the year 1619. Peter Vok, Lord of Rosenberg, the greatest of the Bohemian nobles, and a strenuous friend and protector of the Brotherhood, appointed Březan "archivarian, librarian, and historiographer of the House of Rosenberg." Most of his works deal with the annals of that great House, which for centuries figured so prominently in Bohemian history.
The writings of Březan, like those of so many other Bohemian writers, have been only partially preserved. Besides minor works referring to the annals and the genealogy of noble Bohemian families, Březan wrote a large History of the House of Rosenberg, which is said to have consisted of five volumes. Of this work only portions, containing the biographies of William of Rosenberg and of his brother, Lord Peter, the last of the Rosenbergs, have reached us. From recent researches it, however, appears probable that the German Rosenbergische Chronica of Heerman, a monk of the monastery of Wittingau (Třeboň), is an abridged translation of the lost parts of Březan's book. In any case, the parts of Březan's work that have been preserved in Bohemian are sufficient to prove that the work was far more than a mere family record, and that it is of great value for the social as well as for the political history of Bohemia.
The two biographies convey a vivid impression of the court life (for it can hardly be otherwise described) of the great Bohemian nobles during the period that preceded the battle of the White Mountain. It is true that the position of the Lords of Rosenberg, the first of the Bohemian nobles, was a somewhat exceptional one. This appears very clearly from the letters, published by Březan, which were interchanged between the members of the imperial family and the Lords of Rosenberg. Of the two biographies, that of William of Rosenberg, the less interesting of the two brothers, is the more valuable one. William held several important appointments under the Imperial Government, and Březan gives a very clear outline of his official career. Very interesting are Březan's notes, which refer to the proposed election of Lord William to the Polish throne. He tells us that "the Lord of Rosenberg had then many adherents among the Polish nobles, more indeed than the House of Austria; and I do not say this to harm or disparage that illustrious House." Březan further tells us that "the Poles, after they had thus been mocked (by the flight of their king, Henry of Valois), searched for a new king. Some favoured the House of Habsburg, others desired Lord William as king, particularly as he was a descendant of the ancient family of the Orsinis, as by his ancestry, several centuries back, he was a Bohemian, and therefore belonged to a cognate country; also because he was a sensible, learned, temperate, Catholic noble." The election of Stephen Bathory to the Polish throne (1576) destroyed William of Rosenberg's hopes.
Březan's biography of Lord Peter of Rosenberg is a very disappointing book, if we consider that he was dealing with an intensely interesting subject. The semi-independent position of the great Bohemian nobles, who lived principally on their vast estates, surrounded by dependents and servants, free from the control of a court, and to a great extent even from the criticism of their equals, in some cases greatly developed their individuality. To no one does this apply to a greater extent than to Lord Peter of Rosenberg. The heir of the great family that had supplied so many leaders to the Romanist Church, Peter joined the community of the Bohemian Brethren, it is said through the influence of his wife, who belonged to that Church. Whether there is any connection between this change of creed and the scandalous stories which Catholic writers (whose works alone were known in Bohemia during two centuries) have circulated I do not wish to determine. They tell us that Lord Peter established a "harem" at his castle of Wittingau, to which the fairest women from all parts of Europe were conveyed. This is obviously an absurd exaggeration, though it is probable that Lord Peter had in his youth led an immoral life. With regard to the accusations of intemperance and of cruelty to his servants, it is probable that Peter of Rosenberg was in such matters neither better nor worse than the other great Bohemian nobles of his time.
Where he indeed differed from many of them was in his taste for literature and art. The Rosenbergs had at all times taken much interest in the archives of their family, and indeed preserved them so carefully that most of these documents are even now in a state of perfect preservation. Palacký, who examined them in the present century, witnesses to this, as well as to their great importance for the history of Bohemia, in which the Lords of Rosenberg played so large a part. Peter showed the same interest in the family archives as his predecessors. When selling one of his castles to the Emperor Rudolph II., he stipulated that he should retain possession of one thousand documents which he considered of historical value. In printed works also Lord Peter's interest was great. As early as in 1573, twenty years before he acceded to the family estates, Peter had collected 243 printed volumes. Březan, who had charge of Lord Peter's library, and was authorised to enlarge it, tells us that it was from this modest beginning that the far-famed Rosenberg library sprang. Many books were inherited from Lord William, and many purchased from monasteries and elsewhere. The library at last became a very extensive one. The Rosenberg library, in consequence of the events of the Thirty Years' War, eventually found its way to Stockholm, where Březan's catalogue of the library is also still preserved. Peter of Rosenberg is notable also as a patron of literature, and, among others, the poet Lomnický[127] enjoyed his protection for many years. Lomnický showed his gratitude by writing on the death of Peter of Rosenberg perhaps his one touching and heartfelt poem. That Peter was, like his brother, interested in alchemy, hardly requires mention, for almost all the great Bohemian nobles then followed the example of Rudolph, their sovereign, who delighted in the study of alchemy.
Peter's interest in music was also very great. Even before inheriting Wittingau from his brother William, he had established a small orchestra at Běychin, and he afterwards devoted much time and expense to the improvement and aggrandisement of the magnificent orchestra which Lord William had founded at Wittingau. Březan, in his biographies of both brothers, gives an interesting account of the cultivation of music in Bohemia in the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century. Lord Peter also undoubtedly showed a considerable amount of interest in other arts. In Březan's biography, written in chronological order, we read under "December 19, 1598.—The Lord of Hradec sent our sovereign lord (Lord Peter) eighteen pretty painted figures, very poetical, and representing Venus."
In Bohemian politics Peter of Rosenberg played a very important part, and his change of creed appeared as an event of the greatest importance on the ever-varying stage of Bohemian political life. Peter of Rosenberg was on terms of intimacy with Christian of Anhalt, perhaps the greatest statesman of the seventeenth century. He acted as Anhalt's representative in Bohemia, and was no doubt initiated into his far-reaching plans. Anhalt, as recent research has sufficiently proved, intended to use the dissensions between Rudolph and his brother Matthew for the purpose of totally destroying the power of the House of Habsburg. On these and similar subjects of the greatest interest Březan has little or no information to give, and his biography, as already stated, is disappointing.
The book, written in chronological order, contains accounts of Lord Peter's travels, but here, too, a mere outline of the occurrences is given. When mentioning Peter's journey to England, Březan merely tells us (under February 1563) that "after Lord Peter had been received in England with Christian kindness by her royal majesty Queen Elizabeth, and had then been kindly and graciously dismissed, her majesty was graciously pleased to grant him a royal decree addressed to all her officials and to those of all the towns." Březan then gives the full wording of this passport, if we may thus call it, in which Lord Peter is described as "one of the chamberlains of our good brother the King of the Romans."
