BOHEMIAN HISTORIANS OF THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
The period subsequent to the Hussite wars was very favourable to
the development of the Bohemian language, and especially to that of
historical studies. The stirring events of the times directed general
interest to the great political and religious struggle; for these words
are nearly synonymous when we deal with the century that preceded the
battle of the White Mountain (1620), with which the aspirations of the
Bohemians for ecclesiastical as well as for political independence
ended for a time. The constant references to the Divinity, the prayers
and hymns which are inserted in historical works of a mainly secular
character, prove that in Bohemia political and religious controversies
were at that period even more closely connected than in other countries.
Other causes also contributed to the increase of intellectual activity
which we find in Bohemia at the beginning of the sixteenth century. I
have already referred to the "humanist" movement, which, in consequence
of the religious isolation of Bohemia, reached that country late, but
for a time had the greatest influence on the intellectual development
of the land. I have also already alluded to the foundation and
beginnings of the community of the Bohemian Brethren, which greatly
influenced the literary as well as the political condition of Bohemia.
The brethren from the first attached great importance to the study
of history, and they had established archives at Senftenberg, and
afterwards at Leitomischl. A school of writers on history sprung
up among them whose works--judging by the scanty remains that have
reached us--possessed both great value and great beauty of style. The
greater part of these works has been lost long ago. The brethren who
constituted the most advanced fraction of the party which desired
Church reform were naturally most hated and dreaded by the Jesuits,
to whom the return of Bohemia to the Roman Church must principally be
attributed. The writings of the brethren were thus specially marked
out for destruction. Among the historical works that are probably
irretrievably lost is that which was, according to all accounts, the
most valuable, Blahoslav's _History of the Unity_. Yet even the
existent works of members of the brotherhood, such as Bilek, Blahoslav,
Březan, Žerotin, to speak of historians only, sufficiently vouch for
the high degree of culture which the brethren had attained. They
attached great importance to the grammar of their language, and many of
their works were, as already recorded, models of Bohemian style.
The political condition of the country also then favoured the
development of the national language, which was during this period--and
during this period only--almost exclusively used by historians. During
the reigns of the kings of the House of Luxemburg the Bohemian language
had to a great extent lost ground. King John was known to dislike the
Bohemian language, and though this dislike was by no means shared by
his son Charles, yet even the foundation of the University of Prague
(though that university afterwards became a national one) was not at
first favourable to the development of the Bohemian language. It was at
first principally frequented by foreigners, and German and Latin were
almost exclusively used there.
Of the contemporary chroniclers of the Hussite war many still wrote in
Latin. Yet the Hussite movement undoubtedly favoured the development of
the Bohemian language, if it was only by the isolation from the rest
of the Western world which the religious separation produced. A great
impetus was also given to the cultivation of the national language by
the circumstance that a few years before the beginning of the sixteenth
century (in 1495) the Bohemian law courts decided to carry on their
proceedings in the national language. The law courts of Silesia and
Moravia had already previously substituted Bohemian for the Latin
language, which they had previously used. Of yet greater importance was
the fact that Bohemian at this period became the language exclusively
used at the "diets" or meetings of the three "Estates" of Bohemia. In
the minds of many Bohemians the preservation of the national language
was closely connected with the conservation of their political and
ecclesiastical independence. As late as in 1615, only five years before
the final collapse of Bohemia, the Diet decided that all those who
became naturalised Bohemians should be bound to instruct and educate
their children in the language of the country. It may be noticed
that this fervent devotion to the national language, which has often
astonished foreigners, is a marked feature also in the revival of
Bohemian literature and in the present nationalist movement.
Among the most recent writers on Bohemian history it has become the
fashion to depreciate the social and intellectual condition of Bohemia
in the years that preceded the battle of the White Mountain; they
perhaps endeavour thus to attenuate the sentimental feeling of regret
for the great defeat which a few Bohemians still cherish. That the
political results of the battle of the White Mountain, which consisted
in the establishment of an absolute but orderly government; were
advantageous to Bohemia, and, indeed, saved the country from anarchy,
is certain. Yet it is no less certain that nobles and citizens, such as
Peter of Rosenberg, Charles of Žerotin, Budovec of Budova (mentioned in
the last chapter), Harant of Polžic, Bartoš Pisář, Sixt of Ottersdorf,
Skála ze Zhoře (who all belong to the sixteenth or the beginning of the
seventeenth century), were intellectually vastly superior to the men of
similar rank and position who lived a century later, after many years
of absolutist government.
It is noteworthy that among the historians of the period with which
I am dealing, the majority are men who themselves played a part
in the political life of their time. The Bohemians of this period
were--partly, though by no means exclusively, through the influence
of "humanism,"--penetrated with a blind, almost superstitious, love
of learning for its own sake. They seem always to have aspired to the
"tall mountain citied to the top, crowded with culture." This, indeed,
applies not only to the humanists, literary men, or translators of
classical works, but also to many of the practical and matter-of-fact
politicians of the time. Witness Peter of Rosenberg, who died deploring
"that he had not sufficiently cultivated the study of literature;"
or Harant of Polžic, whose constant show of classical erudition is
striking, if sometimes tedious, and who, even when in immediate peril
of life, could not refrain from a classical allusion.
The two earliest historians who belong to this period both sprang
from the class or "estate," as it was called, of the citizens; they
both held important municipal offices at Prague, and they have both
described short but momentous episodes in Bohemian history, in which
they had played a conspicuous part.
BARTOŠ PISÁŘ (Bartholomew the writer), author of the _Chronicles of
Prague_,[120] may be considered one of the most valuable Bohemian
historians. Bartholomew obtained the by-name by which he is known
because he had, though a linen-draper by trade, frequently sought
employment of a literary character. We are, indeed, told that he
neglected his business for his literary pursuits, and that whilst
his wife was selling linen in the marketplace, Bartholomew spent a
large part of his time in transcribing ancient manuscripts. He held a
municipal appointment at Prague for some time, and documents are still
existent which were copied out by Bartholomew.
It is certainly a proof of the extension of education and of the
intellectual activity of the time, that Bartoš, a tradesman, should
have undertaken, and successfully undertaken, to write an important
historical work. Bartholomew's chronicle deals indeed with a very
limited subject, the troubles which, during the years 1524 to 1537,
occurred in Prague; they were caused by the rivalry of two ambitious
upstarts, John Pasěk and John Hlavsa. During the weak reign of King
Louis these men both strove to obtain supreme authority in the
city of Prague, which thus became the scene of great tumults and
disturbances. Though dealing with an apparently unimportant subject,
Bartholomew's book is of the greatest interest in giving a striking
picture of the town-life of Bohemia in the sixteenth century. Religious
controversy was the one engrossing interest among the citizens, and
the "Catilinarian individuals" (as a recent Bohemian writer has called
them), who contested for the government of Prague, used religion as
a pretext for their ambitious endeavours. The rivals, indeed, both
belonged to the so-called Utraquist Church, which prided itself in
being directly based on the teaching of Hus. This Church was the
Established Church of Bohemia, from the time of the Council of Basel
and the signing of the so-called "compacts" (1436), to the battle of
the White Mountain (1620).
Very characteristic of Bartholomew's manner are his accounts of the
disturbances of Prague, which formed the original motive for his
book. It is very evident to a student of Bohemian history that in
this portion of Bartholomew's work light and shade are very unequally
divided; there was really very little to choose between the two
demagogues, Pasěk and Hlavsa, whose rivalry caused the disturbances at
Prague. But Bartholomew's style is here often quaint and picturesque;
and I think I could give no better specimen of it than by translating
his portraits of the rival Cleons of Prague. Bartholomew writes:
"Concerning those two persons, John Hlavsa and Master John Pasěk, they
both appeared as two brilliant lights, not only in Prague, but also
within the 'estate' of the townsmen generally; for God had granted
to both of them an enlightened intellect, and eloquence greater than
is usual among men; yet they differed greatly with regard to their
character. Though in his manner Pasěk appeared inclined to kindliness,
yet the immense and inexorable malice of Cain ruled him, while on the,
contrary Hlavsa was guided by his peaceful and yielding nature.
"Pasěk was born at Old Knin, of poor parents; his mother had been
a huckstress; as to his father, I have been unable to ascertain
anything certain. Therefore, to avoid erring against truth, it is
often fitter to give room in my book only to the statements of men
who are trustworthy and sensible, rather than believe the assertions
of certain people. Pasěk then was a poor school-servant, and later on
a schoolmaster. Afterwards he proceeded to the University of Prague,
where he became a bachelor and master of arts. Then, ever rising in
the world, he was chosen by the citizens of the old town of Prague as
their chief town-clerk.... He was afterwards chosen as alderman, and by
his practice in the law courts also gained large possessions, and his
general fortune in the world ever increased; for God is able to raise
a needy school-servant to high rank, as is said in God's Scripture in
the Psalms. And now, besides the coat-of-arms which he had already
received, a title, as a further honour, was bestowed on him. He thus
acquired the right of calling himself John Pasěk of Vrat, obtaining
thus a name that well befitted his individuality, for it is true that
he overturned and overthrew much.[121] He then became excessively
cruel, immoderately severe, and tormented the people intolerably and
unjustly.... Indeed, he once said openly to some people (for he was
unable to conceal his revengefulness, in which few were equal to him),
'Do not quarrel and dispute much in words with your enemy, but wait
till he is crossing a bridge; then draw away his feet from under him so
that he may fall in.' This also he said boastingly: 'I am unable to be
so good a Christian as that I could forgive my enemies what they have
done against me.'"
Of Hlavsa Bartholomew writes: "John Hlavsa was born in the town of
Střibro (Mies), of honest and orderly parents, who belonged to the
estate of the townsmen. He also, having previously been a needy
scholar, afterwards became a schoolmaster. Then, after he married, he
rose in the world, and during the reign of King Vladislav obtained
a coat-of-arms with the title of 'Liboslav.' Having an enlightened
intellect and great talents, he was elected an alderman, and soon
obtained the highest rank in that court. How much good he did for
the king and the estate of the townsmen, that is known to many in
Bohemia and elsewhere; but as to the merits of the other (Pasěk)
there is silence. Thence, in consequence of the king's taking away
his appointments from the one (Hlavsa) and giving them to the other
(Pasěk), great hatred and jealousy sprung up between them and spread
widely; for it is the result of vain worldly vanity that every one
desires honours for himself and not for others. And yet we must
truthfully admit (let who will be angry with me) that through these
discords much benefit and profit was obtained, rather from the deeds
of the one who had not obtained the degree of master[122] (Hlavsa)
than from those of the other, as I have already stated. In consequence
of the differences between these two parties arose, one called that
of Pasěk and the other that of Hlavsa, and this extended to many.
