Chapter V · HUMANISTS AND THEOLOGIANS

The comparative tranquillity in Bohemia which was the consequence of the battle of Lipan (1434), and of the agreement between the Bohemians and the Church of Rome which is known as the "compact," naturally had a favourable influence on the intellectual development of the country. The period which, beginning with the last years of the fifteenth century, ends with the downfall of Bohemia in 1620, is the one in which the Bohemian language obtained its greatest extension. I shall again refer to this point at the beginning of Chapter VI.

Two events of the greatest importance to the development of Bohemian literature occurred in the latter half of the fifteenth century. The one is the growth of the humanist movement in Bohemia; the other is the foundation of the sect of the "Bohemian Brethren." Utterly opposed to one another as the views of the humanists and the Bohemian Brethren were, the two currents of thought were not quite without reciprocal influence. Some of the best writers of the "Unity," as the association of the Bohemian Brethren was generally called, such as Blahoslav and the translators of the Bible of Kralice, show proof of thorough study of the Bohemian writings of the humanists. On the other hand, even such an extreme "ultramontane" as the humanist Bohnslav of Lobkovic does not display such absolute and abject submission to the Church of Rome as we find in Southern Europe. Lobkovic admits, to a certain extent, the corruption of the Church of Rome, on which his countrymen laid so great stress, and his language when referring to Pope Alexander VI. is very outspoken.

Though, in consequence of the Hussite wars, the humanist movement was late in reaching Bohemia, it had there a considerable influence, though of a rather indirect nature. No great original work can be attributed to the Bohemian humanists, and when they used their native language it was generally for the purpose of translations, by which, it is true, they greatly enriched and developed it.

In no country had the humanist great sympathy with the national language. In Bohemia the early humanists, whose representative man is Bohuslav of Lobkovic, positively detested it. Lobkovic's often-quoted epigram on Gregory Gelenius,[62] who had translated some of his Latin verses into Bohemian, clearly expresses his feeling on the matter. He wrote: "Into the national language has some one translated my verses. Now the people read them, the lords and nobles. But I am indignant at this work of the two-legged donkey,[63] and I commend his wit and his muse to perdition."

If the early humanists had little sympathy for Bohemia, the national or Utraquist party felt the strongest distrust of the "new learning." A movement that originated in Italy, the site of the Papal power, to which Bohemia refused allegiance, and reached the country through Germany, the ever-hostile neighbour-land, could not appeal to the Bohemians. It must, however, be remarked that the undoubted feeling of antipathy which existed between Lobkovic, Slechta, and other early humanists on one, and the mass of the Bohemian people on the other side, did not include many well-known humanists who adhered to the then predominant Utraquist Church of Bohemia, and did much, at least by means of translations, to improve the language of their country.

Among the early strictly "ultramontane" Bohemian humanists, the most prominent personage is Bohuslav Hasištein of Lobkovic. Born about the year 1460, he was educated in the doctrine of the Utraquist Church, to which his father, a firm adherent of King Georg, had belonged. It is not quite certain when he was formally received into the Roman Church, but this no doubt happened during his stay in Italy. At a very early age he proceeded to the University of Bologna, where he pursued his studies for some time, and no doubt also became acquainted with the teachers of the humanist learning, of which Bologna was then a stronghold. Henceforth Bohnslav is for his whole lifetime a humanist, with all the qualities and defects which belonged to that state of life.

Towards the end of the year 1482, Bohuslav returned to Bohemia, and here, at an exceptionally early age, obtained the dignity of provost of the Vyšehrad at Prague. Humanism had by this time spread in Bohemia, and he became the centre of a small society which devoted itself entirely to the study of the classic languages. Of this small group the shining light, of course after Bohuslav himself, was Victorin Cornelius ze Všehrd, the friend and afterwards the detested enemy of Bohuslav. One of the minor lights of this cénacle has described the position of the two leading Bohemian humanists in the following Latin verses:—

In the year 1490 Lobkovic undertook an extensive voyage to Palestine and Egypt. On his return to Europe, Lobkovic, who, as his correspondence very clearly proves, was by no means devoid of political ambition, attempted to play a more important part in the affairs of his country. For this purpose mainly Lobkovic aspired to the important bishopric of Olmütz in Moravia, and he was unanimously chosen by the chapter, which, according to very ancient regulations, had the right of election. Unfortunately about this time Alexander VI. was chosen as Pope, and he immediately appointed to the see of Olmütz the Cardinal of Monreale, a relation of the Borgia family. Even the strongest partisans of the papal cause were incensed at this decision, which intrusted the bishopric of Olmütz to an Italian, ignorant of the Bohemian, and even of the better-known German language, at a moment when the influence of the Bohemian Brethren was very strong in Moravia. A letter of remonstrance was, in the name of the principal Moravian nobles, addressed to Pope Alexander. This remonstrance, couched in rather strong language, was probably the work of Lobkovic, and has been printed by Professor Joseph Truhlář in his recently published collection of the Latin letters of Bohnslav of Lobkovic. This letter had no result, and Lobkovic appears never to have forgiven Pope Alexander. We possess several Latin epigrams written by him on that pontiff, in which Lobkovic has followed Juvenal and Martial so faithfully that I must refrain from quotation. Even after the death of Alexander, Lobkovic in his Farragines published an epigram stating that even the guardian of hell had declined to admit Pope Borgia, as he might corrupt the other inmates of the infernal regions!

That Lobkovic, however, remained a stanch adherent of the Church of Rome is proved by an occurrence that took place somewhat later, and caused great excitement among the small group of Bohemian humanists. It is very characteristic of the times. Some citizens of Prague, who belonged to the most moderate faction of the Utraquist party, had, in 1493, presented an address to the Roman pontiff. With little political foresight, Lobkovic, thoroughly believing that the separation of Bohemia from the Roman Church had now at least come to an end, wrote an enthusiastic letter to John of Domoslav, a writer in the law-courts of Prague, and one of his very numerous correspondents. In this letter, written in his best Latinity, Lobkovic rejoiced over the final suppression of heresy, and enclosed a prayer in verse in which he invoked the aid of Providence for the purpose of the restoration of Bohemia to Catholicism. What followed is not very clear, but it seems that Domoslav showed Lobkovic's poem to Victorin Cornelius ze Všehrd, who had that year been appointed to high office in the law-courts of Prague, and was his official superior. Všehrd, a fervent Utraquist, was indignant at the suggestion of a reunion with Rome, and, as a true humanist, he also immediately composed a Latin poem, parodying that of Lobkovic. The poem ended with the words:—

This parody Všehrd communicated to Domoslav, who—it is difficult to understand from what motive, unless it was sheer love of mischief-making—immediately forwarded it to Lobkovic.

The indignation of Lobkovic was very great, and he expressed it in a lengthy very Ciceronian letter to Domoslav, which is contained in Professor Truhlář's collection of the letters of Lobkovic. He regrets that Domoslav should have sent to him "the blasphemies of one who, with sacrilegious mouth, raves against the Church of Christ."[64] Lobkovic then proceeds to compare his former friend to Dathan and Abiram, Wycliffe, Arius, and the Emperor Julian. After a long and tedious polemical discourse, Lobkovic very characteristically ends his letter by stating that the heretic, besides his other misdeeds, had "placed a tribrachys in the fifth place of his first verse;" a lengthy list of similar errors follows, and concludes with the remark that Všehrd had, at the end of the last line of his poem, used the second syllable of the word "papalibus"—in the passage I have quoted—as long, contrary to what he had done in an earlier passage of the poem.

In his later years Lobkovic spent most of his time at his castle of Hassištein, and does not seem to have continued his attempt to obtain political influence. He collected a large library at his castle, and devoted his time to study and to the company of the humanist friends who visited him at Hassištein. He died there in 1512.

As Lobkovic wrote only in Latin, a writer on Bohemian literature can deal with his works very briefly. The fact that a Bohemian noble of high rank wrote in a sense favourable to Rome at a time when almost the whole of his country was opposed to that Church, has caused Lobkovic to receive much exaggerated praise from writers whose literary judgment was guided by their political and religious sympathies. His works, both in prose and in poetry, are numerous, but have little value. Even in the best of his elegies he is far inferior to his contemporary Sannazaro. The Latinity of his letters is certainly very good, and he ranks very high among the humanists in this respect; but the elaborate style hardly dissimulates poverty of thought and narrow-minded prejudice. His letter or harangue to King Vladislav, written 1497, is in itself sufficient to convict Lobkovic of incapacity as a politician. The purpose of the letter was to entreat the king to re-establish the Roman Catholic archbishopric of Prague, but Lobkovic proceeds to beg the king to extirpate heresy in Bohemia entirely. He quotes, as examples for the king, Charles the Great, who forcibly converted the heathen Saxons, and Ferdinand of Arragon, "who alone among kings emulates you in virtue," by whose agency Baetica, the noblest province of Spain, was restored to our Christian fold. It is, of course, a matter of opinion whether the forcible reconversion of Bohemia to the Roman Church, such as actually took place in the seventeenth century, was desirable or not; but it requires but a very slight knowledge of Bohemian history to realise that such an attempt at the time of the reign of Vladislav was doomed to most certain failure. It is, however, possible that the letter was intended merely to be a rhetorical exercise.

