A History of Bohemian Literature

by hrabe Francis Lützow

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.