Březan devotes much space to detailed accounts of the domestic arrangements at the castle of Wittingau, and his book is a treasury for those who would study the social condition of Bohemia at this period. Březan's style has little grace, partly no doubt in consequence of the chronological form which he has given to his book. The following portrait of Lord Peter of Rosenberg is a characteristic specimen of Březan's style: "Lord Peter's motto was 'In silentio et in spe.' It should be mentioned that this lord, for the purpose of living wisely, prudently, and in a way that beseems a Christian, and also that he might constantly remember death, always had a death's head placed on a board over the table in his apartment. He even founded an association, the device of which was a golden death's-head of the value of eight ducats. This badge he himself usually wore round his neck. It had on one side the inscription, 'Memento mori,' and on the other, 'Cogita æternitatem.' And this order he distributed among his friends, both lords and ladies, and he ordered me to keep a special register, where the names of these persons were entered."
"He was a nobleman of well-shaped figure, and more refined than his brother William. His features were charming, his manners dignified and truly princely, his speech was sensible, he was compassionate and affable, and though he was sometimes angry, whenever he had scolded or cursed some one he always afterwards excused himself with mild words. He was a gay and jocose nobleman, though in his old age he gave himself up entirely to piety, read religious books with pleasure, and listened eagerly to the word of God. He was keen for all novelties, a lover of all sciences and arts, and he spent large sums on them. He had a special fancy and predilection for building, and in this resembled his brother William. He was in the habit of standing oftener than sitting, and of walking constantly, and so quickly that it was difficult even for young men to keep up with him. By a bequest in his will he provided for the maids of the woman-apartments, and freed them (from bondage), ordering that each should receive a sum of gold as a present; and as trustees for this bequest he appointed Albert Pauzar of Michnic and Volesná, Henry Caslav of Podol, and Frederick Frokštejn of Naceslavic, his servants and courtiers."
"He was a very valorous nobleman, courageous and even somewhat venturesome; for he boldly approached wild beasts, bears, wolves, horses, and dogs without feeling any fear. And, on the whole, I do not know that anything was wanting in this heroic personage, except that which he himself deplored on his death-bed, that he had not sufficiently cultivated the study of literature."
Peter of Rosenberg died in 1611, only a few years before the momentous events which so completely changed the destinies of his country.
It is a natural and easy transition from Peter of Rosenberg to another great Bohemian nobleman, Charles of Žerotin, who indeed was often politically associated with Rosenberg, particularly during the contest between King Rudolph II. and his brother Matthew, which occurred in the early years of the seventeenth century. Žerotin was, it is true, a maker rather than a writer of history. On two occasions, in 1608 when Rudolph was contending with his treacherous younger brother Matthew, and in 1619, when Frederick of the Palatinate attempted to oust the house of Habsburg from the Bohemian throne, Žerotin's attitude to a great extent decided the fate of his country. Žerotin's numerous writings may also be considered materials for history rather than historical works. Yet no outline of Bohemian literature would be complete were the name of Žerotin omitted.
Charles of Žerotin was born in 1564 at Brandeis, on the Adler, one of the Bohemian estates of his powerful family. Like many Bohemian noblemen of this period, Charles spent a considerable part of his youth in foreign countries, both as a student and as a soldier. At Genoa he fell under the influence of the Calvinist divine Theodore de Beza, but he never (as has been stated) abandoned for Calvinism the Church of the Bohemian Brethren, to which his family had belonged from the time that the Brotherhood had been founded. His writings as well as his political career prove that he was a faithful adherent of that community, of which he was one of the most illustrious members.
In the year 1591 he took service under Henry IV. of France, whom all Protestants then recognised as their leader. Žerotin's correspondence, which is very extensive, is particularly interesting when he refers to this period of his life.[128] He appears to have felt very little sympathy for the French prince, to have distrusted him, and almost to have foreseen his conversion to the Church of Rome. Žerotin, whose motives were always disinterested and elevated though often unpractical, could not have felt much sympathy for an "opportunist."
Žerotin's later life was spent almost entirely in Bohemia and Moravia, the countries where his ancestral estates were situated. He favoured the cause of the Archduke Matthew against King Rudolph in 1609, and in 1618 was one of the few Protestant noblemen who remained faithful to the House of Habsburg. As reward for his fidelity, he was allowed to remain in his country after the battle of the White Mountain, when most Protestants had already been expelled. He was even able to afford aid and shelter to many other members of the Brotherhood. Among these was Komenský. He sought refuge at Brandeis, and wrote there his Labyrinth of the World, which was dedicated to Žerotin.
The increasing persecution of all who did not belong to the Church of Rome finally induced Žerotin to leave Bohemia and Moravia and to retire to Breslau. It was here that he spent the last years of his life, and he left his extensive library to that city. Žerotin was, however, still permitted to visit occasionally his extensive estates. During one of these visits he died at Prerov in Moravia in 1636. His body was interred at Brandeis on the Adler, his ancestral home.
Žerotin has left voluminous writings. His correspondence, to which I have already alluded, was very extensive. Continued, as it was, during the whole of his life, it is, of course, of the greatest value for the history of his time, Žerotin has also left several volumes of memoirs, referring principally to the doings of the Diet of Moravia during the period that he presided over that assembly. He also wrote a very curious work entitled Obrana or Apology, addressed to George, Lord of Hodic. It appears that Hodic had blamed Žerotin publicly for having temporarily retired from political life. This work, written in a pure but eloquent manner, showing traces of profound study of the classical writers, is a recognised masterpiece of Bohemian prose. The original great reluctance of the members of the Brotherhood to enter the stormy arena of political life had indeed decreased since many nobles and other influential persons had joined their Church, but traces of this feeling appear in Žerotin's work. He writes: "You were pleased, my Lord of Hodic, to remark of me at the meeting of the Estates that 'I act wrongly in stifling the gifts which God has given to me.' By these words—few and quickly spoken, yet containing much meaning—you were pleased to attack me sharply and to deal me a severe blow; for what else is stifling God's gift but refusing to remain in that state in which God has placed us? And what, again, is not remaining in the state in which God has placed us but not being as I should be? What conclusion then can be drawn other than that if I am not as I should be, then—though I declare that I am a lover of my country, her true son, an own limb of her body, sharing her wounds—in fact, her twin-brother, who was born with her and will die with her—my pride is idle and my word worthless if my acts are not in accordance with my sentiments. Idle indeed would it be if I could bring nothing forward and give no proof that I am what I say that I am. Then indeed your argument would be powerful and your words conform to truth and justice, and I myself should then agree with them. For it is my firm conviction that no man is good but he who by his deeds proves that he is good.