The influence of Lobkovic on the development of Bohemian literature was undoubtedly harmful. The outspoken contempt for the national language expressed by so renowned a humanist could not but discourage its cultivation by others. Lobkovic, in his strange identification of Bohemian writings with what he considered heretical opinions, is an undoubted forerunner of the Jesuit book-destroyers of the seventeenth century. A recent critic writes: "These Latin works of Bohemian humanists appear as a vast sepulchre, bearing the epitaph: 'Here, under an elaborate Latin monument, true Slav hearts lie buried.'"

Though he can scarcely be considered as a humanist, John of Lobkovic should be mentioned in connection with his brother Bohnslav. Differing in most things from his brother, with whom, in consequence of questions of succession, he was for some time on bad terms, he used the Bohemian language for his two works which we possess. He wrote a curious work entitled Knowledge and Instruction for my son Jaroslav, as to what he should do and what omit. The book, written in 1504, was afterwards printed under the less unwieldy title of the True Bohemian Mentor. It enjoyed great popularity in Bohemia, and a copy of this book was a frequent gift of fathers to their sons.

As a proof of the noble spirit in which the book is written, I shall quote a portion of the chapter entitled "On subject people (i.e. serfs), and how you should behave towards them." John of Lobkovic writes: "Be gracious to your subjects, if you wish that the Lord God should be gracious to you. For if you forgive them their offences, then will the Lord God forgive you your offences. For we say in the Lord's Prayer, 'Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.' Thus we ourselves, when we sing the Lord's prayer, submit to this, saying, 'Forgive us as we forgive.' And thus if we do not forgive their offences to those who have offended us, our own sins will not be forgiven to us by God.

"Hear cheerfully every one, rich or poor, on his request, and either help him to justice or order those whose business it is to do so. By this you will obtain the love of the people and their prayers to God for your long life and happiness in everything.

"If some poor man of yours (subject or serf) has committed some not very great offence against you, forgive him once and twice; even if he offends a third time, be merciful. Only if it is a serious matter, justly meriting the penalty of death, then act towards him as is fit.... Give just judgment on your subjects and every one on whom you sit in judgment, for that is God's command.

"When sitting in judgment, pay no regard to the person if he be rich or poor, or to favour or disfavour, or to presents, which blind the judge and disgrace justice. Deliver judgment impartially to every one, this one or that."

Lobkovic's advice as to the treatment of serfs is very interesting, as having been written only a few years after the Diet of Bohemia had in 1487 established serfdom, which was contrary to the original customs of Bohemia. It is certain that the rule of the Bohemian nobles over the peasantry belonging to the same race was very mild, and that the condition of the peasantry became far worse when, after the battle of the White Mountain, the landowner was almost always a foreigner, generally a German. John of Lobkovic is also to be mentioned as a traveller. In 1493 he undertook a journey to Palestine by way of Venice, Dalmatia, and Greece, of which he has left us a description entitled A Pilgrimage to the Grave of God.

Of Bohemian humanists the most important one next to Bohnslav of Lobkovic is Victorin Cornelius Ze Všehrd, born at Chrudim in 1460. His friendship with Bohnslav of Lobkovic, which was ended by a bitter religious dispute, has already been mentioned. Všehrd for some time held an important office at the law-courts of Prague, which he lost in 1497, it is said through the influence of Bohnslav of Lobkovic. Všehrd was one of the most learned lawyers of his time, and he has left us a legal work in Bohemian entitled Ten Books on the Rights of the Bohemian Land, which has great historical value. After his rupture with Bohnslav Lobkovic, Všehrd seems to have abandoned his exclusive devotion to Latin. Belonging to the National Utraquist Church, he was devoid of the dislike to the national language which up to the beginning of the seventeenth century was general among the adherents of the Roman Church. He, however, attempted no original work, but endeavoured to aid the development of the Bohemian language by enriching it with translations from foreign authors. He has himself explained his purpose in the preface to his translation of St. John Chrysostom's work On the Amendment of the Fallen. He writes: "I have gladly translated (this book) for this reason also, that I hope thus to extend, to ennoble, to increase our language; for it is not so narrow and unpolished as it seems to some. Its abundance and richness can be seen by this, that whatever can be expressed in Greek or in Latin can be so in Bohemian also.... May others compose new books written in Latin and—pouring water into the sea—extend the use of the Roman language. I wish, by translating the books and works of really good men into Bohemian, rather to enrichen the poor than that, flattering the rich with bad and unwelcome presents, I should be despised and insulted. I could indeed write Latin as well as others who are my equals; but knowing that I am a Bohemian, I will indeed learn Latin, but write and speak in Bohemian." Besides the above-mentioned translation, Všehrd also translated into Bohemian several works of St. Cyprian. It must be mentioned that when translating from the Greek, Všehrd used Latin versions. With the exception of Pisecký, the knowledge of Greek which the Bohemian humanists possessed was not very extensive. Všehrd did not confine himself to humanistic studies, but continued to practise as a lawyer up to his death in 1520.

Among other Bohemian humanists, Gregory Hrubý z Jeleni and his son Sigismund—both are better known under the Latinised name of "Gelenius"—deserve special notice. Gregory Gelenius, born about the year 1450, was one of the most industrious translators of classical works into the Bohemian language, and as such has deserved well of the language of his country. The works of Cicero particularly appealed to him, and he not only translated several of them into Bohemian, but also published an Admonition to the Citizens of Prague, which is an adaptation of Cicero's speech Pro Lege Manilia. Gelenius did not limit his translations to the classical writers. He translated several of the Latin works of Petrarch, the Encomium Moriæ of Erasmus, whose fame in Bohemia was very great, and some of the Latin poems of Bohnslav of Lobkovic. I have already alluded to the indignation with which Bohnslav received this attempt to translate his verses into his national language, which he so greatly despised. Gregory Gelenius died in 1514.

Gregory's son, Sigismund Gelenius, was perhaps the most learned of the Bohemian humanists. Born in 1497, he travelled in Italy when very young, and during a stay at Venice acquired a thorough knowledge of Greek. He also seems to have been acquainted with the Semitic languages. Sigismund endeavoured, but unsuccessfully, to obtain a professorship of Greek at the University of Prague. Disappointed by his failure, he left Bohemia, and, on the suggestion of Erasmus, proceeded to Basel, where he was employed by the publisher John Frobenius, who was then preparing a series of editions of classical authors. Sigismund Gelenius is one of the greatest philologians of the sixteenth century, and obtained special notice as editor and annotator of the works of Ammianus Marcellinus, Pliny, and Livy. He spent his whole life at Basel, and refused repeated invitations to return to his country. The celebrated Bohemian Brother, Blahoslav, who visited him at Basel in 1550, has recorded that he still "spoke Bohemian very well." Sigismund Gelenius died at Basel in 1554.

In connection with the two Geleniuses I shall mention Wenceslas Hladič, or Pisecký, as he called himself, from the town Pisek, where he was born in 1482. He studied at the University of Prague, and there took his degrees as Bachelor and as Master of Arts. He afterwards travelled in Italy, having been chosen by Gregory Gelenius as tutor or companion to his son Sigismund, who was to pursue his studies there. Pisecký and his pupil proceeded to Padua, and from there to Bologna. Bologna was then a centre for the numerous Greek refugees who had after the fall of Constantinople left their country. As a true Bohemian of his time, Pisecký, while in Italy, engaged in a theological controversy with a monk at Bologna on the subject of communion in two kinds. The Latin treatise which he published on this subject was afterwards translated into Bohemian by Gregory Gelenius. Wenceslas Pisecký was indeed not influenced in his religious opinions by his stay in Italy, and always remained faithful to the Utraquist Church. In one of his letters he complains that his country is little known in foreign lands—a complaint that a Bohemian of the present is unfortunately still entitled to echo—and writes bitterly of Ænæas Sylvius, whose book on Bohemia was then and long afterwards considered the standard authority on the subject. He writes: "Ænæas Sylvius, who was ignorant of the laws of historical writing as they have been transmitted to us by the Greek writers, deals in the manner of a gladiator (gladiatorio prorsus animo) with the Bohemians."

The most important result of Pisecký's Greek studies was a Bohemian translation of Isocrates's oration to Demonikos, which his protector, Gregory Gelenius, published in 1512, a year after the premature death of Pisecký, who died suddenly at Venice from the plague, or, according to other accounts, from poison. Pisecký's version, in which for the first time a Greek work was translated directly into Bohemian, still has great value, and has by a recent critic been described as a model of Bohemian diction. As a proof of the importance that was attached to the translation, we may quote the very simple Bohemian "Epitaph" which Gregory Gelenius prefixed to the work of Pisecký. It runs as follows:—

Another very distinguished Bohemian humanist was John Šlechta, who was afterwards ennobled and received the title "ze Všehrd". He must not, however, be confused with Viktorin Cornelius ze Všehrd, who has already been mentioned. Born in 1446, Šlechta was like Bohnslav of Lobkovic, with whom he was on terms of friendship, and many of the early Bohemian humanists, a fervent adherent of the Church of Rome. Like Lobkovic, also, he had a strong dislike to the language and to the religion of his country. Like most humanists, he was a great letter-writer, and many of his letters, some of which are in his own language, have been preserved.