Many also took part in these dissensions, and were enraged against one
another; the consequence was a lamentable persecution of one party by
the other."
Bartholomew, like most Bohemian historians of his time, lays no claim
to impartiality, and he attacks the Utraquists of the moderate faction
almost more ferociously than the partisans of Rome. Bartholomew was
certainly "a good hater," and his portrait of Archbishop Rokycan is
distinctly unfair. He indeed gives a totally incorrect account of the
negotiations of the Bohemian Utraquists with the Eastern Church,[123]
for the purpose of discrediting Rokycan by insinuating that he had
been treated with contempt by the dignitaries of the Greek Church.
Bartholomew, as already noticed, often extends his narrative beyond its
immediate subject, and he has the taste for theological controversy
which was innate in almost all Bohemians at that time. The last part
of Bartholomew's book deals with the election of Ferdinand I. as King
of Bohemia in 1526; it has considerable historical value, and has been
largely used by the writers who have reconstructed Bohemian history in
the present century. Bartholomew died in 1535, it is not certain at
what age.
The political career of the next historian with whom I shall deal, SIXT
OF OTTERSDORF (born about the year 1500), was similar to that of Bartoš
the Writer; but Sixt appears to have taken a more prominent part in the
events which he related, and, differing herein from Bartoš, he is by
no means chary of references to his own person. Like Bartholomew, Sixt
belonged to the estate of the citizens. His talents and learning--we
are told that he studied for some time in foreign lands for the purpose
of acquiring a thorough knowledge of the Greek language--raised him
to a prominent position among the citizens of Prague. As early as in
1537 we hear of him as town-clerk of the old city of Prague, and he was
chancellor of the town in the momentous year 1546. His political career
as well as his writings prove him to have been a zealous partisan of
the ancient privileges of the Bohemian "Estates." Ferdinand I. of
Habsburg had in 1526 succeeded the weak sovereigns of the Jagellonic
dynasty as ruler of Bohemia. His constant though often occult purpose
was to strengthen the royal prerogative and to limit the power of the
Bohemian Diet or Parliament. It seemed indeed at one time probable that
Ferdinand I. would accomplish this task, which his grandson finally
successfully achieved after the battle of the White Mountain. In this
struggle between the king and the "Estates" Sixt took an active part,
and an episode of this struggle (which lasted intermittently from 1526
to 1620) is the subject of his memorable work, entitled the _History
of the Troubled Years in Bohemia, 1546 and 1547_.
To no literature is the sentence "Habent sua fata libelli" more truly
applicable than to that of Bohemia. While the writings of Bartoš and
Sixt, and indeed those of the other historians also with whom I shall
deal in this chapter, remained almost unnoticed up to the beginning
of the present century, HAJEK OF LIBOČAN'S _Bohemian Chronicles_ were
widely known and circulated from the moment that the book appeared.
Hajek's work was dedicated to Ferdinand I., and produced under the
auspices of that sovereign, who, indeed, appointed officials for the
purpose of examining the contents of the book before its appearance.
When, after the battle of the White Mountain, all independent works
of an historical character were suppressed and many were completely
destroyed, Hajek's chronicle became, and continued for nearly two
centuries, the one source of information to which the few writers on
Bohemian history went. Many of the foolish, displeasing, and untruthful
tales referring to his country, which a Bohemian so often finds in the
writings of foreign lands, can be traced to Hajek. It is in his work
that we find that account of Zižka's death which has been so often
repeated, though it is as entirely contrary to all we know of that
great warrior as it is to the reports of the contemporary chroniclers.
Hajek tells us that Zižka, when dying, ordered that his body be flayed
and then thrown to the wild beasts, and that his skin should be used
as a drum.[124] This and so many other foolish tales have greatly
contributed to the totally false interpretation of ancient Bohemian
history that is current up to the present day.
The _Hussitenkrieg_ of Theobaldus, and Lenfant in his _Histoire des
Guerres Hussites_ (George Sand's authority for her _Jean Zǐžka_ and her
_Comtesse de Rudolstadt_), both borrow extensively from Hajek. As the
works of Theobaldus and Lenfant were recognised authorities on Bohemian
history up to the end of the eighteenth century, Hajek's tales have
been repeated by many writers (for instance, Carlyle), who had probably
never heard of his name.
Since the beginning of the present century it has become possible
to study freely the documents that refer to the ancient history of
Bohemia. The result has been that the glory of the "Bohemian Livy," as
Hajek was formerly called, has been completely obscured. It has been
proved that Hajek's work is totally untrustworthy, and that he not only
copied from earlier writers without any attempt at criticism, but that
he was often intentionally mendacious, and for party purposes distorted
his account of historical events. The great Bohemian historian
Palacký's judgment on Hajek has often been quoted. Palacký wrote:
"Hajek is the most narrow-minded slyboots, the most naïve humbug, and
the apparently most innocent calumniator whom I have met in the course
of my historical studies."
It is hardly necessary to mention that at a period when the rule
"Scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum," was ignored by all Bohemian
historians, Hajek's work shows traces of party spirit almost on every
page. The author, who was a Romanist priest, writes as a strong
Catholic, and as a strong partisan of the Bohemian aristocracy. Among
the adherents of Rome, who were then few in number in Bohemia, and who
were Hajek's principal protectors, were found several of the greatest
Bohemian nobles. These Catholic lords were always the most decided
enemies of the Bohemian cities, while the Utraquist and Protestant
nobles--though their caste pride may have been as great--regarded the
townsmen as valuable allies in their struggle against the sovereign,
while the democratic character of the community of the "Bohemian
brethren" naturally also influenced the nobles who belonged to it.
In his preface already Hajek enters into the question of the rank and
precedence among the Bohemian estates, of course in a sense favourable
to his patrons. He writes: "Some have, for the purpose of disparaging
the estate of the nobles and that of the knights, dared to maintain
that the estate of the townsmen is the first, and dates from the
foundation of Prague. The estate of the nobles, they say, sprung up
afterwards, when they (the nobles) acted as officials, and other men
were intrusted to their rule; then, they say, many years later the
estate of the knights was created, when the king allowed them (the
knights) to bear a device on their shield because of certain deeds
and brave exploits. But both these statements are untrue." Hajek here
writes in contradiction to a Utraquist historian, Martin Kuthen, who
had stated that the origin of the Bohemian estates was that mentioned
above. Kuthen's work, which has little value and requires no further
notice, was then very much read, and it has even been said that Hajek
was instructed to write his work as a refutation of that of Kuthen.
Of Hajek's chronicle, which (as was customary in those days) begins
with the deluge, and which ends with the coronation of his patron
Ferdinand I., the earliest part is by far the most attractive. Dealing
with an almost entirely mythical period, and one in which it was nearly
impossible to introduce political and ecclesiastical controversies
(though even here Hajek occasionally does so), the author is at his
best. He borrows largely from Cosmas and from Dalimil, whose influence
even on Hajek's manner of writing can be traced in the early part of
his book. Hajek's style, indeed, always varies greatly according to the
authorities which he is using. His account of the foundation of Prague
is very curious.
But even in Hajek's accounts of semi-mythical occurrences the
insincerity and dishonesty that characterise him are often apparent.
Cosmas and Dalimil related the legends and traditions of their land
just as they had reached them from the earliest available oral or
written depositions. Hajek, on the contrary, always assumes the part
of a conscientious and systematic historian. He indeed mentions
Tacitus, Ptolemy, Strabo, Orosius, and a limited number of mediæval
writers among the authorities whom, according to his statement, he
had consulted. Hajek's object was to join together various, often
contradictory, tales, and to give them the shape of a chronologically
consistent record of the lives of the Premyslide princes. Was it for
this purpose necessary to alter traditional dates? That appeared to
Hajek a matter of no great importance!
Writing as a fervent partisan of Rome, Hajek of course judges Hus and
Jerome of Prague severely. Of the latter he tells us: "In 1400 there
arrived in Prague, coming from England, a young man who had gone there
for the purposes of study, Jerome by name, a citizen of the new town
of Prague, the son of one Albert (Vojtěch).... This Jerome had brought
books with him from England, into which he had copied out some of the
writings of 'John the Englishman,' whom they call Wycliffe. This man
had by his teaching corrupted first a town in England called 'Oksa' or
'Oksonia,' and afterwards the whole English kingdom." Of Hus, Hajek
tells us that he was originally a good and pious man, but that he came
under the influence of two Englishmen, "Jacob the Bachelor" and "Conrad
of Kandelburgk" (=Canterbury). These men used to visit (according to
Hajek!) the young masters of the university, spreading Wycliffe's
teaching and perverting many from the true faith. At last "Master
John of Husinec, Master Jerome of Prague, Jacob of England, and
Conrad of 'Kandelburgk' were like one man." This account of the origin
of the Hussite movement--totally incorrect, as so many of Hajek's
statements--yet proves that the writer was indeed the "narrow-minded
slyboots" Palacký has called him. By greatly exaggerating the English
influence on the foundation of Hussitism, and stigmatising it as a
foreign movement, Hajek, as he well knew, greatly injured the Hussites;
for the intense national feeling that has always animated the Bohemians
has produced among them an often exaggerated distrust of foreign
interference.
With all its faults, Hajek's work will always find readers. His style,
though varying according to the authorities which he is using, is
generally animated, a priceless merit in his pedantic age. An interest
also is connected with Hajek's chronicles which the author could not
have foreseen, and would not have desired. Hajek's work, sanctioned by
the Roman Church, and therefore accessible to the people, continued
to be read when every other book on the early history of Bohemia
disappeared. It is thus to a large extent through Hajek's chronicles
that the Bohemians preserved some recollection of their former
greatness. A copy of Hajek's chronicles went down from generation
to generation among the Bohemian peasantry, and was cherished as an
heirloom. As a lover would rather that evil be spoken of his love than
that her name remain unmentioned, thus the Bohemians welcomed eagerly
even hostile accounts of the deeds of Zižka, Prokop, and the other
leaders under whose guidance Bohemia had once defied all Europe.