"But I—deign to excuse me—have given no cause for your judgment on me. That my manner is somewhat different from what it was some time ago, and that I do not labour so assiduously for the welfare of my country as I did some time back, that is no proof that I have lost and abandoned all my innate love and affection for it. As the sun does not cease to be the sun when for a moment it sets in the midst of clouds, and as a fire does not lose its heat if it does not immediately pierce through cold tiles, and as a field also must not be considered barren when for a time it lies fallow, and so to speak rests; so I also ought not and should not be declared wanting in the love and care for my country which it is my duty to have, because I do not try my skill on every course (=take part in every political contest).
"For as prudent sailors are carried, when the sea is calm, here and there and catch the wind in their sails, and then, when a storm arises, and for a time drives them from their straight course, they yet remain out at sea and guard themselves as best they can with the compass till a more favourable wind guides them to their destined port; thus I also avoid the present evil times and their difficulties, and conceal myself from the storm as under a roof till more convenient times arise."
Žerotin has here in beautiful words expressed thoughts that almost condemn him as a statesman. It is true that shortly after the publication of the Obrana he appeared more prominently on the political scene than at any other time during the struggle between King Rudolph and his brother Matthew; but during the far more momentous struggle of the last years of Bohemian independence (1618-1620) Žerotin as far as was possible chose the part of the prudent mariner, but the port which he finally reached was exile!
Before mentioning the latest historians of this period, I must notice a considerable number of accounts of travels, books which are closely connected with history. The Bohemians were great travellers in those days, and a considerable number of them have recorded their journeys and adventures. I have already referred to John of Lobkovic when dealing with his more celebrated brother Bohnslav,[129] and the travels of Žerotin and Rosenberg have also been already mentioned. Of other records of travel, it will be sufficient to mention those of Prefat, Vratislav, and Harant of Polžic. Ulrick Prefat of Vlkanov, a citizen of Prague, undertook in 1546 a journey to Venice and Palestine, of which he has left us an interesting account. His descriptions of the Holy Land are, however, inferior to those of Harant, written somewhat later. Venceslas Vratislav of Mitrovic, born (1576) of a Roman Catholic family, was educated by the Jesuits, and had from his earliest youth a strong desire to visit distant lands. When not yet eighteen years of age he obtained permission to join the staff of Baron Krekvic, whom the Emperor Rudolph was sending as ambassador to Constantinople. He has left us a record of his journey and imprisonment;[130] for the Turks of that period had little regard for international law and diplomatic privileges. Vratislav's book has a certain youthful grace and simplicity, and he was by no means devoid of the gift of observation.
Vratislav, on his return to Bohemia, published in 1599 the description of his travels and adventures. He afterwards, not unnaturally, took part in several campaigns against his old enemies, the Turks. Educated by the Jesuits and a staunch Romanist, he was, of course, on the side of the Archduke Ferdinand during the Bohemian troubles of 1618 to 1620.
Far more interesting as an author, and far more representative of his time than the two last-named writers, is Christopher Harant, Lord of Polžic and Bezdruzic. It is therefore perhaps not amiss to study his work and his life somewhat more in detail. Harant was born in 1564, of an ancient knightly family of Bohemia. He received the thorough education and literary training which was then customary with many of the Bohemian noble families. Harant, we are told, possessed a thorough knowledge of Greek, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, as well as, of course, his own language. It has even been said that it was out of patriotism that he published his celebrated book of travels in Bohemian instead of in German, though that would, of course, have secured for the book far more numerous readers. Harant's classical erudition was considered extensive even at that period, when in Bohemia the almost superstitious veneration for the great writers of Rome and Greece was at its height. Harant's own list of his authorities includes almost all known writers, both Greek and Latin, from Homer and Herodotus to Statius and Claudianus. Later Latin writers, such as Gregory of Tours and Orosius, are also quoted by Harant; his vast erudition included even Byzantine writers such as Suidas, Zonaras, and Chalkokondylas. More recent works, such as the writings of Guicciardini, were also well known to Harant; he quotes even from such (now) little known works as the French histories of Du Tillet and Bernard de Girard, and the Res Burgundicæ and Res Austriacæ of Pontus Heuterus. Harant's education was completed at the court of the Archduke Ferdinand at Innsbruck. When referring to his passage through Innsbruck on his way to Venice, Harant gives an interesting account of his stay at the archducal court. The years 1591 to 1597 were spent by Harant in the service of the Emperor Rudolph, who, in his capacity of King of Bohemia, had demanded aid from that country in his wars against the Turks. Harant appears greatly to have distinguished himself in these campaigns, and we are told that Rudolph, in consideration of his services, granted him an annuity chargeable on the Bohemian revenue. Harant's campaigns in Hungary (a large part of which country was then under Turkish rule) may have suggested to him the idea of visiting countries yet farther east. He tells us in his preface to his book of travels that he wished "to see those countries which were the scene of the holiest, wisest, and most celebrated events mentioned in the Old and in the New Testament ... those lands which were once an earthly paradise. These lands," he continues, "I purposed to visit with special ardour and with great danger for my life, and I set out with God's help." A family bereavement—Harant's first wife died in 1597—probably confirmed him in his decision, and he started from Pilsen in April 1598 on his long and perilous journey, accompanied by his friend Herman Cěrnin, Lord of Chudenic, and only one servant.
Harant's account of this journey, published as Christopher Harant's Journey to Venice, and thence to the Holy Land and to Egypt,[131] has assured to the author a not inconsiderable place in the annals of Bohemian literature. Harant undoubtedly possessed the gift of observation to an unusual extent, and his descriptions of the scenery he viewed and the men he met are often very vivid. Though the book is generally written in a grave and somewhat pedantic manner, yet some passages show that Harant was by no means devoid of humour. The work has, however, the fault of being somewhat long-winded, and Harant is too fond of lengthy historical digressions, introduced for the purpose of exhibiting his learning. This is particularly true of the part of the book which deals with Harant's visit to Egypt. He here introduces a lengthy treatise on the early dynasties of Egyptian rulers, which is, of course, valueless from the point of view of modern research. Harant was very fond, almost too fond, of quoting; yet his quotations, chosen from many writers in various languages, are often quaint and amusing, and remind the reader of Montaigne. On the whole, Harant's work is one of those ancient Bohemian books that can still be read with amusement as well as interest.