A curious proof of the intense dislike which some, though by no means all, Bohemian humanists felt for the peculiar religious views which attracted the attention of foreigners to their country can be found in the correspondence of Šlechta with Erasmus of Rotterdam. Šlechta, in a letter referring to the "Bohemian Brethren," informed his correspondent that "an emissary of 'Pikardus'[65] had infected first Zižka's army and then all Bohemia with pestiferous doctrines of sin; thence the 'Bohemian Brethren' proceeded to recognise communion in the two kinds, and to choose as bishops and priests rude laymen who had no culture, were married, and had children."

The answer of Erasmus is very characteristic; he regrets that the Bohemians do not conform to the universal custom as regards communion, but he openly states that he does not understand why Christ's original regulations on this subject have been changed. As to the choosing of their own bishops and priests, this does not, to Erasmus, appear contrary to the early regulations (consuetudo veterum).

The most ambitious work of Šlechta was, no doubt, his Microcosmus. The book, which was written in Latin, has been lost, and we can therefore only judge of it from the preface that is still existent, and from the numerous references to it that can be found in the correspondence of Šlechta and his friends. Šlechta appears to have forwarded copies of his book to many of his friends, wishing to obtain their opinion as to its contents. In his preface Šlechta declares that he intended dealing with the relations of the body to the soul according to Plato's works, of which, by means of a Latin translation, he appears to have had some knowledge.

Another Bohemian humanist who, by means of translations into his native language, has deserved well of his country, is Nicolas Konáč, or Finitor, according to the Latinised version of his name. Bohemian writers on the literature of their country devote much space to notices of the numerous translations made by Finitor, but it will here be sufficient to mention that the most important of these Bohemian translations was that of Ænæas Sylvius's work on Bohemia. Late in life Finitor wrote, in Bohemian, an allegorical work of mystic tendency that enjoyed great celebrity in its time. The work, that only appeared after the death of Konáč in 1546, is entitled The Book of Lamentation and Complaint of Justice, the Queen and Mistress of all Virtues.

It would be easy to continue this enumeration of Bohemian humanists. Though these translators devoted themselves rather too much to the works of the fathers of the Church and to contemporary writers such as Erasmus and Sebastian Brand, and too little to the real classics, yet their work greatly contributed to the improvement and development of the Bohemian language. The study of ancient literature, which was undoubtedly furthered by their work, had a refining and elevating influence on some of the men who, in the last years of Bohemian independence, played a prominent part in the politics of their country. I shall return to this point in the next chapter.

Writing for readers who are not Bohemians, it will be sufficient to mention but two other Bohemian humanists, the two Veleslavins. They enjoyed great celebrity, and it became customary to call the period in which they flourished—the last years of the sixteenth and the first of the seventeenth century—"the age of Veleslavin."

Adam Daniel Veleslavin, born in 1545, studied at the University of Prague, and took his degrees there. He afterwards for some time lectured on history at that university, but after his marriage in 1576 to the daughter of the celebrated printer and publisher, George Melantrich, he became a partner in the business of his father-in-law. In this capacity he greatly furthered the development of Bohemian literature, and it is due to him that many books in that language were printed. Thoroughly acquainted with the art of writing his own language, he thoroughly supervised all the books that issued from his press, and, as Dr. Jireček writes, there is not one of them that doesn't show traces of having been corrected by him. He was occupied with lexicographic works in his own language, and with translations from other languages. Of his many works we may mention his Politia Historica, a translation, or rather adaptation, of the vast German work of Lauterbeck, which is entitled Das Regentenbuch, and his translation of the work of Ænæas Sylvius on Bohemia, which, in spite of its hostility to their country, greatly interested the Bohemians. The preface to this edition, Veleslavin's own work, contains an interesting account of the early historians of Bohemia.

Of his mainly philological works, Veleslavin's Silva Quadrilinguis and his Nomenclator Quadrilinguis are the most important; both contain alphabetic vocabularies of the Bohemian, Latin, Greek, and German languages. The works issued from the Veleslavin press are so numerous that it seems certain that he had many collaborators in his critical work. Bernard of Hodijov and William Ostrovecký are specially mentioned as having acted as "sub-editors" to the works published by Veleslavin. Though he appears to have by no means been a man of genius, the influence of Veleslavin on Bohemian literature was very great, and it was an undoubted loss to the country that he died prematurely in 1599.

The son of Adam Daniel, Adam Samuel Veleslavin was born in 1592, only seven years before the death of his father. In his youth he was involved in the domestic quarrels and civil war which troubled Bohemia in the years 1618 to 1620. He was an enthusiastic adherent of the "Nationalist" party, to use a modern expression, and was obliged to fly from Bohemia after the fatal battle of the White Mountain. We have no record of him from the time that his exile began. His fortune was confiscated by the triumphant Catholics, and his printing-presses, which he had inherited from his father, were made over to the Jesuits. He had up to the downfall of Bohemian independence continued the editorial labours of his father, and had completed the publishing of several works begun by him. He also published in 1613 an edition of the Bible dedicated to the "defenders," that is, the leaders of the Protestant movement.

In connection with the humanists, who also wrote much Latin verse, we now turn to the Bohemian poetry of this period. But even the "golden age" of Bohemian literature, as the sixteenth and the first years of the seventeenth century have often been called, produced little valuable poetry. It is indeed only in the earliest times and again in the present century that Bohemia has been distinguished through its poetry. The sixteenth and seventeenth century produced indeed a certain amount of satirical poetry, but it requires no further notice.

The only writer of this period who composed a large amount of Bohemian poetry was Simon Lomnický of Budeč, born in 1552, who was much praised as a poet by his contemporaries. Though most of his poetical writings, particularly his more ambitious efforts, are devoid of true poetic feeling, yet, as being the one poet of that time who wrote in the national language, his place is marked in an account of Bohemian literature. He enjoyed, as already mentioned, great celebrity, and was often described as "the poet of the Bohemian land," "Poeta Cechicus," or the "founder of Bohemian song." More interesting than his larger works are his shorter songs, vers d'occasion as they may be called, which he sent to his patrons, the Bohemian nobles. In Bohemia, as in Italy and in other countries, it was then the fashion that important domestic events, such as marriages or deaths, which occurred in noble families should be celebrated in verse, and many poets, of whom Lomnický was one, obtained rich gifts from their patrons in remuneration of verses of this description.

Lomnický is also interesting as being the type of a very numerous class of Bohemians—particularly of the middle class—during the last years of independence. Many Bohemians shared Lomnický's sensual and material view of life, and his inability to feel any genuine political or religious enthusiasms. This fact indeed convicts as utter idealists, and therefore unpractical politicians, men such as Harrant and Budova, who believed that their countrymen were prepared to sacrifice their lives for a Church similar to that of Geneva, and for a constitution similar to that of Venice. Though perhaps only Lomnický welcomed in 1619 Frederick of the Palatinate, and celebrated in 1621 the "just punishment" of his adherents, yet the feeling of indifference to everything beyond personal, mainly material, advantages which Lomnický so cynically displayed, was shared by many Bohemians at the moment when they were confronted with the most decisive crisis in their history.

Lomnický is a voluminous writer, and, as already mentioned, found it advantageous to be so. Besides the numerous gifts which he received from the noble patrons to whom he dedicated his works, he was also ennobled by Rudolph II. in recognition of his poetical works. Of his larger works, one of the earliest is his Advice to a Young Landowner (or farmer), which has always been the most popular of Lomnický's writings, and has in recent times, since the revival of Bohemian literature, been twice reprinted. The book is devoid of poetic merit, but is curious as a study of the social life of Bohemia. In the preface Lomnický has explained the purpose of the book, which is personified, and thus addresses the reader: "God be with you, gentle reader—And you in particular, young farmer.—I am again sent out to you—If you will take me to yourself—We will converse together—Rhyme together in Bohemian.—You will, I am sure, say that I am right—And occasionally even smile at my remarks—Through me you will learn—What is beseeming for your household—You will not require much patience—For I have but little to say—For only to a moderate extent—And having regard to brevity—Will I teach you husbandry—You may imagine what I leave unsaid." The reader of this singular book will sometimes regret that Lomnický did not leave more things unsaid.

Lomnický begins his book by moralising on the inequalities of fortune. He writes in the first chapter of his book: "It is a well-known thing in the world—Both in winter and in summer—Both when buying and when selling—That no one always possesses happiness—With one man everything succeeds—With another everything goes amiss—In every sort of trade—One has gain, the other loss.... Thus too with agriculture—As with every other description of work—One is successful in everything—With another everything is failure—One man has a virtuous wife—Faithful, bashful, loving—Another marries so slatternly a drab—That all food becomes nauseous to him—One has obedient servants—Requiring but little correction—Another may scold as much as he likes—Nothing will be better—His house will be hell—They (=the servants) will take no notice of him—Perhaps even laugh at him.—In your own children too—You can see how different they are—Some give pleasure—Others cause but grief." This quotation is sufficient to prove that Lomnický extended his reflections far beyond the domain of agriculture. His book contains chapters "on wisdom," "on enemies," "on ill-conducted old women," "on female servants and their punishment," "on conjugal fidelity," "on dress," and on many other matters as little connected with his subject.