Of Hajek's life little is known, and that little is by no means to
his credit. The year of his birth is uncertain, but we know that when
very young he left the Utraquist Church, in which he was born, became
a Roman Catholic, and took orders in that Church. We read of him as
preaching in the Church of St. Thomas at Prague in 1524, and by the aid
of some Catholic nobles he obtained in 1527 the deanery of Karlstein.
Later he obtained other ecclesiastical dignities. Of all these honours
he was subsequently deprived in consequence of an accusation of having
embezzled money belonging to the Church. It has been suggested, though
on insufficient evidence, that Hajek wrote his chronicles for the
purpose of regaining the lost favour of his patrons. In 1544 Hajek,
perhaps as a reward for his book that had appeared in 1541, obtained
the provostship of Stará Boleslav (Alt Bunzlau), but of this dignity he
was again deprived in 1549 because of various offences against canon
law. Hajek died in 1553.
Several minor historians belong to this period. I have already
mentioned Martin Kuthen. The _History of the Emperor Charles IV.,
King of Bohemia_, by Prokop Lupáč; (published in 1584), also deserves
special notice. The book is of interest to English readers, as the
author has inserted in it a considerable portion of a ballad describing
the death of King John at the battle of Crécy, which was probably
written shortly after that event.
The most prominent historians of this period were probably the members
of the community of the "Bohemian Brethren." This is, however,
unfortunately little more than a conjecture. The works of the brethren
were specially singled out for destruction during the Catholic
reaction. Mere fragments remain, and even with regard to these doubts
as to their authorship often exist. The writings of Professor Goll,
who has with admirable skill and ability reconstructed the early
history of the brotherhood, also throw incidentally much light on the
literary activity of the brethren. The greatest historian among them
was probably Brother Blahoslav, whose _Historie Bratrska_ ("History of
the Brotherhood") was greatly admired; the book is known to us only
by quotations in some contemporary works which have been preserved.
As already mentioned, Blahoslav devoted much time to the study of the
grammar of the Bohemian language, and he was celebrated for the beauty
of his style. It is, therefore, probable that in the _History of the
Brotherhood_ we have lost not only a valuable historical document, but
also a masterpiece of Bohemian prose-writing. With the exception of a
short Latin treatise on the history of the brotherhood, the writings of
Blahoslav that have been preserved are not of a historical character; I
have therefore referred to him more fully in the last chapter.
In connection with Blahoslav I shall mention a work that was formerly
often attributed to him; this is the _Captivity of John Augusta_.
Recent research has proved that this book was really written by the
young clergyman JOHN BILEK, Augusta's companion during his captivity.
It is, however, probable that the first part of the work was revised by
Blahoslav. The book deals with the imprisonment of John Augusta, bishop
of the Bohemian Brethren, who was accused of having participated in
the negotiations with the German Protestant princes, into which some
Bohemians had entered in 1546 and 1547.[125]
Bilek, Augusta's companion in captivity, has with touching simplicity
described his sufferings, the treachery of Schönaich, town-captain of
Leitomischl, the tortures which Bilek and Augusta underwent, their long
imprisonment in the castle of Pürglitz (or Křivoklat), their attempts
to communicate from their prison with their brethren who were at large,
the relief of their sufferings through the intercession of Philipina
Welser, wife of the Archduke Ferdinand, and their final liberation. The
book, written in a truly saintly spirit, never reveals the slightest
animosity against the officials who were treating Augusta and his
companion so cruelly. When narrating the tortures that were inflicted
on Augusta for the purpose of forcing him to admit the complicity of
the Brotherhood in the supposed conspiracy, Bilek simply writes: "The
officials then ordered that he (Augusta) should again be put on the
rack, because of the questions mentioned before; but it did not last
long, as he had become quite silent and swooned away. I think, had they
but continued a little longer, he would have died during the torture."
Bilek's simple account of the daily routine and the little incidents of
prison life, often recalling Silvio Pellico, is both interesting and
touching. I will give one quotation referring to the attempt of the
prisoners to establish communications with their friends outside the
prison. Bilek writes: "After they (the prisoners) had been in prison
some time, a year and a half and ten weeks, in the year 1550, God our
Lord wrought a great miracle; He opened to them in their solitude
and concealment a secret and concealed path, by means of which their
friends could visit them, receive news of them, and also convey news
to them. And this happened thus. Among the warders who guarded them,
and who had received rigid instructions how they were to guard them,
was a servant who knew them slightly, and knew also what sort of men
they were; for he had formerly been an artisan at Leitomischl. He knew
that they were enduring all this suffering, not because of any crime,
but for the sake of the religion; and he felt a certain compassion
for them. This man risked all, and permitted that they should receive
from the brethren and from their friends everything they required; and
he also undertook to forward secretly their friends' communications
to them, and their own to their friends. He began doing this in 1550,
before the Vigil of St. Paul's Confession, and continued doing so up
to the year 1553. He conveyed to them the letters and communications
of their brethren and dear friends, and he supplied them with ink,
paper, and everything that is required for writing. A few books also he
brought them and other things which they required, money and tapers;
and they accepted these things with no slight fear, principally with
regard to the servant; for he might have forfeited his life had it been
discovered that he had given us these things. As regards themselves,
they had commended their souls to God and His grace, whatever might
befall them; they knew that they were acting rightly, and had therefore
little fear for their own persons; rather did they rejoice that God had
granted these things to them, and they accepted them with gratitude and
thanksgiving, and praised their Lord God for this." The fact that so
large a part of the historical as well as of the theological writings
of the brethren has been destroyed enhances the value of Bilek's book.
The passages quoted above give a true insight into the inner life of
the Brotherhood; they give evidence of their invincible courage and
absolute reliance on God, which gave them great strength, as well as
of their exaggerated subserviency to even unjust temporal authorities,
which sometimes made them poor politicians.
Of Bilek little is known but what he himself tells us in his book. He
was a clergyman of the Brotherhood, and acted for a considerable time
as secretary to Augusta, the head of the community. He died at Napajedl
in Moravia in 1581, at the age of sixty-five. As already mentioned, his
book was formerly attributed to Blahoslav, and only recent researches
have awarded the authorship to Bilek.[126]
Very noteworthy among the historians of the Brotherhood is WENCESLAS
BŘEZAN. To him Palacký's remark, that the Bohemians cared more for
their history than for the biographies of their historians, is
particularly applicable. Neither the year of the birth nor that of the
death of Březan can be accurately ascertained; it has been conjectured
that he was born about the year 1560, and died about the year 1619.
Peter Vok, Lord of Rosenberg, the greatest of the Bohemian nobles,
and a strenuous friend and protector of the Brotherhood, appointed
Březan "archivarian, librarian, and historiographer of the House of
Rosenberg." Most of his works deal with the annals of that great House,
which for centuries figured so prominently in Bohemian history.
The writings of Březan, like those of so many other Bohemian writers,
have been only partially preserved. Besides minor works referring to
the annals and the genealogy of noble Bohemian families, Březan wrote
a large _History of the House of Rosenberg_, which is said to have
consisted of five volumes. Of this work only portions, containing the
biographies of William of Rosenberg and of his brother, Lord Peter, the
last of the Rosenbergs, have reached us. From recent researches it,
however, appears probable that the German _Rosenbergische Chronica_
of Heerman, a monk of the monastery of Wittingau (Třeboň), is an
abridged translation of the lost parts of Březan's book. In any case,
the parts of Březan's work that have been preserved in Bohemian are
sufficient to prove that the work was far more than a mere family
record, and that it is of great value for the social as well as for the
political history of Bohemia.
The two biographies convey a vivid impression of the court life (for it
can hardly be otherwise described) of the great Bohemian nobles during
the period that preceded the battle of the White Mountain. It is true
that the position of the Lords of Rosenberg, the first of the Bohemian
nobles, was a somewhat exceptional one. This appears very clearly from
the letters, published by Březan, which were interchanged between the
members of the imperial family and the Lords of Rosenberg. Of the
two biographies, that of William of Rosenberg, the less interesting
of the two brothers, is the more valuable one. William held several
important appointments under the Imperial Government, and Březan gives
a very clear outline of his official career. Very interesting are
Březan's notes, which refer to the proposed election of Lord William
to the Polish throne. He tells us that "the Lord of Rosenberg had then
many adherents among the Polish nobles, more indeed than the House of
Austria; and I do not say this to harm or disparage that illustrious
House." Březan further tells us that "the Poles, after they had thus
been mocked (by the flight of their king, Henry of Valois), searched
for a new king. Some favoured the House of Habsburg, others desired
Lord William as king, particularly as he was a descendant of the
ancient family of the Orsinis, as by his ancestry, several centuries
back, he was a Bohemian, and therefore belonged to a cognate country;
also because he was a sensible, learned, temperate, Catholic noble."
The election of Stephen Bathory to the Polish throne (1576) destroyed
William of Rosenberg's hopes.
Březan's biography of Lord Peter of Rosenberg is a very disappointing
book, if we consider that he was dealing with an intensely interesting
subject. The semi-independent position of the great Bohemian nobles,
who lived principally on their vast estates, surrounded by dependents
and servants, free from the control of a court, and to a great extent
even from the criticism of their equals, in some cases greatly
developed their individuality. To no one does this apply to a greater
extent than to Lord Peter of Rosenberg. The heir of the great family
that had supplied so many leaders to the Romanist Church, Peter
joined the community of the Bohemian Brethren, it is said through the
influence of his wife, who belonged to that Church. Whether there is
any connection between this change of creed and the scandalous stories
which Catholic writers (whose works alone were known in Bohemia during
two centuries) have circulated I do not wish to determine. They tell us
that Lord Peter established a "harem" at his castle of Wittingau, to
which the fairest women from all parts of Europe were conveyed. This is
obviously an absurd exaggeration, though it is probable that Lord Peter
had in his youth led an immoral life. With regard to the accusations of
intemperance and of cruelty to his servants, it is probable that Peter
of Rosenberg was in such matters neither better nor worse than the
other great Bohemian nobles of his time.