From Pilsen, Harant and his companions travelled through Tyrol to Venice, where they stayed some time. The indefatigable Harant studied not only the monuments, but also the constitution of Venice, which he greatly admired. The Venetian constitution in many ways resembled that which Harant and his party wished to establish in Bohemia, and he gives a full account of it, "as an example for us and for our benefit," as he writes. Harant and his friend were obliged to remain some time in Venice before they found other pilgrims to the Holy Land, with whom they jointly chartered a ship to Jaffa. Among these new companions was "Lambert the Dutchman," who appears to have been a constant cause alternately of indignation and of amusement to the other travellers. On leaving Venice the pilgrims sailed along the coast of Dalmatia, and by way of the Ionian Islands, Candia, and Cyprus, finally reached the harbour of Jaffa. From here they proceeded to Jerusalem. Harant thus describes their arrival there:—
"When we had arrived within four Bohemian miles of Jerusalem, we noticed everywhere the industry of the Jews and former inhabitants of the land; for they had laid out all those hills in vineyards, gardens, and fields, though they are now deserted and overgrown with thorns, yet the traces of the former divisions of the fields by means of low wells and small steps still remain; we can thus know how full of cities this land was; and on this short journey we remarked the astonishing laziness of the present inhabitants, of whom the country now feeds about ten to a thousand formerly. Yet the northern side of the hill has remained tolerably fertile in vineyards, olives, figs, pomegranates, and other fruits.
"When we were about two miles from Jerusalem the dragoman[132] from that town came out on purpose to meet us; for our dragoman from Rama had hurried on, leaving us behind, and had informed the guardian of the monastery (of St. Salvador) and the other dragoman of our arrival.
"With the guardian the vicarius of the monastery also appeared, and when they came near us they greeted us in Italian and asked us many questions; for instance, from where we came, how we had fared on our journey, and what had happened during our travels in our own country and the lands through which we had passed. And thus continuing our conversation we arrived at the gates of the city of Jerusalem about vesper-time. Our whole journey from Venice to Jerusalem had lasted forty-four days; we had then travelled 458 Bohemian miles from Venice and 582 from Bohemia, both by land and by sea."
Harant and his companions spent a fortnight at Jerusalem as guests of the monks of the Monastery of St. Salvador, and he gives a detailed account of their visits to the historical spots in the city and neighbourhood. Harant's description of his visit to the Chapel of the Holy Sepulchre is interesting. He writes: "When we approached these Turks (there were eight altogether, some of whom sat on stone benches covered with carpets, which since ancient times have been placed beside the gates of the church), one of them came forward with the keys and opened the locked gates of the church; then they immediately let us into the church one by one, counting us till they had got us all in line, then they hastily closed the gates and sealed them; there are two gates, one next to the other, made of fine marble, on which costly figures are carved. That gate which opens on the right into the church is walled up, but the other one opens by halves, and in the lower half there is a gap or window through which one can see into the court, and from the court into the church. And having entered the church, we next arrived before the chapel or cell in which is the grave of our Lord, and then we all immediately knelt down piously. But Master Antonio Donato (one of Harant's fellow-travellers) fell to the ground heavily as soon as he entered the chapel, just as if he had fainted, and we, seeing this, were greatly frightened, for we knew of no other cause of his fall except his great religious ardour; but he soon recovered, and, after he had recited some prayers, he rose together with us. The guardian then put on his vestments ... and first led us to a cupboard in the wall, similar to a blind window. There we saw a portion of a pillar of stone similar to marble; to this column the holy body of Christ was bound while he allowed himself to be scourged and cruelly flogged in the house of Pilate. This portion of the column is three spans in length, and the breadth is somewhat greater; it stands behind a very thick iron trellis fastened to the wall. There is a small window opposite, which opens with a lock, and before the pillar there always hangs a lamp, which continually glistens and burns. At this spot we began to sing the hymn—
'Eia Fratres Charissimi Christe
Christi mortis mysteria
Canamus,' &c."
Of all other memorable sites in Jerusalem itself, as well as of those at Bethlehem, Jericho, and elsewhere, Harant gives equally detailed and accurate accounts; his book is indeed still of value for the topography of Palestine. Harant also gives a very curious description of the city of Jerusalem as he himself saw it. He writes: "In the town of Jerusalem there are some streets that are vaulted over, and in some of these shopkeepers, Christians, Jews, and Turks, in others tradesmen such as shoemakers and weavers, and yet in others cooks have vaulted stalls, just like the booths in the old town of Prague.... The houses in the town are mostly tolerably solid; the greater part are without roof, and have only terraces; others have vaulted roofs. A third part of the houses in the town are deserted and in ruins. There are many open spaces, and they occupy a third part of the city. Of wood there is very little in the buildings, indeed there is less in the whole town than in some houses at Prague; the town is therefore very safe from fires. Its size is about that of Kuttenberg (Kutna Hora) here in the Bohemian land."
Harant's account of the different Christian communities, the members of which then visited Palestine, and who had religious foundations there, are still of the greatest interest. He enumerates, "besides the Latin, that is to say, Roman Catholic Christians, many other sects, Christians belonging to various nationalities, such as Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, Syrians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Abyssinians, Maronites, and others." In the Greeks, Harant, as a lover of classical antiquity, naturally took far greater interest than in the adherents of the other churches which he enumerates. Harant's chapter on the Greeks is written with interesting and very evident enthusiasm. "The Greek nation," he tells us, "was in former days far superior to all others in matters of government and politics. Among them first arose lawgivers, from whom others, took and acquired the true rules of government. Among them (the Greeks) were wise men, 'sapientes Græciæ,' famous all over the world, and the most learned of men in all sciences; they first of all discovered botany and medical science; they divided time by months and years. Arithmetic, geometry, physics, ethics, and other kinds of philosophy they improved and advanced; they then faithfully and carefully preserved all these things, so that they were called the mother and origin of all literary and other free arts; and thus they were superior to all other nations.
"Besides this, for many centuries they knew neither kingly nor monarchical rule; they governed themselves according to their own constitutions, some in a democratic, others in an aristocratic manner (what the latter was I have explained in my description of Venice); therefore all the neighbouring kings in every direction were their mortal enemies, whom they had to encounter in many great wars."
From Palestine the travellers proceeded to Egypt, embarking at Gaza for Damietta, then the principal seaport of Egypt. The sea-voyage was tedious and unpleasant. Harant (from whose mind Bohemia was hardly ever absent) described the passengers who embarked with him and his companions as a "Senftenberg rabble."[133]
After a short stay in Egypt, Harant and his companions returned to Venice, and thence to their own country. In 1608 he published, on the request of his friends, the graphic description of his travels, which fortunately has been preserved. Harant appears to have enjoyed great favour with King Rudolph, who raised him to the rank of a noble. Harant had hitherto belonged to the "estate" of the knights. Somewhat later, Harant, who had been brought up as a Romanist, joined the Utraquist or Calixtine Church, probably mainly from political motives. Harant was a zealous partisan of the ancient Bohemian constitution and of the national language. The Jesuits, then the most prominent leaders of the Roman party in Bohemia, well knew that it would only be possible to destroy the old Church of Hus and to re-establish Romanism if the ancient constitution were suppressed, and the Bohemian language and literature also, as far as possible, destroyed.