Somewhat later Lomnický published his Cupid's Arrow (Kupidova Střela), a poem which contributed greatly to his fame among his contemporaries. Though the book was not, as has been frequently stated, dedicated to Rudolph II., but to Lord William of Rosenberg, it found great favour with the King of Bohemia, and probably induced that prince to confer on Lomnický the rank of a noble, which he had long desired. In this book also Lomnický poses as a moralist, and inveighs against the vices of his age. Bohemian authors, perhaps the only ones who have seriously criticised Lomnický's writings, have generally, and perhaps rightly, doubted whether his virtuous indignation was sincere. Lomnický, indeed, in this very book, confesses that he was a "lover of sweet Venus," and all his works—not even the Advice to a Landowner excepted—show a predilection for risqué subjects and situations. Similar in tendency to the Arrow is Lomnický's book entitled Dance, a short treatise on dancing, considered as an exaggerated exertion of the luxurious body, which was dedicated to his most prominent patron, Lord Peter of Rosenberg. A considerable number of religious poems from the pen of Lomnický have also been preserved, mostly in MS. only. They are written from the Roman Catholic standpoint, which the author generally recognised, though he seems at the time of the coronation of Frederick of the Palatinate to have developed a sudden zeal for communion in the two kinds.

I have already mentioned that in my opinion the minor works of Lomnický possess far greater value than his more extensive works. Of such poems the song in celebration of the marriage of Joachim Ulrick, Lord of Hradec, and the recently printed Epithalamium on the marriage of William, Lord Stavata of Chlum, to the noble Lady Lucy of Hradec, have great interest. The last-named song contains a good deal of coarse wit, and offensive allusions to members of the Bohemian nobility who were present at the wedding. The recent editor of this curious poem remarks, that on this occasion the only remuneration which Lomnický deserved from his noble patrons was a sound thrashing! It must not, however, be forgotten that Lomnický held somewhat the position of a licensed buffoon in the houses of the great Bohemian nobles.

Very different from this and similar writings of Lomnický is the burial-song which he wrote on the occasion of the death of his principal patron, Lord Peter Vok of Rosenberg,[66] in 1611, and which, it is said, he recited when walking in the funeral procession. It is characteristic of the enigmatic nature of Rosenberg that, though perhaps not generally popular, he should yet have inspired with a sincere feeling of affection not only men such as Březan, but even so thoroughly egotistical and unprincipled a time-server as Lomnický. Yet no one who reads this poem in its entirety can doubt that here, at least, Lomnický is thoroughly sincere. The poem loses greatly by quotation; yet I shall translate a few lines from a song that undoubtedly shows us Lomnický at his best. It begins thus:—

Somewhat later, Lomnický, addressing the other mourners, writes:—

At the end of his poem Lomnický reflects on the shortness of human life, and alludes to the curious tradition, that appears then to have been prevalent in Bohemia, that the extinction of the house of Rosenberg would be the prelude to great troubles and changes in Bohemia. Lomnický writes:—

I have already alluded to Lomnický's political rhymes, which deserve some notice, though their poetic merit is slight. Lomnický's rhythms have at least the merit that they lose little by translation. When Frederick of the Palatinate arrived in Bohemia in 1619, Lomnický, with his usual facility, immediately began singing the praise of the new sovereign. His verses for a time obtained great popularity at Prague, and—what was probably of greater importance to the needy poet—he received a considerable remuneration from the treasury of the king. Some of these verses have been preserved in the vast historical work of Skála ze Zhoře.[70] On the arrival of Frederick, Lomnický welcomed him with these words: "O King Frederick—We entreat thee with all our might—Drive the enemies from our land—Do not let them rob us any more.—May God give you His blessing—And grant you a happy reign—And also a glorious victory—Over those who are our enemies—Then may we have true freedom.—Receive in the two kinds—The body and the blood of our Lord Jesus.—Do thou effect this O King Frederick!—Confound the rebellious ones (i.e. the Austrian party)—Then ever more and more—Shall we praise you according to God—Celebrate your dignity."

Several other poems in the same sense, and dating from about the same time—the end of the year 1619—have been preserved. The battle of the White Mountain, in the following year, produced an immediate change in the views of the unscrupulous time-server Lomnický. He celebrated the executions at Prague on June 21st, 1621, in a ballad, of which I shall quote a few lines. The song begins thus:—

After this not very veracious account of the origin of the Bohemian troubles, Lomnický refers to the details of the executions. He writes:—

The song ends thus:—

Though severely reprimanded, Lomnický himself escaped punishment, perhaps in consequence of his speedy recantation. The quaint tale that Lomnický was summoned to the presence of Ferdinand, reminded of the benefits that he had received from Rudolph, the sovereign's ancestor, that he had returned an impertinent answer, and that Ferdinand had then ordered him to be immediately whipped in his presence, has no historical foundation. Lomnický's last years were spent in great poverty. His former patrons, the great Bohemian nobles, were either dead or were penniless exiles in distant countries. The new Austrian authorities, whom he now pestered with demands for pecuniary aid, took little notice of Lomnický. The year of his death is uncertain, but was probably not later than the year 1623.

The foundation of the community—or "Unity," as it was generally called—of the Bohemian Brethren is of the greatest importance for Bohemian literature as well as for Bohemian history. It can be generally stated that, with a few exceptions, all the men who, during the last years of Bohemian independence, were most prominent in literature and in politics belonged to the "Unity." It is true that this is partly due to the fact that the community soon mitigated its original extreme severity, abandoned the views, derived from Chelčicky, that all participation in public life and all "worldly wisdom" is forbidden to the true Christian. It thus became possible that great nobles, politicians, and men of learning should join the community. The foundation of the Bohemian Unity, the consecration of the earliest priests, and the exact tenets of the first members of the community, are still very obscure, and even Dr. Goll, the recognised authority on this subject, declares that many points are doubtful.

The foundation of the Unity was undoubtedly an outcome of the great religious convulsion in Bohemia that was caused by the death of Hus. The intellectual originators, though not the actual founders, of the Unity were Chelčicky and Rokycan. It is difficult to do full justice to Rokycan. His energy and courage were indefatigable, and had it been possible to found in Bohemia a Church agreeing mainly with the doctrine of Rome, but not recognising the papal authority and retaining its independence with regard to certain points of ritual, Rokycan alone could perhaps have achieved this object. It was a necessary consequence of Rokycan's difficult position—he was Archbishop-elect of Prague, but never recognised by the Papal See—that his teaching somewhat differed at times in accordance with the state of public affairs. When an agreement with Rome seemed possible, his eloquent sermons dwelt rather on the points in which the Utraquists agreed with Rome. When, as always happened when the negotiations with Rome had lasted some time, the Papal See declared itself resolutely opposed to all the demands of Bohemia, Rokycan preached strongly against the tenets of Rome, and particularly against the avarice and immorality of the Roman clergy. It is a peculiarity of the Bohemian Church reformers that, from the days of Hus to the time of the complete suppression of religious liberty, they always laid great stress on this point.

During the reign of King Ladislas Posthumus (1439-1457), who, in consequence of his early education, was hostile to the Utraquist creed, then professed by the great majority of the Bohemians, the preaching of Rokycan, whom the king viewed with marked disfavour, was of a very advanced character. Following directly in the footsteps of Hus, Rokycan in his sermons strongly denounced the corruption of the times and laid particular stress upon the worthlessness of the Roman clergy. Many of his remarks on this subject have been recorded by the writers of the Unity. "A stag with golden antlers on the bridge of Prague," he declared, "was not so great a rarity as a good priest." These sermons made a great impression on the vast audiences to whom they were delivered; for the almost exclusive interest in religious matters was then characteristic of most educated Bohemians. Among the listeners who were most impressed by Rokycan's fiery eloquence was a young man known to us by the name of "Brother Gregory," who was destined to become the founder of the Unity. Even after the careful researches of recent years, Gregory's life is still surrounded by mystery. It is stated that he was a nephew of Archbishop Rokycan, and also—what renders that statement at least improbable—that he belonged to a noble though poor family. His family name, according to some accounts, was Krejči, which in Bohemian signifies "tailor." It is, however, more probable that he received that name because, after the foundation of the Unity, he sometimes practised the trade of a tailor. The strict rules established by Gregory himself obliged the priests of the Unity to live in poverty and by the work of their hands. In his earlier years Gregory appears to have lived at a Utraquist monastery at Prague, that had been founded by Magister Přibram. It is, however, certain that he had not been ordained as a priest.

Gregory, accompanied by some friends, visited the Archbishop, and sought his advice on religious matters, and specially on the subject of unworthy priests. To understand the importance of this constantly-recurring subject, it must be remembered that Hus, Chelčicky, and other Bohemian reformers denied all ecclesiastical powers to unworthy priests, whom they considered as "not the clergy of Christ, but of Antichrist." The Archbishop's answer appears surprising, even if we consider that the ever-varying relations between the Pope and the Church of Bohemia were then at their worst. He advised his visitors to study the works of Chelčicky and to visit him. Gregory followed this advice, and travelled to Chelčic, where he visited Chelčicky shortly before his death. There is no doubt that the aged theologian's opinions greatly influenced Gregory, and some of Chelčicky's adherents were no doubt among the first members of the Unity.