Where he indeed differed from many of them was in his taste for
literature and art. The Rosenbergs had at all times taken much
interest in the archives of their family, and indeed preserved them
so carefully that most of these documents are even now in a state
of perfect preservation. Palacký, who examined them in the present
century, witnesses to this, as well as to their great importance for
the history of Bohemia, in which the Lords of Rosenberg played so large
a part. Peter showed the same interest in the family archives as his
predecessors. When selling one of his castles to the Emperor Rudolph
II., he stipulated that he should retain possession of one thousand
documents which he considered of historical value. In printed works
also Lord Peter's interest was great. As early as in 1573, twenty
years before he acceded to the family estates, Peter had collected 243
printed volumes. Březan, who had charge of Lord Peter's library, and
was authorised to enlarge it, tells us that it was from this modest
beginning that the far-famed Rosenberg library sprang. Many books
were inherited from Lord William, and many purchased from monasteries
and elsewhere. The library at last became a very extensive one. The
Rosenberg library, in consequence of the events of the Thirty Years'
War, eventually found its way to Stockholm, where Březan's catalogue of
the library is also still preserved. Peter of Rosenberg is notable also
as a patron of literature, and, among others, the poet Lomnický[127]
enjoyed his protection for many years. Lomnický showed his gratitude by
writing on the death of Peter of Rosenberg perhaps his one touching
and heartfelt poem. That Peter was, like his brother, interested in
alchemy, hardly requires mention, for almost all the great Bohemian
nobles then followed the example of Rudolph, their sovereign, who
delighted in the study of alchemy.
Peter's interest in music was also very great. Even before inheriting
Wittingau from his brother William, he had established a small
orchestra at Běychin, and he afterwards devoted much time and expense
to the improvement and aggrandisement of the magnificent orchestra
which Lord William had founded at Wittingau. Březan, in his biographies
of both brothers, gives an interesting account of the cultivation of
music in Bohemia in the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth
century. Lord Peter also undoubtedly showed a considerable amount of
interest in other arts. In Březan's biography, written in chronological
order, we read under "December 19, 1598.--The Lord of Hradec sent our
sovereign lord (Lord Peter) eighteen pretty painted figures, very
poetical, and representing Venus."
In Bohemian politics Peter of Rosenberg played a very important
part, and his change of creed appeared as an event of the greatest
importance on the ever-varying stage of Bohemian political life.
Peter of Rosenberg was on terms of intimacy with Christian of Anhalt,
perhaps the greatest statesman of the seventeenth century. He acted as
Anhalt's representative in Bohemia, and was no doubt initiated into
his far-reaching plans. Anhalt, as recent research has sufficiently
proved, intended to use the dissensions between Rudolph and his brother
Matthew for the purpose of totally destroying the power of the House
of Habsburg. On these and similar subjects of the greatest interest
Březan has little or no information to give, and his biography, as
already stated, is disappointing.
The book, written in chronological order, contains accounts of Lord
Peter's travels, but here, too, a mere outline of the occurrences is
given. When mentioning Peter's journey to England, Březan merely tells
us (under February 1563) that "after Lord Peter had been received in
England with Christian kindness by her royal majesty Queen Elizabeth,
and had then been kindly and graciously dismissed, her majesty was
graciously pleased to grant him a royal decree addressed to all her
officials and to those of all the towns." Březan then gives the full
wording of this passport, if we may thus call it, in which Lord Peter
is described as "one of the chamberlains of our good brother the King
of the Romans."
Březan devotes much space to detailed accounts of the domestic
arrangements at the castle of Wittingau, and his book is a treasury for
those who would study the social condition of Bohemia at this period.
Březan's style has little grace, partly no doubt in consequence of
the chronological form which he has given to his book. The following
portrait of Lord Peter of Rosenberg is a characteristic specimen of
Březan's style: "Lord Peter's motto was 'In silentio et in spe.' It
should be mentioned that this lord, for the purpose of living wisely,
prudently, and in a way that beseems a Christian, and also that he
might constantly remember death, always had a death's head placed on a
board over the table in his apartment. He even founded an association,
the device of which was a golden death's-head of the value of eight
ducats. This badge he himself usually wore round his neck. It had on
one side the inscription, 'Memento mori,' and on the other, 'Cogita
æternitatem.' And this order he distributed among his friends, both
lords and ladies, and he ordered me to keep a special register, where
the names of these persons were entered."
"He was a nobleman of well-shaped figure, and more refined than his
brother William. His features were charming, his manners dignified
and truly princely, his speech was sensible, he was compassionate and
affable, and though he was sometimes angry, whenever he had scolded or
cursed some one he always afterwards excused himself with mild words.
He was a gay and jocose nobleman, though in his old age he gave himself
up entirely to piety, read religious books with pleasure, and listened
eagerly to the word of God. He was keen for all novelties, a lover
of all sciences and arts, and he spent large sums on them. He had a
special fancy and predilection for building, and in this resembled his
brother William. He was in the habit of standing oftener than sitting,
and of walking constantly, and so quickly that it was difficult even
for young men to keep up with him. By a bequest in his will he provided
for the maids of the woman-apartments, and freed them (from bondage),
ordering that each should receive a sum of gold as a present; and as
trustees for this bequest he appointed Albert Pauzar of Michnic and
Volesná, Henry Caslav of Podol, and Frederick Frokštejn of Naceslavic,
his servants and courtiers."
"He was a very valorous nobleman, courageous and even somewhat
venturesome; for he boldly approached wild beasts, bears, wolves,
horses, and dogs without feeling any fear. And, on the whole, I do
not know that anything was wanting in this heroic personage, except
that which he himself deplored on his death-bed, that he had not
sufficiently cultivated the study of literature."
Peter of Rosenberg died in 1611, only a few years before the momentous
events which so completely changed the destinies of his country.
It is a natural and easy transition from Peter of Rosenberg to another
great Bohemian nobleman, Charles of Žerotin, who indeed was often
politically associated with Rosenberg, particularly during the contest
between King Rudolph II. and his brother Matthew, which occurred in
the early years of the seventeenth century. Žerotin was, it is true, a
maker rather than a writer of history. On two occasions, in 1608 when
Rudolph was contending with his treacherous younger brother Matthew,
and in 1619, when Frederick of the Palatinate attempted to oust the
house of Habsburg from the Bohemian throne, Žerotin's attitude to
a great extent decided the fate of his country. Žerotin's numerous
writings may also be considered materials for history rather than
historical works. Yet no outline of Bohemian literature would be
complete were the name of Žerotin omitted.
CHARLES OF ŽEROTIN was born in 1564 at Brandeis, on the Adler, one
of the Bohemian estates of his powerful family. Like many Bohemian
noblemen of this period, Charles spent a considerable part of his youth
in foreign countries, both as a student and as a soldier. At Genoa he
fell under the influence of the Calvinist divine Theodore de Beza, but
he never (as has been stated) abandoned for Calvinism the Church of the
Bohemian Brethren, to which his family had belonged from the time that
the Brotherhood had been founded. His writings as well as his political
career prove that he was a faithful adherent of that community, of
which he was one of the most illustrious members.
In the year 1591 he took service under Henry IV. of France, whom all
Protestants then recognised as their leader. Žerotin's correspondence,
which is very extensive, is particularly interesting when he refers
to this period of his life.[128] He appears to have felt very little
sympathy for the French prince, to have distrusted him, and almost
to have foreseen his conversion to the Church of Rome. Žerotin,
whose motives were always disinterested and elevated though often
unpractical, could not have felt much sympathy for an "opportunist."
Žerotin's later life was spent almost entirely in Bohemia and Moravia,
the countries where his ancestral estates were situated. He favoured
the cause of the Archduke Matthew against King Rudolph in 1609, and in
1618 was one of the few Protestant noblemen who remained faithful to
the House of Habsburg. As reward for his fidelity, he was allowed to
remain in his country after the battle of the White Mountain, when most
Protestants had already been expelled. He was even able to afford aid
and shelter to many other members of the Brotherhood. Among these was
Komenský. He sought refuge at Brandeis, and wrote there his _Labyrinth_
_of the World_, which was dedicated to Žerotin.
The increasing persecution of all who did not belong to the Church of
Rome finally induced Žerotin to leave Bohemia and Moravia and to retire
to Breslau. It was here that he spent the last years of his life, and
he left his extensive library to that city. Žerotin was, however,
still permitted to visit occasionally his extensive estates. During
one of these visits he died at Prerov in Moravia in 1636. His body was
interred at Brandeis on the Adler, his ancestral home.
Žerotin has left voluminous writings. His correspondence, to which I
have already alluded, was very extensive. Continued, as it was, during
the whole of his life, it is, of course, of the greatest value for the
history of his time, Žerotin has also left several volumes of memoirs,
referring principally to the doings of the Diet of Moravia during
the period that he presided over that assembly. He also wrote a very
curious work entitled _Obrana_ or _Apology_, addressed to George, Lord
of Hodic. It appears that Hodic had blamed Žerotin publicly for having
temporarily retired from political life. This work, written in a pure
but eloquent manner, showing traces of profound study of the classical
writers, is a recognised masterpiece of Bohemian prose. The original
great reluctance of the members of the Brotherhood to enter the stormy
arena of political life had indeed decreased since many nobles and
other influential persons had joined their Church, but traces of this
feeling appear in Žerotin's work. He writes: "You were pleased, my
Lord of Hodic, to remark of me at the meeting of the Estates that
'I act wrongly in stifling the gifts which God has given to me.' By
these words--few and quickly spoken, yet containing much meaning--you
were pleased to attack me sharply and to deal me a severe blow; for
what else is stifling God's gift but refusing to remain in that state
in which God has placed us? And what, again, is not remaining in the
state in which God has placed us but not being as I should be? What
conclusion then can be drawn other than that if I am not as I should
be, then--though I declare that I am a lover of my country, her
true son, an own limb of her body, sharing her wounds--in fact, her
twin-brother, who was born with her and will die with her--my pride
is idle and my word worthless if my acts are not in accordance with my
sentiments. Idle indeed would it be if I could bring nothing forward
and give no proof that I am what I say that I am. Then indeed your
argument would be powerful and your words conform to truth and justice,
and I myself should then agree with them. For it is my firm conviction
that no man is good but he who by his deeds proves that he is good.