In the stirring events of the last years of Bohemian independence (1618-1620) Harant played a very prominent part. He commanded the artillery of the Bohemian army which, under Count Thurn, invaded Austria and besieged Vienna in 1619; it is stated that he ordered his gunners to point their cannon against the windows of the palace (Burg) in Vienna in which the Emperor Ferdinand had taken refuge. This probably caused Harant to be singled out as one of those Bohemian nobles to whom the severest punishment was awarded, and in fact sealed his fate. During the short reign of King Frederick, Harant held high office, and when the battle of the White Mountain ended that prince's short reign, he sought refuge in his castle of Pecka. He was there taken prisoner by the Austrian troops in March 1621. It is characteristic of the man that on the day when the troops arrived he should, when, on his leaving his castle for an early walk, a gust of wind blew off his hat, have remarked: "If I were a Roman, I should immediately turn back and not stir a step from the house to-day." Harant was one of the Bohemian leaders who were decapitated on June 21, 1621. I have quoted[134] Skála ze Zhoře's account of his last moments.
Of the latest historians of this period, Paul Skála ze Zhoře is certainly the most important. Palacký has called him "not only the most voluminous, but also the most valuable historian of Bohemia;" he might perhaps have been considered the foremost historian of his country before the present century, since which time that rank belongs uncontestedly to Palacký himself. I cannot formulate my opinion of Skála more accurately than I did some years ago, when I wrote: "Skála's description of the turbulent scenes on the Hradčin on the day of the defenestration, and the truly pathetic account of the last hours and execution of the Bohemian leaders in 1621, are masterpieces of historical writing. I may confidently say that they would do credit to the literature of a larger and better known country than Bohemia."
Paul Skála ze Zhoře, born in 1583, belonged, like Bartoš and Sixt, to the "estate" of the citizens or townsmen. He was educated at the then very celebrated Protestant university of Wittenberg, and his life and writings both prove that he was a staunch adherent of the Protestant faith. He was for some time employed in the municipal offices of the town of Saaz (or Žátec), and he held a Government appointment at Prague during the Provisional Government of 1618 and the short reign of Frederick of the Palatinate. He was an eye-witness of some of the events of that memorable period. He left Bohemia after the battle of the White Mountain and the flight of King Frederick, at whose court he remained during the first years of his exile. He afterwards settled at Freiberg in Saxony, not very far from the frontier of Bohemia, to which country many of the exiles still hoped once more to return.
It was here that Skála undertook his great historical works. He first wrote a Chronology of the Church. This book is a mere compilation of dates, including some that are of a very fantastic character. Skála counts 1656 years from the creation of the world to the deluge, and 1717 thence to the foundation of the first Chaldæan monarchy. This book seems only to have been intended to be a preparation for his great historical work, the Historie Cirkevni ("History of the Church"), a book which, in spite of its title, deals as much with political as with ecclesiastical matters. This colossal work is preserved in MS. in ten enormous volumes (the largest contains 1700 pages, the others but little fewer) in the library of Count Waldstein at Dux. The part of the book that refers to the Bohemian events of the years 1602 to 1623 has been edited and published by Dr. Tieftrunk in two large volumes. It is, of course, the most interesting part of the enormous work, as Skála here writes as a contemporary, and sometimes as an eye-witness.
Skála of course writes as a staunch Protestant and an enemy of the absolutist party. No Bohemian historian of this period, as I have already remarked, was without a strong political and theological bias; yet Skála tells us at the beginning of his account of the Bohemian movement of 1618: "I have not the intention, either here or in any part of my narrative, of writing anything whatever under the inspiration of partiality or of good-will or ill-will towards this party or that. Neither will I personally endorse the praise or blame which others have expressed. I only state those various facts which I have found in other authors' writings (printed or in manuscript) which are conform to truth. Judgment I leave to prudent, truth-loving men, who have a more profound knowledge of these events than I, in my exile, have been able to obtain." These statements, written to prove Skála's impartiality, are not entirely correct, or at least apply only to the years after 1620, when Skála, an exile from Bohemia, had to rely on the authority of others. Of previous events he frequently writes as an eye-witness. Thus, when referring to the removal of the altars and paintings from the cathedral-church of St. Vitus at Prague in 1619, Skála writes: "Though I and other officials were working in the neighbouring state offices between one and two o'clock, we heard nothing of what was happening in the royal church (St. Vitus); only next morning, when I entered the church, I saw that the pictures had been removed."
Skála gives a very able account of the ancient Bohemian constitution, of which he writes as a fervent admirer. He then states what in his opinion was the cause of the destruction of that constitution. "The Bohemian nation," he writes, "has indeed this peculiarity, that it can endure neither complete tyranny nor complete liberty unfettered by law. And as the Bohemians defended their ancient liberties with such true zeal, they might have been happier than other nations had they but at home maintained sincere concord among themselves. I doubt that any one would have been able to overcome them by force of arms if they had been bound together by the bond of patriotic mutual confidence; but in consequence of religious differences, great discord reigned among them, and therefore mutual distrust. One section, which conformed to the Church of Rome, assumed the name of Catholics or communicants in one kind. The other section, which loved to worship and serve God according to the definitions and rules of the Holy Scripture, and not according to the fancies of men, are called communicants under both kinds (Utraquists), or Evangelicals or Hussites, from the name of their teacher, that true martyr for Christ, John Hus, or 'of Husinec,' who in his time re-established pure doctrine in the Bohemian land, and from the darkness of Papacy raised it to light.... Many years ago regulations, which the Bohemians obtained by the bravery with which they defended God's truth, stipulated that nobody who did not receive the flesh and blood of our Lord Christ in both kinds should occupy the offices of the state and of the towns.... Thus almost all men acknowledged the salutary doctrine that man is redeemed by his faith in Christ and through His holy merit, and that he thus obtains eternal salvation."