The relations between Gregory and Rokycan did not long continue friendly. After the death of King Ladislas, George of Podebrad was elected King of Bohemia. The new king endeavoured, at the beginning of his reign, to obtain a reconciliation with Rome. He was ready to conform to the Roman doctrine if that Church recognised Rokycan as Archbishop of Prague, permitted communion in the two kinds, and accepted that part of the "Articles of Prague" which enjoined poverty on the Bohemian clergy and opposed their notorious immorality. While these negotiations were proceeding, Rokycan advised Gregory and his friends to leave Prague and to retire to a more secluded spot. He had obtained permission from King George, who owned the estates of Litic and Senftenberg in Eastern Bohemia, to allow Gregory and his friends to settle in the secluded village of Kunwald, near the small town of Senftenberg. It has been stated by many historians, including Palacký, that Rokycan had suggested this emigration to Gregory, wishing to be rid of allies who had now become unwelcome. Dr. Goll has recently expressed his doubts as to this conjecture. It is certain that no immediate and complete rupture between Gregory and Rokycan took place. Gregory arrived at Kunwald towards the end of the year 1457, and was soon joined by many enthusiasts, who desired to lead a simple life, according to the customs of the primitive Christians. Among the early disciples of Gregory was Michael, the parish priest of Senftenberg, and another priest named Matthew. After the death of Chelčicky, some of the "Brothers of Chelčic"[74] also joined the community of Kunwald, as did some of the remaining Taborites, and probably, though this point is doubtful, some Austrian Waldenses also.

The new community soon became obnoxious to the Government of King George, and the "first persecution," as it is termed in the writings of the Unity, began in 1460. Some of the fanatics, known at that period all over Europe as the "Pickharts" or "Beghards," had about that time joined the community of Kunwald, and drew on it the indignation of the Bohemian authorities. In 1461 Gregory returned for a short time to Prague. It has been suggested that he did this in opposition to a promise made to Rokycan; but of this there is no sufficient proof. At Prague Gregory held secret meetings of his adherents, among whom were a considerable number of students of the university. Gregory received notice—perhaps from Rokycan himself—that these gatherings were being watched. He therefore, at a meeting on March 15th, begged all present to disperse immediately. Some did so, but others declared that they were doing no wrong; and when Gregory drew their attention to the fact that they were risking imprisonment, and even torture, they answered, "Well, we will have torture for breakfast, and the funeral pile for dinner." The Government officials shortly afterwards arrested the remaining members of the assembly, and several underwent the torture of the rack. Not all displayed fortitude; several, as a member of the Unity, writing shortly after these events took place, quaintly expresses it, "having breakfasted, did not wait for dinner." Those who dreaded further punishment were obliged to pronounce a solemn recantation in the presence of Rokycan.

Whether Gregory himself underwent torture is uncertain, though most of the writers of the Unity, from Brother Lucas to Brother Jaffet, state it is a fact. Brother Jaffet[75] tells us that Gregory "was tied to a post, placed on the rack, and burnt. Weakened by long fasting, he then fainted, and no longer felt pain; only when he had been released he felt his side, and understood what had been done to him." Rokycan visited Gregory in prison, and, to use Brother Jaffet's words, condoled with him with the "compassion of a crocodile." Seeing the traces of his sufferings, he exclaimed, "Dear Gregory, how I pity you. Remember that I always told you if you pursued your endeavours you would suffer and it would fare badly with you."

Dr. Goll has recently expressed doubts whether torture was inflicted on Brother Gregory, though he admits that his followers were tortured. There is, however, no doubt that the tradition of the sufferings of Brother Gregory, the founder of the Unity, can be traced back to the earliest records of the community. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the traditional account is a mere fiction. Of modern writers Palacký and Jireček maintain the truth of the ancient record of the Unity. What is, however, certain is that Rokycan's part in these events has been misrepresented. Political reasons at that moment rendered it advisable for King George to appear as the enemy of the extreme antagonists of Rome. Rokycan's influence on the king was then very slight, but such as it was, it induced George after a time to liberate Brother Gregory from prison.

Difficulties had meanwhile arisen in the small community, of which first Kunwald and then the neighbouring small town of Reichenau (Rychnov) on the Kněžna was the centre. Gregory was indeed the intellectual leader as well as the founder of the community, but the priests Michael and Martin seem, probably in consequence of their having been ordained as priests, to have claimed a certain superiority over the other brethren. To obviate these difficulties, Gregory resorted to what must then have appeared a most venturesome step. He decided that his followers should, in accordance with the example of the Apostles, elect priests from among their number. The doctrine of the necessity of the apostolic derivation of the clergy was then held even by sects that were strongly opposed to Rome. This is no doubt the reason why, according to most accounts, the new priests were subsequently consecrated by a Waldensian priest or bishop. It must be added that the part played by the Waldensian in the first ordination of the clergy of the Unity becomes much more prominent in the works of later writers than it was in those of contemporaries. Dr. Lechler has recently expressed doubts as to whether the intervention of a Waldensian at the first ordination that took place in the Unity is a historical fact. Such an intervention appears to him to be in contradiction with the previous decision of the brethren to elect priests on the strength of divine inspiration. It must, however, be noticed that in Brother Gregory's account of the ceremony, written in Bohemian, and therefore perhaps unknown to Dr. Lechler, who was a German, the Waldensian priest is already mentioned. The point, like many others connected with the origin of the Unity, will perhaps never be settled. It has given rise to an extensive controversial literature.[76]

A meeting of the brethren of the Unity took place at Lhotka, a small village near Reichenau, in 1467. I will quote a portion of Gregory's account of the proceedings to which I have just referred. Gregory's Bohemian is very rugged and lends itself but little to translation. Following the example of Dr. Goll, who has translated a large part of the account contained in Gregory's Fourth Letter to Rokycan into German, I give a nearly literal translation. It would be easy to smooth down Gregory's style, but at the risk of not conveying the exact meaning. He writes: "Among us some doubt and irresolution sprung up. We therefore conformed in everything to the Acts of the Apostles and the example of the first saints, wishing to act in everything in the name of God both in word and deed. Therefore, trusting to His promises contained in the words, 'Whatsoever you will ask of the Father in My name, He will grant you,' and again, 'Whenever two or three are gathered together,' and so forth, we deliberated as to whether God wished that we should separate entirely from the jurisdiction of the Pope and of his priesthood, and secondly, whether God wished that we should establish a separate organisation on the model of the Primitive Church. We further deliberated as to what persons should arbitrate in disputes and have such authority that all should maintain peace and submit to their verdict. And further, who should serve and who obtain the first places and possess the power of office, according to the words, 'To you I give the keys,' and again, 'Whom you forgive their sins.'

"And we, many of us from Bohemia and other lands, decided to pray to God, should He then wish it (i.e. that they should establish a separate organisation), that He might give us a sign, according to the example of the Apostles when they chose a twelfth. And we ordered all brothers in the different districts to pray and fast in view of this. Then we assembled in numbers and prayed to the Lord God that He might give us a sign whether He then wished this or not. And it so happened that He did wish it, and we had the faith that it was God's will that it should happen thus.... And when the day came, many of us again assembled from Bohemia and Moravia, and we prayed to God with the same confidence as before, and we chose nine men, of whom three, or two, or one were to be it (i.e. the head of the new Church). But if God had not wished it that year, then no one would have been chosen. We should have remained without priests till God, in consequence of our prayers and of our faith, had shown us that He wished it, and also what persons should be chosen. But as we had abandoned the priests who derive their power from the papal office, firmly believing that God did not desire that we should heed them in regard to our obedience (=obey them), therefore we firmly believed that God would grant us what we prayed for. And the Lord did so, because of our faith and our prayers, and ordained that it (the choice) should fall on all three.[77] And God thus manifested His wisdom and power to us in such a manner that we all felt clearly that God had visited us, and had done great things to confirm us in the faith. More than sixty brethren were assembled, and with full confidence and joy we received the Holy Ghost, and thanked God that He had visited us at the end of days and done His work.

"We then conversed together on the confirmation of their priestly office (i.e. that of the three who had been chosen as priests), how it could be done in the most seemly manner and without offence to the people; though we believed without doubt that they were already ordained and confirmed by our Lord Christ, as God had shown us. But we wished to appear righteous, not only before God, but also as far as possible before all men. Therefore we sought it (i.e. confirmation) from one (priest) whom we had received from the Romans, and from another who belonged to the Waldenses, who spring from the primitive Church, a man of whom we were confident that he was in the state of grace. And we took these two for the ordination of the three. If God wishes it so, we said, let Him show it. And we prayed to God that He might, should He desire this confirmation by the Waldensian, give such grace to that elder that he might do it from love and in true faith.