"But I--deign to excuse me--have given no cause for your judgment on
me. That my manner is somewhat different from what it was some time
ago, and that I do not labour so assiduously for the welfare of my
country as I did some time back, that is no proof that I have lost and
abandoned all my innate love and affection for it. As the sun does not
cease to be the sun when for a moment it sets in the midst of clouds,
and as a fire does not lose its heat if it does not immediately pierce
through cold tiles, and as a field also must not be considered barren
when for a time it lies fallow, and so to speak rests; so I also ought
not and should not be declared wanting in the love and care for my
country which it is my duty to have, because I do not try my skill on
every course (=take part in every political contest).
"For as prudent sailors are carried, when the sea is calm, here and
there and catch the wind in their sails, and then, when a storm arises,
and for a time drives them from their straight course, they yet remain
out at sea and guard themselves as best they can with the compass till
a more favourable wind guides them to their destined port; thus I also
avoid the present evil times and their difficulties, and conceal myself
from the storm as under a roof till more convenient times arise."
Žerotin has here in beautiful words expressed thoughts that almost
condemn him as a statesman. It is true that shortly after the
publication of the _Obrana_ he appeared more prominently on the
political scene than at any other time during the struggle between King
Rudolph and his brother Matthew; but during the far more momentous
struggle of the last years of Bohemian independence (1618-1620) Žerotin
as far as was possible chose the part of the prudent mariner, but the
port which he finally reached was exile!
Before mentioning the latest historians of this period, I must notice
a considerable number of accounts of travels, books which are closely
connected with history. The Bohemians were great travellers in those
days, and a considerable number of them have recorded their journeys
and adventures. I have already referred to John of Lobkovic when
dealing with his more celebrated brother Bohnslav,[129] and the travels
of Žerotin and Rosenberg have also been already mentioned. Of other
records of travel, it will be sufficient to mention those of Prefat,
Vratislav, and Harant of Polžic. Ulrick Prefat of Vlkanov, a citizen
of Prague, undertook in 1546 a journey to Venice and Palestine, of
which he has left us an interesting account. His descriptions of the
Holy Land are, however, inferior to those of Harant, written somewhat
later. VENCESLAS VRATISLAV of Mitrovic, born (1576) of a Roman Catholic
family, was educated by the Jesuits, and had from his earliest youth a
strong desire to visit distant lands. When not yet eighteen years of
age he obtained permission to join the staff of Baron Krekvic, whom the
Emperor Rudolph was sending as ambassador to Constantinople. He has
left us a record of his journey and imprisonment;[130] for the Turks
of that period had little regard for international law and diplomatic
privileges. Vratislav's book has a certain youthful grace and
simplicity, and he was by no means devoid of the gift of observation.
Vratislav, on his return to Bohemia, published in 1599 the description
of his travels and adventures. He afterwards, not unnaturally, took
part in several campaigns against his old enemies, the Turks. Educated
by the Jesuits and a staunch Romanist, he was, of course, on the side
of the Archduke Ferdinand during the Bohemian troubles of 1618 to 1620.
Far more interesting as an author, and far more representative of his
time than the two last-named writers, is CHRISTOPHER HARANT, Lord of
Polžic and Bezdruzic. It is therefore perhaps not amiss to study his
work and his life somewhat more in detail. Harant was born in 1564,
of an ancient knightly family of Bohemia. He received the thorough
education and literary training which was then customary with many of
the Bohemian noble families. Harant, we are told, possessed a thorough
knowledge of Greek, Latin, German, Italian, Spanish, as well as, of
course, his own language. It has even been said that it was out of
patriotism that he published his celebrated book of travels in Bohemian
instead of in German, though that would, of course, have secured for
the book far more numerous readers. Harant's classical erudition was
considered extensive even at that period, when in Bohemia the almost
superstitious veneration for the great writers of Rome and Greece was
at its height. Harant's own list of his authorities includes almost
all known writers, both Greek and Latin, from Homer and Herodotus to
Statius and Claudianus. Later Latin writers, such as Gregory of Tours
and Orosius, are also quoted by Harant; his vast erudition included
even Byzantine writers such as Suidas, Zonaras, and Chalkokondylas.
More recent works, such as the writings of Guicciardini, were also well
known to Harant; he quotes even from such (now) little known works as
the French histories of Du Tillet and Bernard de Girard, and the _Res
Burgundicæ_ and _Res Austriacæ_ of Pontus Heuterus. Harant's education
was completed at the court of the Archduke Ferdinand at Innsbruck.
When referring to his passage through Innsbruck on his way to Venice,
Harant gives an interesting account of his stay at the archducal
court. The years 1591 to 1597 were spent by Harant in the service of
the Emperor Rudolph, who, in his capacity of King of Bohemia, had
demanded aid from that country in his wars against the Turks. Harant
appears greatly to have distinguished himself in these campaigns, and
we are told that Rudolph, in consideration of his services, granted
him an annuity chargeable on the Bohemian revenue. Harant's campaigns
in Hungary (a large part of which country was then under Turkish
rule) may have suggested to him the idea of visiting countries yet
farther east. He tells us in his preface to his book of travels that
he wished "to see those countries which were the scene of the holiest,
wisest, and most celebrated events mentioned in the Old and in the New
Testament ... those lands which were once an earthly paradise. These
lands," he continues, "I purposed to visit with special ardour and with
great danger for my life, and I set out with God's help." A family
bereavement--Harant's first wife died in 1597--probably confirmed him
in his decision, and he started from Pilsen in April 1598 on his long
and perilous journey, accompanied by his friend Herman Cěrnin, Lord of
Chudenic, and only one servant.
Harant's account of this journey, published as _Christopher Harant's
Journey to Venice, and thence to the Holy Land and to Egypt_,[131]
has assured to the author a not inconsiderable place in the annals
of Bohemian literature. Harant undoubtedly possessed the gift of
observation to an unusual extent, and his descriptions of the scenery
he viewed and the men he met are often very vivid. Though the book is
generally written in a grave and somewhat pedantic manner, yet some
passages show that Harant was by no means devoid of humour. The work
has, however, the fault of being somewhat long-winded, and Harant is
too fond of lengthy historical digressions, introduced for the purpose
of exhibiting his learning. This is particularly true of the part of
the book which deals with Harant's visit to Egypt. He here introduces a
lengthy treatise on the early dynasties of Egyptian rulers, which is,
of course, valueless from the point of view of modern research. Harant
was very fond, almost too fond, of quoting; yet his quotations, chosen
from many writers in various languages, are often quaint and amusing,
and remind the reader of Montaigne. On the whole, Harant's work is one
of those ancient Bohemian books that can still be read with amusement
as well as interest.
From Pilsen, Harant and his companions travelled through Tyrol to
Venice, where they stayed some time. The indefatigable Harant studied
not only the monuments, but also the constitution of Venice, which he
greatly admired. The Venetian constitution in many ways resembled that
which Harant and his party wished to establish in Bohemia, and he gives
a full account of it, "as an example for us and for our benefit," as
he writes. Harant and his friend were obliged to remain some time in
Venice before they found other pilgrims to the Holy Land, with whom
they jointly chartered a ship to Jaffa. Among these new companions
was "Lambert the Dutchman," who appears to have been a constant cause
alternately of indignation and of amusement to the other travellers.
On leaving Venice the pilgrims sailed along the coast of Dalmatia, and
by way of the Ionian Islands, Candia, and Cyprus, finally reached the
harbour of Jaffa. From here they proceeded to Jerusalem. Harant thus
describes their arrival there:--
"When we had arrived within four Bohemian miles of Jerusalem, we
noticed everywhere the industry of the Jews and former inhabitants of
the land; for they had laid out all those hills in vineyards, gardens,
and fields, though they are now deserted and overgrown with thorns,
yet the traces of the former divisions of the fields by means of low
wells and small steps still remain; we can thus know how full of cities
this land was; and on this short journey we remarked the astonishing
laziness of the present inhabitants, of whom the country now feeds
about ten to a thousand formerly. Yet the northern side of the hill has
remained tolerably fertile in vineyards, olives, figs, pomegranates,
and other fruits.
"When we were about two miles from Jerusalem the dragoman[132] from
that town came out on purpose to meet us; for our dragoman from Rama
had hurried on, leaving us behind, and had informed the guardian of
the monastery (of St. Salvador) and the other dragoman of our arrival.
"With the guardian the _vicarius_ of the monastery also appeared, and
when they came near us they greeted us in Italian and asked us many
questions; for instance, from where we came, how we had fared on our
journey, and what had happened during our travels in our own country
and the lands through which we had passed. And thus continuing our
conversation we arrived at the gates of the city of Jerusalem about
vesper-time. Our whole journey from Venice to Jerusalem had lasted
forty-four days; we had then travelled 458 Bohemian miles from Venice
and 582 from Bohemia, both by land and by sea."
Harant and his companions spent a fortnight at Jerusalem as guests of
the monks of the Monastery of St. Salvador, and he gives a detailed
account of their visits to the historical spots in the city and
neighbourhood. Harant's description of his visit to the Chapel of the
Holy Sepulchre is interesting. He writes: "When we approached these
Turks (there were eight altogether, some of whom sat on stone benches
covered with carpets, which since ancient times have been placed beside
the gates of the church), one of them came forward with the keys and
opened the locked gates of the church; then they immediately let us
into the church one by one, counting us till they had got us all in
line, then they hastily closed the gates and sealed them; there are
two gates, one next to the other, made of fine marble, on which costly
figures are carved. That gate which opens on the right into the church
is walled up, but the other one opens by halves, and in the lower half
there is a gap or window through which one can see into the court, and
from the court into the church. And having entered the church, we next
arrived before the chapel or cell in which is the grave of our Lord,
and then we all immediately knelt down piously. But Master Antonio
Donato (one of Harant's fellow-travellers) fell to the ground heavily
as soon as he entered the chapel, just as if he had fainted, and we,
seeing this, were greatly frightened, for we knew of no other cause
of his fall except his great religious ardour; but he soon recovered,
and, after he had recited some prayers, he rose together with us. The
guardian then put on his vestments ... and first led us to a cupboard
in the wall, similar to a blind window. There we saw a portion of a
pillar of stone similar to marble; to this column the holy body of
Christ was bound while he allowed himself to be scourged and cruelly
flogged in the house of Pilate. This portion of the column is three
spans in length, and the breadth is somewhat greater; it stands behind
a very thick iron trellis fastened to the wall. There is a small window
opposite, which opens with a lock, and before the pillar there always
hangs a lamp, which continually glistens and burns. At this spot we
began to sing the hymn--
'_Eia Fratres Charissimi Christe_
_Christi mortis mysteria_
_Canamus_,' &c."