But afterwards Skála says: "The Jesuits endeavoured, with all their might, to disseminate among imprudent young men, whose confidence they obtained by flattery, not only the teaching of the Roman school, but also hatred against the National Church and contempt for the glorious rights, regulations, and constitutions of the land; and thus they strove to form them according to their own will; but yet more they approached with flattery the highest officials and judges of the land also, as well as some of the greatest lords; and then, when they had inspired them with their own Jesuitical spirit, then, as if they had been soulless bodies, possessing neither reason nor common-sense, they ruled them according to their own will ... and they thus obtained that all real strength and ruling power was concentrated in them (i.e. the Jesuits), though the name and appearance of power and political importance was retained by the officials. Then only the Roman religion, which had almost died out in Bohemia, seemed suddenly to bloom again and to recover its power. On the other hand, the respect for the royal majesty constantly decreased; the kingdom, hitherto peaceful, became turbulent and seditious; the estates not only differed among themselves, but were also irritated against the king their lord, when under cover, and in the name of the royal majesty, evil and turbulent men artfully carried out their knavish plans and endeavours; in fact, every sort of licentiousness appeared openly and without restraint among the people."
But of greater interest than any other part of Skála's book are the pages that deal with the closing days of Bohemian independence. In writing of the tragedy that opened with the defenestration in 1618, and ended with the executions at Prague in June 1621, Skála is always graphic and often pathetic.
I shall quote a short portion of Skála's account of the events that mark the beginning and the close of the Bohemian movement.
In his account of the defenestration Skála writes: "... Then Joaquin, Count Schlick, ardently and with tears in his eyes, for he was a true and zealous follower of the religion, addressed the assembly and violently attacked Martinic and Slavata.[135] He reminded them of the wrongs which they had inflicted both on Utraquists individually and on the whole Evangelical Church, and of how they had dealt with them according to the suggestions of those malicious teachers of theirs, the members of the sect of the Jesuits. He said that they had unlawfully attempted to deprive the Protestants of their offices, and that they had given proof of this when they deprived that noble Bohemian hero, Count Thurn, of his office as burgrave of the Karlstein, which office the Lord of Smečno (Martinic) had usurped; he had done this contrary to the constitution of the land. For who had ever heard that in Bohemia officials could be dismissed and offices redistributed without the consent of the Diet and a vote of the three Estates? 'But you,' he said, 'worthless disciples of the Jesuits, you with your followers and little secretaries,[136] you have dared to take it on yourselves to do this, not knowing how otherwise to harm us and to disparage our party. But you shall learn that we are not old women'—and here he snapped his fingers at them—'and that we shall not allow you to deceive us. For we consider you as of rank equal to our own, but we recognise his Majesty as our most gracious lord, and being now well satisfied with him, we shall undertake nothing against his Majesty. As long as old men, honest and wise, governed this kingdom, everything went well in it; but since you, disciples of the Jesuits, have pushed yourselves forward, the contrary has been the case. You will not be able to take from us the privileges which God has given us and our gracious sovereign has confirmed; we will not till we are conquered consent to this.'"
The indignation of Count Schlick and his intense excitement, which render his speech at times incoherent, appear very clearly from Skála's account. The various opinions of the nobles assembled in council are very clearly and minutely set forth.
I have only space for the final passage: "Then while he (Kinsky) still wished to continue his speech, Count Thurn quickly approached Slavata and seized him by the hand, while Ulrick Kinsky seized Martinic—but many nobles did not yet know what would be done with them, whether they would be thrown into a dungeon or merely put under arrest; then they (Thurn and Kinsky) led them right through the crowd of nobles; and only then did every one know that they would be thrown from the windows. They also now understood that the Estates were not jesting with them, though in consequence of their haughtiness and obstinacy they had as yet spoken to no one; they now began to entreat that their lives be spared; wringing their hands and invoking the name of God, they strove to keep their feet on the ground and begged for mercy.
"The Lord of Smečno mournfully entreated that he might be granted a confessor; he received the short answer that he should commend his soul to God. Slavata did not ask for a confessor, but prayed to the Lord to be with him.
"But no mercy was granted them, and first the Lord of Smečno was dragged to that window near which the secretaries generally worked, for Kinsky was quicker and had more aid than Count Thurn, who had first seized Slavata. Then they were both thrown, dressed in their cloaks and with their rapiers and decorations, just as they had been found in the Chancellor's office, one after the other head foremost out of the westward window into the moat beneath the palace, which by a wall is separated from the other deeper moat. They loudly screamed, 'Ach, ach, ouvé,' and attempted to hold on to the window-frame, but were at last obliged to let go, as they were struck on the hands. They were thus punished for having been unworthy of their offices and positions, which they had not sufficiently valued, and had indeed used to the detriment of His Imperial Majesty and to the ruin of their country; and this, said the Estates in their larger apology, was done according to ancient precedents in the Bohemian kingdom and in the city of Prague, and following the example of that which was done to Jezebel, the tormentor of the Israelite people, and also that of the Romans and other celebrated nations, who were in the habit of throwing from rocks and other elevated places those who disturbed the peace of the commonwealth."
As already stated, the part of Skála's enormous work which is of general interest ends with the execution of the Bohemian leaders, which took place at Prague on June 21, 1621. Skála had fled from his country immediately after the battle of the White Mountain, and thus undoubtedly escaped sharing the fate of those whose last moments he has so graphically described. He had therefore to rely on the information from Bohemia that reached him in his exile at Freiberg. He tells us, however, that he has "given word by word the narrative of three clergymen who were with the prisoners to the end and prepared them for the violent and, in the eyes of the world, dishonourable death that awaited them." Here also I can only give a short extract from Skála's very lengthy account. He writes: "Then the imperial executioners appeared before the lords, saying that the hour of death had come, that they should be ready, and that each one whose name was called should come out (of the prison). Immediately afterwards the judges entered the prison and called out the name of Count Schlick. With them arrived four German priests, and when they had descended the steps, two Jesuits stood there, one of whom was called Sudetius. He said to the Count, 'Domine Comes recordare adhuc.' But the Count answered sharply, 'Jam me facias missum.'
"After him they called out the name of Venceslas of Budova. He took no clergyman with him.