"And God gave it (grace) to him, that he did it in true faith; and, encouraging us, he spoke good words and praised God, saying, 'God has done this for the benefit of our salvation.' And then he confirmed these three in their priestly office by laying his hands on them and by prayers, according to the example of the primitive Church and the instructions of the Apostles. And as regards Jesus's having from on high pointed out the three that were chosen, and the one of them who was to have highest rank, he to whom it had been disclosed (perhaps Gregory himself) said, 'Believe firmly that this is so.'"

Though the later members of the Unity studied the art of literary composition, and indeed attained mastership in it, this was not the case with Brother Gregory. His writing shows that he was entirely absorbed in his endeavour to place his religious views before his former friend and present antagonist, Rokycan, to whom the letter is addressed. It has been very difficult to render Gregory's words clearly without entirely altering his manner of writing. The passage quoted above, and indeed the whole Fourth Letter to Rokycan, is, however, worthy of notice. It is the only account by an eye-witness of the meeting at Lhotka, which marks the beginning of the Unity, and was written by Brother Gregory in 1468, only a year after the assembly.

The consequence of the meeting at Lhotka was a renewed persecution of the members of the Unity. Rokycan published a very severe edict against them, for their attempt to establish an independent clergy was as obnoxious to the Utraquist as to the Roman priests. Brother Gregory lived for seven years after the assembly at Lhotka, and as he is stated to have been over fifty when the community of Kunwald was founded in 1457, he must have attained a considerable age. His entire energy and activity were to the last devoted to the Unity. Its constitution, which conferred the principal power on the so-called smaller[78] council, at whose head was a president ("ordinator"), often, though not in the fifteenth century, called "bishop," is the work of Gregory. Though in every respect the leading spirit of the Unity, Gregory never aspired to be the recognised leader of his Church. That rank was from the time of the meeting of Lhotka assumed by the priest Matthew, who at the time of that meeting was a young man of the age of twenty-five. Whether the fact that Matthew had been ordained as a priest by the Church of Rome was not one of the causes of his election, cannot perhaps now be ascertained. The remarks of Gregory, quoted above, seem to be in opposition to this view. Matthew was on terms of friendship with Brother Gregory, and accepted his guidance on all matters of doctrine and discipline. He is described as a man of weak character, and the discord that broke out among the brethren after the death of Gregory seems to confirm this view.

The small town of Brandeis on the Adler,[79] situated in the picturesque valley of the Orlice or Adler, was one of the early centres of the community of the brethren, and it was here that Brother Gregory spent the greater part of his last years. He continued, however, to the end of his life to pay frequent visits to other communities of the brethren. Brother Gregory died at Brandeis on August 12, 1474, and was buried, "like the prophets of the Old Testament, in a rock-grave near the bank of the Orlice, that is, opposite the castle." Gregory, the patriarch of the Unity, as he called himself in his later years, was certainly one of its greatest men. He combined the most fervent religious enthusiasm with the talents of a clear-headed and indefatigable organiser; and though changes took place in the institutions of the Unity after his death, yet on the whole the structure erected by Gregory continued to exist till the time when the battle of the White Mountain destroyed all communities that were opposed to Rome.

Dr. Goll, who has given a masterly sketch of the career of Gregory, thus describes him:[80] "Gregory had created for himself the ideal image of a true Christian, an abstemious, kindly, patient, gracious, merciful, economical, pure, humble-minded, peaceful, worthy, zealous, yielding, compliant man, qualified and ready to do all good works. But this model was not for Gregory a model only. He believed that Christians can come near to the model, nay, even attain it. 'We believe this,' he writes in the Fourth Letter to Rokycan, 'that he who has God's true and living faith has the power also to mortify the evil in himself and to act righteously; his faith by means of love will induce him to do what is pleasing to God, good actions and such as are useful to his fellow-creatures.... Though by nature hasty and irritable, a true Christian must be abstemious, meek, and silent. A model for this model is found in our Saviour Himself. He suffered for us and gave us an example in His acts, accomplishing the work that His Father had laid upon Him. A true Christian must take on himself those burdens which were Christ's also; he must endure adverse things and injuries affecting his estate, his honour, and his life quietly, considering that it must be thus.'"

After reading Dr. Goll's definition of the doctrine of Brother Gregory it is scarcely necessary to state that theological controversy plays a very small part in Gregory's writings. The imitation of Christ was the purpose of his life and is the leading motive of his writings. Readers of the portions of the Fourth Letter to Rokycan which I have already quoted will have noticed how little importance Gregory himself appears to attach to the confirmation of the priests; it was sufficient for him firmly to believe that the choice had been made in accordance with God's own command.

The literary remains of Gregory, all written in Bohemian, are considerable. There are seven so-called Letters to Rokycan, which, though they were all undoubtedly sent to the Archbishop, were yet intended for a wider circle of readers. Two of these letters, the fourth, from which I have quoted extensively, and the sixth, were afterwards republished by Gregory in an enlarged form, the former under the title of The Sufferings of the Brethren under King George, the latter under that of The Answer of the Ancient Brethren. We have letters also addressed to other people. The form of a letter was then a very favourite one for expounding theological views. Other writings of Gregory are The Book on Good and Evil Priests, On the Holy Church, and On the Narrow Path. A treatise, evidently dating from the first days of the Unity, and entitled How People should Behave with regard to the Roman Church, is also generally attributed to Gregory. Recent research renders it probable that it is not his work.

It is, of course, out of place to give here an historical account of the development of the Unity, though such a work would have great interest. The brethren were, however, such indefatigable writers that it is necessary frequently to refer to the history of the community.

Discord broke out among the brethren, who had already become numerous, shortly after the death of Gregory, probably about the year 1480. Matthew, who had been the nominal head of the community during Gregory's lifetime, appears to have been a well-meaning man of weak character, who became helpless after the loss of his sagacious adviser. Several different causes of discord are mentioned as appearing at about the same time. A theological controversy as to the means of salvation was indeed settled by means of a compromise proposed at one of the numerous meetings of the brethren by Brother Prokop, noticeable also as one of the theological writers of the Unity. Shortly afterwards, however, discussions as to "worldly power" led to a rupture. Gregory had, on the whole, held the opinions of Chelčicky,[81] according to which no true Christian should take part in the government of the State, nor should he take oaths or possess worldly goods. Gregory also shared Chelčicky's dislike to towns, "the foundations of Cain." These views had been strictly carried out during the first years of the Unity. The new members had, on joining the community, been obliged to despoil themselves of all worldly possessions and conform to the other doctrines of Chelčicky mentioned above.

In the last years of the fifteenth century men of higher rank, townsmen and nobles, of whom Kostka of Postupic was the first, began to join the community. It now became more difficult to maintain the early regulations in their entire severity. Some of the brethren complained that they incurred persecution on the part of their fellow-citizens because they had refused to hold municipal offices or to appear as witnesses in the law-courts. Two parties soon formed themselves in the Unity. One, known as the "large party," was in favour of somewhat relaxing the rigour of the original regulations; this was evidently necessary if the community was to expand and to acquire the protection of some of the nobles, without which it could hardly have continued to exist long in Bohemia. The other party, known as the "small party," adhered strictly to the original regulations. Many attempts at a reconciliation were made, and frequent meetings of the elders of the Unity took place for this purpose, generally at Reichenau on the Kněžna, or at Brandeis on the Orlice. A last effort of reconciliation was made in 1496, when numerous members of both parties met at Chlumec. Here, as at the previous conferences, both parties maintained their previous views, and the discussion only proved that the standpoints were entirely different and an agreement impossible. Though even after this attempts at mediation were made, the "small party," led by Brother Amos, now seceded from the main body of the community, and after a few years it entirely disappears. The "large party," on the other hand, freed from the original exaggerated regulations, obtained great and deserved fame in Bohemia; it became the cradle of almost all those who, in the last century of Bohemian independence, were prominent as statesmen or authors.

Among the early writers of the "large party," Prokop of Neuhaus or Jindřichuv Hradec deserves mention, though his fame has been obscured by the greater name of his successor, Brother Lucas, who finally secured the victory of the "large party." Prokop appears to have been one of the original members of the community of Kunwald. When the controversy as to the means of salvation sprung up among the brethren, Prokop, as already mentioned, succeeded in inducing the contending parties to accept a compromise. When the discussion whether the brethren were entitled to possess worldly property and to hold state offices began, Prokop expressed views which, though they were not quite in accordance with either party, really prove him an adherent of the "large party." It was on this subject that Prokop wrote his Explanation of the Fifth Chapter of St. Matthew. He here writes that, "though difficult, it is admissible that nobles and mighty men should be received into the Unity and be considered members of it, if they avoid deadly sins, for which poor men also go to hell, and if in all important matters they conform to Christianity and lead a Christian life." Prokop continues to state "that, speaking generally, the brethren may exercise the duties of town-councillors and of other offices, and that they may appeal to the temporal power for aid; for this is for the general good."

It will be seen by this quotation that Prokop generally agreed with the views of the "large party," though he sometimes differed from Brother Lucas, with whom he was indeed several times engaged in controversies. Prokop was the principal orator of the "large party" at the meetings at Reichenau in 1494 and at Chlumec in 1496. He was then, as Blahoslav tells us, "the foremost man of the Unity." Prokop spent the greatest part of his life at Brandeis, and died there in 1507. He has left a considerable number of works, all written in Bohemian. Besides the Explanation of the Fifth Chapter of St. Matthew, which has already been mentioned, he wrote Five Letters to Brother Lucas on his (Lucas's) work entitled 'The Bark,' and the Book against Antichrist.