Of all other memorable sites in Jerusalem itself, as well as of those
at Bethlehem, Jericho, and elsewhere, Harant gives equally detailed and
accurate accounts; his book is indeed still of value for the topography
of Palestine. Harant also gives a very curious description of the city
of Jerusalem as he himself saw it. He writes: "In the town of Jerusalem
there are some streets that are vaulted over, and in some of these
shopkeepers, Christians, Jews, and Turks, in others tradesmen such as
shoemakers and weavers, and yet in others cooks have vaulted stalls,
just like the booths in the old town of Prague.... The houses in the
town are mostly tolerably solid; the greater part are without roof,
and have only terraces; others have vaulted roofs. A third part of
the houses in the town are deserted and in ruins. There are many open
spaces, and they occupy a third part of the city. Of wood there is very
little in the buildings, indeed there is less in the whole town than
in some houses at Prague; the town is therefore very safe from fires.
Its size is about that of Kuttenberg (Kutna Hora) here in the Bohemian
land."
Harant's account of the different Christian communities, the members
of which then visited Palestine, and who had religious foundations
there, are still of the greatest interest. He enumerates, "besides
the Latin, that is to say, Roman Catholic Christians, many other
sects, Christians belonging to various nationalities, such as Greeks,
Armenians, Georgians, Syrians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Abyssinians,
Maronites, and others." In the Greeks, Harant, as a lover of classical
antiquity, naturally took far greater interest than in the adherents of
the other churches which he enumerates. Harant's chapter on the Greeks
is written with interesting and very evident enthusiasm. "The Greek
nation," he tells us, "was in former days far superior to all others in
matters of government and politics. Among them first arose lawgivers,
from whom others, took and acquired the true rules of government.
Among them (the Greeks) were wise men, 'sapientes Græciæ,' famous
all over the world, and the most learned of men in all sciences; they
first of all discovered botany and medical science; they divided time
by months and years. Arithmetic, geometry, physics, ethics, and other
kinds of philosophy they improved and advanced; they then faithfully
and carefully preserved all these things, so that they were called the
mother and origin of all literary and other free arts; and thus they
were superior to all other nations.
"Besides this, for many centuries they knew neither kingly nor
monarchical rule; they governed themselves according to their own
constitutions, some in a democratic, others in an aristocratic manner
(what the latter was I have explained in my description of Venice);
therefore all the neighbouring kings in every direction were their
mortal enemies, whom they had to encounter in many great wars."
From Palestine the travellers proceeded to Egypt, embarking at Gaza
for Damietta, then the principal seaport of Egypt. The sea-voyage was
tedious and unpleasant. Harant (from whose mind Bohemia was hardly
ever absent) described the passengers who embarked with him and his
companions as a "Senftenberg rabble."[133]
After a short stay in Egypt, Harant and his companions returned to
Venice, and thence to their own country. In 1608 he published, on the
request of his friends, the graphic description of his travels, which
fortunately has been preserved. Harant appears to have enjoyed great
favour with King Rudolph, who raised him to the rank of a noble.
Harant had hitherto belonged to the "estate" of the knights. Somewhat
later, Harant, who had been brought up as a Romanist, joined the
Utraquist or Calixtine Church, probably mainly from political motives.
Harant was a zealous partisan of the ancient Bohemian constitution and
of the national language. The Jesuits, then the most prominent leaders
of the Roman party in Bohemia, well knew that it would only be possible
to destroy the old Church of Hus and to re-establish Romanism if the
ancient constitution were suppressed, and the Bohemian language and
literature also, as far as possible, destroyed.
In the stirring events of the last years of Bohemian independence
(1618-1620) Harant played a very prominent part. He commanded the
artillery of the Bohemian army which, under Count Thurn, invaded
Austria and besieged Vienna in 1619; it is stated that he ordered
his gunners to point their cannon against the windows of the palace
(Burg) in Vienna in which the Emperor Ferdinand had taken refuge. This
probably caused Harant to be singled out as one of those Bohemian
nobles to whom the severest punishment was awarded, and in fact
sealed his fate. During the short reign of King Frederick, Harant
held high office, and when the battle of the White Mountain ended
that prince's short reign, he sought refuge in his castle of Pecka.
He was there taken prisoner by the Austrian troops in March 1621. It
is characteristic of the man that on the day when the troops arrived
he should, when, on his leaving his castle for an early walk, a gust
of wind blew off his hat, have remarked: "If I were a Roman, I should
immediately turn back and not stir a step from the house to-day."
Harant was one of the Bohemian leaders who were decapitated on June
21, 1621. I have quoted[134] Skála ze Zhoře's account of his last
moments.
Of the latest historians of this period, PAUL SKÁLA ZE ZHOŘE is
certainly the most important. Palacký has called him "not only the
most voluminous, but also the most valuable historian of Bohemia;"
he might perhaps have been considered the foremost historian of his
country before the present century, since which time that rank belongs
uncontestedly to Palacký himself. I cannot formulate my opinion of
Skála more accurately than I did some years ago, when I wrote: "Skála's
description of the turbulent scenes on the Hradčin on the day of the
defenestration, and the truly pathetic account of the last hours
and execution of the Bohemian leaders in 1621, are masterpieces of
historical writing. I may confidently say that they would do credit to
the literature of a larger and better known country than Bohemia."
Paul Skála ze Zhoře, born in 1583, belonged, like Bartoš and Sixt, to
the "estate" of the citizens or townsmen. He was educated at the then
very celebrated Protestant university of Wittenberg, and his life and
writings both prove that he was a staunch adherent of the Protestant
faith. He was for some time employed in the municipal offices of the
town of Saaz (or Žátec), and he held a Government appointment at
Prague during the Provisional Government of 1618 and the short reign
of Frederick of the Palatinate. He was an eye-witness of some of the
events of that memorable period. He left Bohemia after the battle of
the White Mountain and the flight of King Frederick, at whose court he
remained during the first years of his exile. He afterwards settled at
Freiberg in Saxony, not very far from the frontier of Bohemia, to which
country many of the exiles still hoped once more to return.
It was here that Skála undertook his great historical works. He first
wrote a _Chronology of the Church_. This book is a mere compilation of
dates, including some that are of a very fantastic character. Skála
counts 1656 years from the creation of the world to the deluge, and
1717 thence to the foundation of the first Chaldæan monarchy. This book
seems only to have been intended to be a preparation for his great
historical work, the _Historie Cirkevni_ ("History of the Church"),
a book which, in spite of its title, deals as much with political as
with ecclesiastical matters. This colossal work is preserved in MS. in
ten enormous volumes (the largest contains 1700 pages, the others but
little fewer) in the library of Count Waldstein at Dux. The part of the
book that refers to the Bohemian events of the years 1602 to 1623 has
been edited and published by Dr. Tieftrunk in two large volumes. It is,
of course, the most interesting part of the enormous work, as Skála
here writes as a contemporary, and sometimes as an eye-witness.
Skála of course writes as a staunch Protestant and an enemy of the
absolutist party. No Bohemian historian of this period, as I have
already remarked, was without a strong political and theological bias;
yet Skála tells us at the beginning of his account of the Bohemian
movement of 1618: "I have not the intention, either here or in any part
of my narrative, of writing anything whatever under the inspiration
of partiality or of good-will or ill-will towards this party or that.
Neither will I personally endorse the praise or blame which others
have expressed. I only state those various facts which I have found in
other authors' writings (printed or in manuscript) which are conform to
truth. Judgment I leave to prudent, truth-loving men, who have a more
profound knowledge of these events than I, in my exile, have been able
to obtain." These statements, written to prove Skála's impartiality,
are not entirely correct, or at least apply only to the years after
1620, when Skála, an exile from Bohemia, had to rely on the authority
of others. Of previous events he frequently writes as an eye-witness.
Thus, when referring to the removal of the altars and paintings from
the cathedral-church of St. Vitus at Prague in 1619, Skála writes:
"Though I and other officials were working in the neighbouring state
offices between one and two o'clock, we heard nothing of what was
happening in the royal church (St. Vitus); only next morning, when I
entered the church, I saw that the pictures had been removed."
Skála gives a very able account of the ancient Bohemian constitution,
of which he writes as a fervent admirer. He then states what in his
opinion was the cause of the destruction of that constitution. "The
Bohemian nation," he writes, "has indeed this peculiarity, that it can
endure neither complete tyranny nor complete liberty unfettered by
law. And as the Bohemians defended their ancient liberties with such
true zeal, they might have been happier than other nations had they
but at home maintained sincere concord among themselves. I doubt that
any one would have been able to overcome them by force of arms if they
had been bound together by the bond of patriotic mutual confidence;
but in consequence of religious differences, great discord reigned
among them, and therefore mutual distrust. One section, which conformed
to the Church of Rome, assumed the name of Catholics or communicants
in one kind. The other section, which loved to worship and serve God
according to the definitions and rules of the Holy Scripture, and not
according to the fancies of men, are called communicants under both
kinds (Utraquists), or Evangelicals or Hussites, from the name of
their teacher, that true martyr for Christ, John Hus, or 'of Husinec,'
who in his time re-established pure doctrine in the Bohemian land,
and from the darkness of Papacy raised it to light.... Many years ago
regulations, which the Bohemians obtained by the bravery with which
they defended God's truth, stipulated that nobody who did not receive
the flesh and blood of our Lord Christ in both kinds should occupy
the offices of the state and of the towns.... Thus almost all men
acknowledged the salutary doctrine that man is redeemed by his faith
in Christ and through His holy merit, and that he thus obtains eternal
salvation."