"Meanwhile Harant of Polžic sent for John the clergyman, asking him to come, as it would soon be his turn.... Then Lord Harant said, sighing, 'O my dear God, through how many lands have I travelled, how many dangers have I encountered, for how many days have I not seen bread; once I have been buried in the sands. From all these perils God has rescued me, and now I must die guiltless in my own dear land. Forgive my enemies, O my dear Lord,' Then they called out his name, and he started for that mournful stage and slaughterhouse of Antichrist.[137]
"But this is worthy of notice, that when one of these holy men and martyrs for God's cause was called forth, then to our great astonishment a leave-taking occurred in a pleasant manner, which rejoiced our hearts, just as if they were preparing to go to a banquet or some pastime. 'Now, my dear friends, may our Lord God bless you, may He grant you the consolations of the Holy Ghost, patience and courage, so that you may be able to prove, now also in the moment of your death, that you have heartily and bravely defended the honour of God. I go before you that I may first see the glory of God, the glory of our beloved Redeemer, but I await you directly after me; already in this hour earthly grief vanishes, and a new heartfelt and eternal gladness begins.' The other prisoners who remained behind answered, 'May our Lord God bless you on your way for the sake of the guiltless death of Christ; may He send His holy angels to meet your soul. You go before us to the glory of heaven. We also will follow you, and we are certain because of Him in whom we have believed, Jesus Christ, that we shall all meet again to-day and rejoice for ever with our beloved Redeemer, the angels, and the chosen of God. '... But let us return to the account of the last journey and the words of the dying. When leaving the prison-room Harant said, 'In thee, my God, I have believed since my youth; do not let me be disgraced for all ages.' Meanwhile, John the clergyman was saying prayers till they reached the place of execution, then Harant said, lifting his eyes heavenwards, 'Into your hands, Lord Jesus Christ, I commend my soul.' He then took off his cloak, and then again prayed, 'In you, O God, I have believed since my youth, and therefore I now and ever believe and feel certain that, in memory of the shameful death of your Son and my Redeemer, Jesus Christ, you will deign to recompense me for this temporary disgrace by perpetual glory; and therefore, O God, I commend my soul into Thy hands, for Thou hast redeemed it. True God! Lord Jesus Christ! Son of the living God! Receive my soul; I commend it to you, O Lord Jesus Christ.' And then he was beheaded, and exchanged this wretched earthly life for a glorious and heavenly one.
"And the executioner, who was himself a Utraquist, was careful not to interrupt their prayers; and he always waited till each of them had finished his devotions."
Of the last years of Skála we have little knowledge; the last documents referring to him mention him as still living at Freiburg, and date from the year 1640. It is probable that he died shortly after that time.
William Count Slavata (born 1572, died 1652), contemporary of Skála, was also a very voluminous writer. His life belongs to the political history of Bohemia, and I shall here only allude briefly to it, because of its close connection with the writings which Slavata has left.
Slavata's father belonged to the community of the Bohemian Brethren, and he was himself educated in the doctrines of that Church. He afterwards proceeded to Italy for the purpose of study. He there joined the Roman Church, which obtained in him a most able and enthusiastic adherent. With the proverbial zeal of a convert, he, almost alone among the Bohemian nobles, refused to affix his signature to the celebrated "letter of majesty," by which King Rudolph, in 1609, granted, in agreement with the Estates, considerable rights and privileges to the Protestants. When the weak and sickly King Matthew, during the last years of his life, fell more and more under the influence of his heir, Archduke Ferdinand of Styria, Slavata rapidly obtained high office. He held the office of Lord Chief-Justice at the beginning of the Bohemian troubles in 1618. On the memorable day of the defenestration, Slavata was thrown from the windows of the Hradčin together with his colleague, the burgrave of the Karlstein, Martinic, Lord of Smečno.
After the re-establishment of the Habsburg dynasty in Bohemia, Slavata was rewarded for his fidelity by the victors. He held various important offices of state under the Emperors Ferdinand II. and Ferdinand III., and was one of the most trusted councillors of both these sovereigns. His literary work is an incidental and accidental episode in his momentous career.
When accompanying the Emperor Ferdinand II. to Regensburg in 1636, a pamphlet written by his old antagonist, Count Thurn, came into Slavata's hands. It dealt with the recent assassination of Wallenstein,[138] but Thurn's pamphlet went far beyond the immediate subject, and, in fact, contained a defence of the author's political career. Slavata immediately resolved on refuting this work, written by the originator of the defenestration. Though sixteen years had passed since that event, and both Bohemian Protestantism and Bohemian independence had been totally suppressed, the memory of his ignominious exit from the windows of the Hradčin still rankled in Slavata's mind. It should also be mentioned that several of his friends, his old companion Martinic in particular, had previously urged him to write memoirs of his time; he had, however, always declined to do so because of the stress of public business.
Slavata's work, intended merely as a refutation of the statements of Thurn (whose pamphlet he has in its entirety incorporated into his book), became a historical work consisting of two volumes of considerable size.[139] The book, entitled Paměty or memoirs, deals only with the events of the years 1618 and 1619. Founded, as it undoubtedly is, on notes taken by Slavata at the time of the stirring events which he relates, it has the greatest historical value. Slavata was in correspondence with most of the leaders of the "Catholic reformation," as the suppression of Protestantism in Bohemia was officially designated. He has also transcribed many of the state documents which in his official capacity were accessible to him. His book is therefore valuable as a "Quellenwerk," and the historians who have in the present century rewritten the history of Bohemia have availed themselves largely of these memoirs. The whole system of the "Catholic reformation" appears very clearly in Slavata's book. It should be stated—though I run the risk of transgressing on the domain of history—that in the question which immediately caused the Bohemian movement the Protestants had the law on their side. The defenestration, in fact, only precipitated a conflict that was in any case inevitable. The only alternative would have been peaceful submission to the Church of Rome, such as Ferdinand had obtained in his hereditary lands, Styria and Carinthia.
It was, of course, Slavata's task to prove that the Protestants had been the aggressors, and he devotes much ingenuity and more sophistry to that task. I have before stated that in my opinion extensive quotations are an absolute necessity when writing of a literature such as that of Bohemia, where it may be assumed as a certainty that almost all the works mentioned are entirely unknown to the reader. This is, however, particularly difficult in the case of Slavata, whose writings are distinctly and constantly controversial, and whose style is entirely devoid of grace. I shall, as characteristic of Slavata, translate a portion of his account of the banquet which the officials of King Frederick gave to the Turkish ambassador on his arrival at Prague. Slavata is as long-winded as most of his contemporaries, and even a very condensed extract of his account may, I fear, appear lengthy.
Slavata writes: "Some of the officers of the so-called King Frederick, Bohemians of the Utraquist Church, gave in the evening a banquet to the Turkish ambassador, and among them was Henry Matthew, Count Thurn. The envoys of the Prince of Transylvania were also present, and of others Bohuchval of Berka, master of the ceremonies; Venceslas William of Ruppa, high chancellor; Venceslas of Budova, president of the court of appeal; Peter Miller, vice-chancellor of the Bohemian kingdom. At this banquet various speeches were made. There was one present who has reported that he heard with his own ears these words that were spoken there.