Better known than Prokop is Brother Lucas, the foremost representative of the "large party" during its struggle; he is yet more noteworthy as the man who after its victory reorganised the Unity, and, to a certain extent, altered its institutions in a more enlightened and liberal manner. The works of Lucas, all written in Bohemian, are numerous; he is indeed, next to Komenský, the most voluminous writer of the Unity. Lucas, generally known as Lucas of Prague, was born about the year 1460. He was greatly impressed by the writings of the early members of the Unity, and, together with his friend the young nobleman Lawrence of Krasonický, he joined the community about the year 1482. He soon attained a prominent position among the brethren, and in 1490 was already a member of the "smaller council." When the differences of the Unity between the "large" and the "small" party arose, Lucas declared himself energetically in favour of the former, and was indeed one of its representatives at several assemblies. The discord among the brethren, and the religious uncertainty which was one of its results, seems to have rendered yet stronger the desire for a return to the primitive Church, which, sometimes more obvious, sometimes scarcely perceptible, can yet be traced in the writings of all Bohemian reformers. Some of the brethren maintained that in distant Eastern lands Christians yet existed who had retained the purity of the primitive Church, both as regards doctrine and the conduct of life. The Unity decided to send out several brethren, who were to discover these communities which entirely conformed with the primitive Church. Lucas, with two companions, started for this purpose for Constantinople, where they separated. Lucas himself appears to have visited Mount Athos and the communities of the Bulgarians, and of the Bohomils in Bosnia. Fertile writer though he was, Lucas has unfortunately left us no account of his travels, for which we could well have spared one or two of his sixty-eight theological works. The first of these works, entitled The Bark, was written shortly after his return from his journey. As already mentioned, it involved him in a controversy with Brother Prokop.

After the assembly of Chlumec and the final victory of the more enlightened party among the brethren, it was resolved to reorganise the community, and to model their institutions to a certain extent on those of the Waldenses. The exact relations between the two communities will perhaps never be known, particularly as the history of the Waldenses or Vaudois is itself very obscure. It is, however, certain that the brethren were fully conscious of an affinity between themselves and the older community. Lucas was intrusted with the mission of visiting the Waldensian communities, and started for Italy and Savoy accompanied by Brother Tuma of Landskron, known as "Němec" (or the German). Among the places they visited was Florence, where they were present at the death of Savonarola (May 23, 1498). Of this journey also Lucas has left us no account. On his return to Bohemia, Brother Lucas obtained a yet more important position in his community. After the death of Matthew an assembly of the brethren which met at Reichenau in 1500 decided to elect several bishops. Lucas was one of those chosen, and appears to have exercised greater influence than his colleagues. The Roman Catholic monk Wolfgang, with whom Lucas engaged in one of his many theological controversies, indeed describes him as "the anti-pope."

During the persecution which again befell the Unity at the beginning of the sixteenth century Lucas displayed admirable courage and energy. Rightly believing that ignorance was the cause of many of the attacks on the brethren, he was indefatigable in expounding their real teaching. He wrote an appeal to the king and a letter to the people of Bohemia, protesting against the judgment of those who had declared that the brethren were "worse than Jews and heathens, indeed equal to devils," Lucas also appealed to Erasmus of Rotterdam against the ignorant misjudgment which resulted in so much suffering for the brethren. He despatched two members of the community to Erasmus as bearers of a written "confession" or "apology" of the Unity. Erasmus, with characteristic prudence, declined to be entangled in the controversy.

About the year 1514 the attitude of the Bohemian officials became less hostile to the Unity. Contemporary records give no reason for this change; but Blahoslav's statement that "the king investigated the doctrine of the Unity and decided in its favour" is most improbable. The influence of some powerful noblemen who had joined the brethren probably secured for the Unity what was really only the tacit toleration of its existence. The fiction that only the Utraquist Church, which was the "State Church," and the Roman creed were recognised in Bohemia was maintained up to a far later date. The last years of the eventful life of Lucas were influenced by the appearance of Luther. Luther's teaching soon became known in Bohemia, and was welcomed by the people of that country. They felt as if their isolation, which had long weighed on them, was ended when even the Germans, the mortal enemies of Utraquism, communicated in the two kinds. The more advanced Utraquists specially sympathised with German Protestantism, and it did not for a moment seem impossible that Bohemia should adopt the teaching of Luther. The brethren, and Brother Lucas in particular, however, declared that they should always maintain their own community distinct from both the German Protestants and the Bohemian Utraquists. They have often been praised for this, but it is very probable that by joining the German Protestants the Bohemians would have obtained powerful allies when, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Jesuit reaction attacked their country. The isolation in which the Bohemian brethren, and to a lesser extent the Bohemian Utraquists, continued, alone accounts for the incredible apathy with which the German Protestants viewed the suppression of Protestantism in Bohemia. At the negotiations which preceded the Treaty of Westphalia, the Swedish envoys alone made an ineffective appeal in favour of the Unity and the other non-Roman inhabitants of Bohemia.

In a treatise published in 1522 Lucas attacked Luther's teaching on several points, but on receiving a conciliatory answer from the great German reformer he decided on entering into negotiations with him. He sent a member of the Unity, Brother Roh[82] or Horn, to Wittenberg with copies of several of his works. Luther does not seem to have had a very clear idea of the identity of the community which wished to enter into relations with him, for he addressed his answer to "his dear nobles and friends the brethren called Waldenses living in Bohemia and Moravia." The contents of the letter appear to have displeased Lucas, who wrote several treatises for the purpose of "strengthening" the brethren against the teaching of Luther. Lucas, indeed, somewhat later sent a second messenger to Wittenberg, but the disagreement continued, and subsequently a complete rupture took place. To the end of his life Lucas continued to labour at the reorganisation of the Unity. One of his latest and most important works was his Zpráva Kněžka ("Instruction for the Clergy of the Unity"), published in 1526; he died two years later.

It has already been mentioned that Brother Lucas was a voluminous writer. Dr. Jireček in his biography published in 1875 enumerates sixty-eight works of Lucas, some of which, it is true, are known only by repute and have not been preserved. Since the appearance of Dr. Jireček's book, Dr. Goll has discovered works of Lucas that are not included in his list. Among the works of Brother Lucas known now only by name but enumerated in Dr. Jireček's list is an "Answer to the ten articles of Master Jerome Dungesham[83] of Oxford, (written) against the apology of the Brethren published in 1514." The first work of Lucas, was as already mentioned, his Barka or "Bark." This work too was believed to be lost, but within the last years Dr. Goll has discovered a MS. which contains this once celebrated work of Lucas. The allegorical name of the book is thus explained by the author. He tells us that in the first part of his work the bark signifies the Unity, and that it is his purpose to explain out of what planks it is constructed, what are its requirements, who is its captain and guide, and what is the destination of its course. In this first part of the work the captain is Jesus Christ. The second division of the book deals with "The Bark of Antichrist," with the foolish and misguided people who occupy it, and with the weighty reasons for flying from that bark, the course of which leads to perdition. Like so many Bohemian works of this period, the "Bark" treats mainly of Antichrist. It is interesting as being very similar, and in parts identical, with one of the ancient books of the Waldenses. It undoubtedly throws some light on the obscure question of the relations between the Bohemian brethren and the older community.

Of the many other works of Lucas I shall be able to notice even briefly but very few. The two Professions of the Faith of the Unity, addressed to King Vladislav, and similar documents addressed to Erasmus and Luther, have been already mentioned. Very curious is Lucas's work entitled The Revival of the Holy Church, and the reasons which render it certain that such a revival has taken place in the shape of the Unity. Lucas draws a curious mystic parallel between the life of Christ and the development of the Unity. He also refers to the simplicity of the primitive Church, and to the gradual increase of the power of the Bishops of Rome. In distinction from his predecessors, Lucas no longer believes in the "donation of Constantine." He only tells us that Constantine placed the Bishop of Rome before all other bishops. "Constantine," Lucas tells us, "seated Sylvester on a white horse. This appeared wonderful to the people, and in their Latin or Italian speech they exclaimed, 'Pape! Pape!'[84] that is, 'What a great, great wonder!'" Only Charles the Great, Lucas tells us, added temporal power to the ecclesiastical supremacy. It is particularly noticeable that in this book also Lucas does not allude to his travels, though on several occasions it would have been natural to do so. It is almost certain that this silence is intentional. Dr. Goll has, with great sagacity, suggested its cause. The brethren now believed that the true primitive Church had been revived in their own community, and did not wish to recall the fact that they had formerly sought for it elsewhere.