But afterwards Skála says: "The Jesuits endeavoured, with all their
might, to disseminate among imprudent young men, whose confidence they
obtained by flattery, not only the teaching of the Roman school, but
also hatred against the National Church and contempt for the glorious
rights, regulations, and constitutions of the land; and thus they
strove to form them according to their own will; but yet more they
approached with flattery the highest officials and judges of the land
also, as well as some of the greatest lords; and then, when they had
inspired them with their own Jesuitical spirit, then, as if they had
been soulless bodies, possessing neither reason nor common-sense, they
ruled them according to their own will ... and they thus obtained that
all real strength and ruling power was concentrated in them (_i.e._
the Jesuits), though the name and appearance of power and political
importance was retained by the officials. Then only the Roman religion,
which had almost died out in Bohemia, seemed suddenly to bloom again
and to recover its power. On the other hand, the respect for the
royal majesty constantly decreased; the kingdom, hitherto peaceful,
became turbulent and seditious; the estates not only differed among
themselves, but were also irritated against the king their lord, when
under cover, and in the name of the royal majesty, evil and turbulent
men artfully carried out their knavish plans and endeavours; in fact,
every sort of licentiousness appeared openly and without restraint
among the people."
But of greater interest than any other part of Skála's book are the
pages that deal with the closing days of Bohemian independence. In
writing of the tragedy that opened with the defenestration in 1618,
and ended with the executions at Prague in June 1621, Skála is always
graphic and often pathetic.
I shall quote a short portion of Skála's account of the events that
mark the beginning and the close of the Bohemian movement.
In his account of the defenestration Skála writes: "... Then Joaquin,
Count Schlick, ardently and with tears in his eyes, for he was a true
and zealous follower of the religion, addressed the assembly and
violently attacked Martinic and Slavata.[135] He reminded them of the
wrongs which they had inflicted both on Utraquists individually and
on the whole Evangelical Church, and of how they had dealt with them
according to the suggestions of those malicious teachers of theirs, the
members of the sect of the Jesuits. He said that they had unlawfully
attempted to deprive the Protestants of their offices, and that they
had given proof of this when they deprived that noble Bohemian hero,
Count Thurn, of his office as burgrave of the Karlstein, which office
the Lord of Smečno (Martinic) had usurped; he had done this contrary to
the constitution of the land. For who had ever heard that in Bohemia
officials could be dismissed and offices redistributed without the
consent of the Diet and a vote of the three Estates? 'But you,' he
said, 'worthless disciples of the Jesuits, you with your followers and
little secretaries,[136] you have dared to take it on yourselves to do
this, not knowing how otherwise to harm us and to disparage our party.
But you shall learn that we are not old women'--and here he snapped his
fingers at them--'and that we shall not allow you to deceive us. For we
consider you as of rank equal to our own, but we recognise his Majesty
as our most gracious lord, and being now well satisfied with him,
we shall undertake nothing against his Majesty. As long as old men,
honest and wise, governed this kingdom, everything went well in it; but
since you, disciples of the Jesuits, have pushed yourselves forward,
the contrary has been the case. You will not be able to take from us
the privileges which God has given us and our gracious sovereign has
confirmed; we will not till we are conquered consent to this.'"
The indignation of Count Schlick and his intense excitement, which
render his speech at times incoherent, appear very clearly from Skála's
account. The various opinions of the nobles assembled in council are
very clearly and minutely set forth.
I have only space for the final passage: "Then while he (Kinsky) still
wished to continue his speech, Count Thurn quickly approached Slavata
and seized him by the hand, while Ulrick Kinsky seized Martinic--but
many nobles did not yet know what would be done with them, whether they
would be thrown into a dungeon or merely put under arrest; then they
(Thurn and Kinsky) led them right through the crowd of nobles; and only
then did every one know that they would be thrown from the windows.
They also now understood that the Estates were not jesting with them,
though in consequence of their haughtiness and obstinacy they had as
yet spoken to no one; they now began to entreat that their lives be
spared; wringing their hands and invoking the name of God, they strove
to keep their feet on the ground and begged for mercy.
"The Lord of Smečno mournfully entreated that he might be granted a
confessor; he received the short answer that he should commend his soul
to God. Slavata did not ask for a confessor, but prayed to the Lord to
be with him.
"But no mercy was granted them, and first the Lord of Smečno was
dragged to that window near which the secretaries generally worked, for
Kinsky was quicker and had more aid than Count Thurn, who had first
seized Slavata. Then they were both thrown, dressed in their cloaks
and with their rapiers and decorations, just as they had been found
in the Chancellor's office, one after the other head foremost out of
the westward window into the moat beneath the palace, which by a wall
is separated from the other deeper moat. They loudly screamed, 'Ach,
ach, ouvé,' and attempted to hold on to the window-frame, but were at
last obliged to let go, as they were struck on the hands. They were
thus punished for having been unworthy of their offices and positions,
which they had not sufficiently valued, and had indeed used to the
detriment of His Imperial Majesty and to the ruin of their country;
and this, said the Estates in their larger apology, was done according
to ancient precedents in the Bohemian kingdom and in the city of
Prague, and following the example of that which was done to Jezebel,
the tormentor of the Israelite people, and also that of the Romans
and other celebrated nations, who were in the habit of throwing from
rocks and other elevated places those who disturbed the peace of the
commonwealth."
As already stated, the part of Skála's enormous work which is of
general interest ends with the execution of the Bohemian leaders,
which took place at Prague on June 21, 1621. Skála had fled from his
country immediately after the battle of the White Mountain, and thus
undoubtedly escaped sharing the fate of those whose last moments he has
so graphically described. He had therefore to rely on the information
from Bohemia that reached him in his exile at Freiberg. He tells
us, however, that he has "given word by word the narrative of three
clergymen who were with the prisoners to the end and prepared them for
the violent and, in the eyes of the world, dishonourable death that
awaited them." Here also I can only give a short extract from Skála's
very lengthy account. He writes: "Then the imperial executioners
appeared before the lords, saying that the hour of death had come, that
they should be ready, and that each one whose name was called should
come out (of the prison). Immediately afterwards the judges entered the
prison and called out the name of Count Schlick. With them arrived
four German priests, and when they had descended the steps, two Jesuits
stood there, one of whom was called Sudetius. He said to the Count,
'Domine Comes recordare adhuc.' But the Count answered sharply, 'Jam me
facias missum.'
"After him they called out the name of Venceslas of Budova. He took no
clergyman with him.
"Meanwhile Harant of Polžic sent for John the clergyman, asking him to
come, as it would soon be his turn.... Then Lord Harant said, sighing,
'O my dear God, through how many lands have I travelled, how many
dangers have I encountered, for how many days have I not seen bread;
once I have been buried in the sands. From all these perils God has
rescued me, and now I must die guiltless in my own dear land. Forgive
my enemies, O my dear Lord,' Then they called out his name, and he
started for that mournful stage and slaughterhouse of Antichrist.[137]
"But this is worthy of notice, that when one of these holy men
and martyrs for God's cause was called forth, then to our great
astonishment a leave-taking occurred in a pleasant manner, which
rejoiced our hearts, just as if they were preparing to go to a banquet
or some pastime. 'Now, my dear friends, may our Lord God bless you, may
He grant you the consolations of the Holy Ghost, patience and courage,
so that you may be able to prove, now also in the moment of your death,
that you have heartily and bravely defended the honour of God. I go
before you that I may first see the glory of God, the glory of our
beloved Redeemer, but I await you directly after me; already in this
hour earthly grief vanishes, and a new heartfelt and eternal gladness
begins.' The other prisoners who remained behind answered, 'May our
Lord God bless you on your way for the sake of the guiltless death of
Christ; may He send His holy angels to meet your soul. You go before
us to the glory of heaven. We also will follow you, and we are certain
because of Him in whom we have believed, Jesus Christ, that we shall
all meet again to-day and rejoice for ever with our beloved Redeemer,
the angels, and the chosen of God. '... But let us return to the
account of the last journey and the words of the dying. When leaving
the prison-room Harant said, 'In thee, my God, I have believed since my
youth; do not let me be disgraced for all ages.' Meanwhile, John the
clergyman was saying prayers till they reached the place of execution,
then Harant said, lifting his eyes heavenwards, 'Into your hands, Lord
Jesus Christ, I commend my soul.' He then took off his cloak, and
then again prayed, 'In you, O God, I have believed since my youth,
and therefore I now and ever believe and feel certain that, in memory
of the shameful death of your Son and my Redeemer, Jesus Christ, you
will deign to recompense me for this temporary disgrace by perpetual
glory; and therefore, O God, I commend my soul into Thy hands, for Thou
hast redeemed it. True God! Lord Jesus Christ! Son of the living God!
Receive my soul; I commend it to you, O Lord Jesus Christ.' And then he
was beheaded, and exchanged this wretched earthly life for a glorious
and heavenly one.
"And the executioner, who was himself a Utraquist, was careful not to
interrupt their prayers; and he always waited till each of them had
finished his devotions."
Of the last years of Skála we have little knowledge; the last documents
referring to him mention him as still living at Freiburg, and date from
the year 1640. It is probable that he died shortly after that time.
WILLIAM Count SLAVATA (born 1572, died 1652), contemporary of Skála,
was also a very voluminous writer. His life belongs to the political
history of Bohemia, and I shall here only allude briefly to it, because
of its close connection with the writings which Slavata has left.
Slavata's father belonged to the community of the Bohemian Brethren,
and he was himself educated in the doctrines of that Church. He
afterwards proceeded to Italy for the purpose of study. He there joined
the Roman Church, which obtained in him a most able and enthusiastic
adherent. With the proverbial zeal of a convert, he, almost alone among
the Bohemian nobles, refused to affix his signature to the celebrated
"letter of majesty," by which King Rudolph, in 1609, granted, in
agreement with the Estates, considerable rights and privileges to the
Protestants. When the weak and sickly King Matthew, during the last
years of his life, fell more and more under the influence of his heir,
Archduke Ferdinand of Styria, Slavata rapidly obtained high office. He
held the office of Lord Chief-Justice at the beginning of the Bohemian
troubles in 1618. On the memorable day of the defenestration, Slavata
was thrown from the windows of the Hradčin together with his colleague,
the burgrave of the Karlstein, Martinic, Lord of Smečno.