"The Turkish ambassador, holding a glass of wine in his hand, drank it off to the health of Berka, begging him to consider him as his son, for both alive and dead, he said, he would be an obedient son to him. Berka gave as answer that he did not consider himself as being worthy that the ambassador and envoy of the great and powerful Turkish emperor should accept him as his father, he would rather wish to be his (the ambassador's) willing servant and menial.[140] The Turkish ambassador accepted this, and answered further, saying that he was a Turk by birth and would die as such; he, however, firmly and certainly thought that those who believed in Christ will be redeemed, even though they differed in opinion among themselves. Of the Emperor Ferdinand, however, he did not believe that he would be redeemed, for he had been the cause that the blood of many innocent people had been shed and of their destruction. He therefore thought that the devil would fry him on a spit in hell. Berka then said that he hoped the Lord God would bless his beloved lord for this pledge; no toast had ever yet pleased him so much as this one, and his only wish was that that should happen to the Emperor Ferdinand, the greatest enemy of the Bohemians, which the Turkish ambassador had said; and he added, 'Amen! Amen! Amen!'
"The same Turkish envoy then exhorted the Bohemian nobles that they should never submit to the Emperor Ferdinand; if they were not sufficiently strong, his emperor would send 60,000 men to their aid.... Berka further said that he knew for a certainty that the Emperor Ferdinand would willingly give 50,000 ducats so that he might obtain his head; but that his friends would give the troops 200,000 ducats that they might fight Ferdinand till he was totally defeated and driven to despair. To this the Turkish ambassador answered that he would act wisely and justly in doing so, for Ferdinand had not held his word and promise, just as his predecessors of the House of Austria, Rudolph and Matthew, had not kept their promises to his Majesty, the Ottoman emperor.
"Berka then declared that the House of Austria had always been the ruin of Bohemia, because by its false Spanish practices it had sold the kingdom, his beloved fatherland, into perpetual servitude and made slaves and serfs of the Bohemians. Therefore the kind Lord God would not allow this any longer, nor permit that such tyranny and cruelty should be practised against them; but He in His great mercy had opened their eyes, and they had therefore taken up arms against Ferdinand and began war against the House of Austria. And rather than succumb to Spanish tyranny they would a thousand times rather submit to the rule and government of the Turkish emperor, their powerful lord.... Venceslas of Budova, then president of the court of appeal, who was attached to the Turkish ambassador as special commissioner, declared that the lords and other members of the Estates of Bohemia belonging to the Utraquist creed had arrived at this resolution and decision, that they would rather be cut to pieces together with their wives and children than submit to the rule and domination of Ferdinand, or of any other member of the House of Austria.... Peter Miller, then vice-chancellor of the Bohemian kingdom, said to Budova: 'My kind lord father, we Bohemians have resolved, rather than that the Emperor Ferdinand should be our king—and supposing that the Turkish emperor is not able to help us sufficiently—we will seek refuge with the devil in hell and supplicate him to help us.'
"At last Count Thurn spoke, saying that the Lord God was his witness how truly he regretted with his whole heart that the Emperor Ferdinand should have been spoken of in such a manner; but that Ferdinand had been misled by listening to the counsels of the Jesuits; neither he nor the other Bohemians were responsible for his fall; rather should he attribute it to himself. Then Thurn ordered three small glasses of wine and one larger glass that was empty, and said, addressing the Turkish ambassador: 'I drink these three glasses with you, one to the health of his Majesty the Emperor (of Turkey), one to the health of our own most gracious King, and one to that of the Prince of Transylvania.' And raising the three glasses he poured their contents into the large empty glass, and then continued: 'As with wine mixed out of three glasses it cannot be known what wine was in the first, what in the second, and what in the third glass, and only one sort of wine appears in this full glass, thus I begin to drink this glass full of wine in the name of the most Holy Trinity, consisting of three persons, but one Divinity, in the hope that these three potentates to whose health I am drinking will be of one accord, of one heart, and of one will; so that they may triumph over and defeat all their enemies.' Then he emptied the full glass of wine. The Turkish ambassador answered that he had great pleasure in emptying his glass to this toast.
"From this account and information we can understand to what evil, heresy especially that of Calvin, leads people; yet Count Thurn in his pamphlet attempts to prove that the Bohemians and he, their leader, were not rebels. I do not endeavour to exaggerate the shameless rebellion of the Bohemians of those days; for every one who has read these lines must shudder at the speeches that were made at Count Thurn's banquet. Nothing more shameless or wicked can be imagined; nor is it true that his Majesty Ferdinand II. had not kept his word and promises."
As Slavata and all his friends were then in exile, it is not very clear to whom this highly-coloured and obviously exaggerated account of Count Thurn's banquet should be attributed. It is possible that some traitor may have been present who was Slavata's authority. It is, however, far more probable that the account is founded on the report of some servant who waited at table. In consequence of the habit of drinking freely at banquets, which was then very prevalent in Bohemia, much political information could be obtained by listening to the conversation at the dinner-table. The Protestants frequently accused the Catholics of employing servants as spies on such occasions.[141] Whatever Slavata's authority may be, the passage describing the Bohemian leaders as cringing in a servile fashion before the representative of the enemy of Christianity, while displaying blind and brutal hatred of the House of Habsburg, is a masterpiece of skilful animosity.
The composition of these memoirs seems to have inspired Slavata with a taste for historical studies. In the last years of his life he wrote a vast history of all the lands ruled by the House of Habsburg, from the reign of Ferdinand I. to Slavata's own time. This book, entitled Historické Spisovani ("Historical Works"), consists of fourteen volumes, and the earlier memoirs were incorporated with it, forming (of course not in chronological order) volumes i. and ii. The work includes a lengthy treatise on the long-disputed question whether the Bohemian kingdom was an elective or a hereditary one, a question which the battle of the White Mountain settled "by blood and iron." Slavata here displays a considerable amount of erudition, though the arguments founded on his accounts of the reigns of the almost entirely mythical early Prěmyslide princes are, of course, valueless. Generally speaking, Slavata's record of earlier events, based principally on such doubtful authorities as Ænæas Sylvius and Hajek, do not possess the historical value which undoubtedly belongs to his personal recollections.
Though written in Latin, Andreas ab Habernfeld's Bellum Bohemicum and Paulus Stransky's Respublica Bojema should at least be mentioned, as they belong to this period. Habernfeld, who himself took part in the last war waged by Bohemia as an independent country, and was present at the battle of the White Mountain, has left us a clear though prejudiced account of the events of the years 1618 to 1620. Paulus Stransky, one of the many Bohemian Protestants who ended their lives as exiles, has given a short but lucid account of the ancient Bohemian constitution, and in the same volume a short history of his country.