The polemical works of Lucas are very numerous, and are directed indifferently against all those who did not accept the doctrine of the Unity as expounded by him. His controversies with Luther have already been mentioned. A work of Lucas's is directed against Zwingli, whose teaching had also penetrated into Bohemia. He also engaged in a theological controversy with "Wolfgang, the barefooted friar." Wolfgang, one of the earlier champions of the Church of Rome, played a curious part in the great theological controversy that absorbed almost the whole intellectual activity of Bohemia during two centuries. I shall again refer to him. Another controversial book of Lucas's directed against Brother Kalenec, a member of the "small party" in the Unity, is interesting as containing the author's opinion on Chelčicky, whose memory was naturally very popular with the smaller and more retrograde fraction of the Unity. Lucas writes: "You take refuge with Peter of Chelčic, and recommend to others his books, such as the Net of Faith. I, who have read and copied out many of his books before I joined the brethren, will say that in many matters he thought wrongly, and in a manner contrary to Scripture, and that he wrote obscurely and without moderation. I have also heard from those brethren that were with him much that was not praiseworthy, particularly that he was very irritable and vindictive. Thus, having fallen out with a priest, he would not forgive him till his death; so that priest himself told me. And he (Chelčicky) unjustly defamed the Taborite priests, particularly as regards their teaching on the sacrament."

A year before his death, Brother Lucas again returned to his favourite subject, the identification of the Unity with the primitive Church, in his treatise On the Origin of the Unity. Dealing with the manner in which the consciousness of the corruption of the Church reached Bohemia, Lucas writes: "The movement began through the Waldenses in England, where Wycliffe was the king's chaplain, but only read mass. And a Waldensian with whom he was acquainted said to him that he only fulfilled half the duty of his office, because he did not preach; and he proved this from Scripture.... Then of those who at that time (in England) suffered much adversity and martyrdom, some went to other countries, and particularly to Dresden, and thence some of them afterwards proceeded to Bohemia," Though unhistorical, this account is curious as containing what was probably a very old tradition. Lucas here, as was frequently the case with Bohemian writers of his time, describes as "Waldenses" all early opponents of the Church of Rome.

Brother Lucas was certainly one of the greatest men of the Unity, probably the greatest theologian whom the community produced. It was principally through the reorganisation of the community, that is his work, that the brethren were able to play a considerable part in Bohemian history. It is, however, an exaggeration to consider Lucas as a "second founder" of the Unity. The main lines of Brother Gregory's great structure remained. Of Lucas as an author, Brother Blahoslav[85] writes as follows: "Brother Lucas wrote a great many books, but he was not a very good Bohemian (writer); he imitated Latin more than is befitting, and his knowledge of German was also harmful to him, for his family came from a place where much German was spoken. 'In summe Latinismos et Germanismos plurrimos admittere solebat.'[86] Therefore, and also for another reason,[87] his works appeared to many not clear and displeasing."

In connection with Lucas I shall briefly refer to his associate Krasonický. Krasonický was, like Lucas, an adherent of the "large party." He appears to have been a fertile writer, but many of his works are known only by name. Among those that have been preserved is a treatise addressed to Brother Amos, the leader of the "small party." Another work of Krasonický, recently discovered by Dr. Goll in the town-library of Görlitz, is addressed to Cahera, then administrator of the Utraquist consistory. Its subject is the sacrament, a question on which so large a part of the theological controversy of the period revolved. Krasonický's treatise, however, goes far beyond the immediate limits of his subject. Of the foundation of the Unity he gives an account that is far more detailed than that of Brother Gregory, from which I have quoted, though it does not contain many facts that are found in the writings of yet later writers. Krasonický also refers to the then all-important question of apostolic succession, the existence of which he altogether denies. Even should it yet exist, he writes, it certainly cannot be found within the Church of Rome. Like Brother Lucas, Krasonický maintains that St. Peter never visited Rome. When referring to those who had borne witness to the corruption of the Roman Church, he mentions "Dr. Jerome Savonarola." He writes of him: "The works that he composed, his letters to the emperor and others, prove what his opinions were. Half the city mourned over him when the Pope first caused him to be tortured, then publicly proclaimed what torture had forced him to confess, and at last caused him on the public square of Florence to be first hanged on a cross with two companions, and then to be burnt." Dr. Goll is, no doubt, right in conjecturing that this accurate account of the death of Savonarola is derived from Brother Lucas, who was an eye-witness of that event. Other existent theological works of this period are ascribed both to Krasonický and to Prokop, who has already been mentioned. Blahoslav describes Krasonický as "a sensible and learned man, a friend of ancient simplicity." Even in Blahoslav's days many of Krasonický's works had already been lost.

Of the writers of the "small party" it will be sufficient to mention Brother Amos, its first leader. He is known to have written three theological treatises, one of which has been partly preserved in a work of Brother Lucas, written for the purpose of refuting it. Amos, like Krasonický and the majority of the writers of the Unity, wrote only in Bohemian.

The life of Bishop Augusta (born 1500, died 1572) belongs, like that of Archbishop Rokycan, rather to the political history of Bohemia than to literature. Though his fame as a preacher is far greater than as a writer, he was the author of a large number of theological works. Born in humble circumstances—his father was a hatter—and not having received a very extensive education, Augusta's talents, and yet more his indomitable energy and determination, soon brought him to the fore. Born a member of the Utraquist Church, he joined the Unity at the age of twenty-four. He was prepared for his clerical duties by Brother Lucas, and in 1532 became one of the elders—or bishops, as they were often called—to whom the entire government of the Unity was intrusted. His influence soon became predominant among the brethren. While Brother Lucas and Augusta's younger contemporary, Blahoslav, wished above all to preserve the separate character of the Unity, Augusta was in favour of a close alliance, if not of a union, with Luther and the German Protestants. Augusta, for this purpose, twice visited the great German reformer at Wittenberg, and also had, in 1546, an interview with the Protestant Elector of Saxony. In the following year war broke out in Germany between the Emperor Charles V. and the German Protestants, whose leaders were the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse.[88] After the defeat of the Protestants at the battle of Mühlberg, Charles's brother, Ferdinand, King of Bohemia, dealt severely with their Bohemian sympathisers. Augusta was arrested and imprisoned for a long time in the castle of Pürglitz or Křivoklat. His companion, the young priest Bilek, has left us a very interesting account of Augusta's prison life.[89]

During the whole term of his imprisonment, which only ended in 1564, Augusta maintained his claim to the leadership of the Unity. When the only other bishop died, the brethren, who had established secret communications with him, asked if they should elect new bishops, but Augusta refused his consent. After his liberation he resumed his rule over the community, residing first at Brandeis-on-the-Adler, afterwards at Jungbunzlau. The obstinacy and tenacity, not to say narrow-mindedness, which is ever characteristic of Augusta, involved him in incessant controversies during the last years of his life. It is perhaps to his opponents that should be traced the rather unfavourable account of his last years, according to which he "found great pleasure in expensive clothes and furs, as well as in select dishes, handsome carriages, and generally in an ostentatious manner of living."

Like so many members of the Unity, Augusta was a voluminous writer, but some of his works have been lost, and many of the others have remained in MS. Of one of them, the Sumovnik (Summary), Blahoslav, who had seen the MS., writes: "As that book, the Summary, has already come into the hands of many pious and sensible people, it will, if it sees the light, cause the members of the Unity and others also to jump up from terror. The book is indeed remarkable, great, and no doubt for many of great value; and I do not doubt that this manner of writing Bohemian and the style of writing will also please many. And some of the young, no doubt, will be found whom not only these many unheard-of things, but also the new words and phrases will please, and they will with pleasure wish to use them. But as I write my judgment on this book, also non ut theologus sed ut grammaticus,[90] that is to say, (I write) not of the contents of the book, quod non est hujus loci,[90] but only of the form of language de genere sermonis de verbis et phrasibus."[90] The continuation of Blahoslav's commentary on the "Sumovnik" is rather disappointing. It consists merely of critical remarks on the diction and style of Augusta. With the exception of the remark that heretics who love impious speeches generally also write in a monstrous style, we are told nothing of the "unheard-of things" contained in the book. It must, however, be remembered that Bohemian theologians of the sixteenth century—to whom every one who differed from their opinions was "Antichrist"—were very much given to expressions of horror and terror in their writings. Of Augusta's other works, his Profession of creed sent in the name of the whole Unity to his Majesty at Augsburg, his Dispute of Brother Augusta with the Calixtine (Utraquist) Clergy, and more particularly his collection of hymns, enjoyed for a time great popularity. The hymns of Augusta, in particular, were widely used by the brethren up to the time of the dissolution of the Unity. Blahoslav, the only literary critic of this period, gives his opinion of Augusta in these words: "Brother John Augusta," he writes, "was a remarkable and great man, who wrote many books as well as hymns. All that he wrote before he was imprisoned was written in good Bohemian; phrases excultæ, verba selecta; delectabatur admodum archaismis, tamen decenter. In summa totum genus dicendi fuit floridum atque excultum. Valebat ingenio et memoria, ac diligenter legebat bonos authores in our Bohemian language. Fluebat igitur sua vis copiosius et exultans, though he sometimes wished to be too lepidus et asiaticus.... In his sermons he seemed somewhat coarse though fervent. Ardebant omnia, words, pronunciation, and gesticulation. Referrebat zelo illo magna ex parte Lutherum. When, twenty-six years ago, I heard Augusta, and shortly afterwards Luther, it appeared to me that I had never heard two such enthusiastic preachers, nor two who in every way so greatly resembled one another."