After the re-establishment of the Habsburg dynasty in Bohemia, Slavata
was rewarded for his fidelity by the victors. He held various important
offices of state under the Emperors Ferdinand II. and Ferdinand III.,
and was one of the most trusted councillors of both these sovereigns.
His literary work is an incidental and accidental episode in his
momentous career.
When accompanying the Emperor Ferdinand II. to Regensburg in
1636, a pamphlet written by his old antagonist, Count Thurn, came
into Slavata's hands. It dealt with the recent assassination of
Wallenstein,[138] but Thurn's pamphlet went far beyond the immediate
subject, and, in fact, contained a defence of the author's political
career. Slavata immediately resolved on refuting this work, written
by the originator of the defenestration. Though sixteen years had
passed since that event, and both Bohemian Protestantism and Bohemian
independence had been totally suppressed, the memory of his ignominious
exit from the windows of the Hradčin still rankled in Slavata's mind.
It should also be mentioned that several of his friends, his old
companion Martinic in particular, had previously urged him to write
memoirs of his time; he had, however, always declined to do so because
of the stress of public business.
Slavata's work, intended merely as a refutation of the statements
of Thurn (whose pamphlet he has in its entirety incorporated into
his book), became a historical work consisting of two volumes of
considerable size.[139] The book, entitled _Paměty_ or memoirs,
deals only with the events of the years 1618 and 1619. Founded, as
it undoubtedly is, on notes taken by Slavata at the time of the
stirring events which he relates, it has the greatest historical
value. Slavata was in correspondence with most of the leaders of the
"Catholic reformation," as the suppression of Protestantism in Bohemia
was officially designated. He has also transcribed many of the state
documents which in his official capacity were accessible to him. His
book is therefore valuable as a "Quellenwerk," and the historians who
have in the present century rewritten the history of Bohemia have
availed themselves largely of these memoirs. The whole system of the
"Catholic reformation" appears very clearly in Slavata's book. It
should be stated--though I run the risk of transgressing on the domain
of history--that in the question which immediately caused the Bohemian
movement the Protestants had the law on their side. The defenestration,
in fact, only precipitated a conflict that was in any case inevitable.
The only alternative would have been peaceful submission to the Church
of Rome, such as Ferdinand had obtained in his hereditary lands, Styria
and Carinthia.
It was, of course, Slavata's task to prove that the Protestants had
been the aggressors, and he devotes much ingenuity and more sophistry
to that task. I have before stated that in my opinion extensive
quotations are an absolute necessity when writing of a literature
such as that of Bohemia, where it may be assumed as a certainty that
almost all the works mentioned are entirely unknown to the reader.
This is, however, particularly difficult in the case of Slavata, whose
writings are distinctly and constantly controversial, and whose style
is entirely devoid of grace. I shall, as characteristic of Slavata,
translate a portion of his account of the banquet which the officials
of King Frederick gave to the Turkish ambassador on his arrival at
Prague. Slavata is as long-winded as most of his contemporaries, and
even a very condensed extract of his account may, I fear, appear
lengthy.
Slavata writes: "Some of the officers of the so-called King Frederick,
Bohemians of the Utraquist Church, gave in the evening a banquet to
the Turkish ambassador, and among them was Henry Matthew, Count Thurn.
The envoys of the Prince of Transylvania were also present, and of
others Bohuchval of Berka, master of the ceremonies; Venceslas William
of Ruppa, high chancellor; Venceslas of Budova, president of the court
of appeal; Peter Miller, vice-chancellor of the Bohemian kingdom. At
this banquet various speeches were made. There was one present who has
reported that he heard with his own ears these words that were spoken
there.
"The Turkish ambassador, holding a glass of wine in his hand, drank
it off to the health of Berka, begging him to consider him as his
son, for both alive and dead, he said, he would be an obedient son to
him. Berka gave as answer that he did not consider himself as being
worthy that the ambassador and envoy of the great and powerful Turkish
emperor should accept him as his father, he would rather wish to be
his (the ambassador's) willing servant and menial.[140] The Turkish
ambassador accepted this, and answered further, saying that he was a
Turk by birth and would die as such; he, however, firmly and certainly
thought that those who believed in Christ will be redeemed, even though
they differed in opinion among themselves. Of the Emperor Ferdinand,
however, he did not believe that he would be redeemed, for he had been
the cause that the blood of many innocent people had been shed and of
their destruction. He therefore thought that the devil would fry him on
a spit in hell. Berka then said that he hoped the Lord God would bless
his beloved lord for this pledge; no toast had ever yet pleased him
so much as this one, and his only wish was that that should happen to
the Emperor Ferdinand, the greatest enemy of the Bohemians, which the
Turkish ambassador had said; and he added, 'Amen! Amen! Amen!'
"The same Turkish envoy then exhorted the Bohemian nobles that they
should never submit to the Emperor Ferdinand; if they were not
sufficiently strong, his emperor would send 60,000 men to their aid....
Berka further said that he knew for a certainty that the Emperor
Ferdinand would willingly give 50,000 ducats so that he might obtain
his head; but that his friends would give the troops 200,000 ducats
that they might fight Ferdinand till he was totally defeated and driven
to despair. To this the Turkish ambassador answered that he would act
wisely and justly in doing so, for Ferdinand had not held his word and
promise, just as his predecessors of the House of Austria, Rudolph
and Matthew, had not kept their promises to his Majesty, the Ottoman
emperor.
"Berka then declared that the House of Austria had always been the
ruin of Bohemia, because by its false Spanish practices it had sold
the kingdom, his beloved fatherland, into perpetual servitude and made
slaves and serfs of the Bohemians. Therefore the kind Lord God would
not allow this any longer, nor permit that such tyranny and cruelty
should be practised against them; but He in His great mercy had opened
their eyes, and they had therefore taken up arms against Ferdinand
and began war against the House of Austria. And rather than succumb
to Spanish tyranny they would a thousand times rather submit to the
rule and government of the Turkish emperor, their powerful lord....
Venceslas of Budova, then president of the court of appeal, who was
attached to the Turkish ambassador as special commissioner, declared
that the lords and other members of the Estates of Bohemia belonging
to the Utraquist creed had arrived at this resolution and decision,
that they would rather be cut to pieces together with their wives
and children than submit to the rule and domination of Ferdinand, or
of any other member of the House of Austria.... Peter Miller, then
vice-chancellor of the Bohemian kingdom, said to Budova: 'My kind
lord father, we Bohemians have resolved, rather than that the Emperor
Ferdinand should be our king--and supposing that the Turkish emperor is
not able to help us sufficiently--we will seek refuge with the devil in
hell and supplicate him to help us.'
"At last Count Thurn spoke, saying that the Lord God was his witness
how truly he regretted with his whole heart that the Emperor Ferdinand
should have been spoken of in such a manner; but that Ferdinand had
been misled by listening to the counsels of the Jesuits; neither he nor
the other Bohemians were responsible for his fall; rather should he
attribute it to himself. Then Thurn ordered three small glasses of wine
and one larger glass that was empty, and said, addressing the Turkish
ambassador: 'I drink these three glasses with you, one to the health
of his Majesty the Emperor (of Turkey), one to the health of our own
most gracious King, and one to that of the Prince of Transylvania.'
And raising the three glasses he poured their contents into the large
empty glass, and then continued: 'As with wine mixed out of three
glasses it cannot be known what wine was in the first, what in the
second, and what in the third glass, and only one sort of wine appears
in this full glass, thus I begin to drink this glass full of wine in
the name of the most Holy Trinity, consisting of three persons, but one
Divinity, in the hope that these three potentates to whose health I am
drinking will be of one accord, of one heart, and of one will; so that
they may triumph over and defeat all their enemies.' Then he emptied
the full glass of wine. The Turkish ambassador answered that he had
great pleasure in emptying his glass to this toast.
"From this account and information we can understand to what evil,
heresy especially that of Calvin, leads people; yet Count Thurn in his
pamphlet attempts to prove that the Bohemians and he, their leader,
were not rebels. I do not endeavour to exaggerate the shameless
rebellion of the Bohemians of those days; for every one who has read
these lines must shudder at the speeches that were made at Count
Thurn's banquet. Nothing more shameless or wicked can be imagined; nor
is it true that his Majesty Ferdinand II. had not kept his word and
promises."
As Slavata and all his friends were then in exile, it is not very clear
to whom this highly-coloured and obviously exaggerated account of Count
Thurn's banquet should be attributed. It is possible that some traitor
may have been present who was Slavata's authority. It is, however, far
more probable that the account is founded on the report of some servant
who waited at table. In consequence of the habit of drinking freely at
banquets, which was then very prevalent in Bohemia, much political
information could be obtained by listening to the conversation at the
dinner-table. The Protestants frequently accused the Catholics of
employing servants as spies on such occasions.[141] Whatever Slavata's
authority may be, the passage describing the Bohemian leaders as
cringing in a servile fashion before the representative of the enemy of
Christianity, while displaying blind and brutal hatred of the House of
Habsburg, is a masterpiece of skilful animosity.
The composition of these memoirs seems to have inspired Slavata with a
taste for historical studies. In the last years of his life he wrote
a vast history of all the lands ruled by the House of Habsburg, from
the reign of Ferdinand I. to Slavata's own time. This book, entitled
_Historické Spisovani_ ("Historical Works"), consists of fourteen
volumes, and the earlier memoirs were incorporated with it, forming
(of course not in chronological order) volumes i. and ii. The work
includes a lengthy treatise on the long-disputed question whether the
Bohemian kingdom was an elective or a hereditary one, a question which
the battle of the White Mountain settled "by blood and iron." Slavata
here displays a considerable amount of erudition, though the arguments
founded on his accounts of the reigns of the almost entirely mythical
early Prěmyslide princes are, of course, valueless. Generally speaking,
Slavata's record of earlier events, based principally on such doubtful
authorities as Ænæas Sylvius and Hajek, do not possess the historical
value which undoubtedly belongs to his personal recollections.
Though written in Latin, Andreas ab Habernfeld's _Bellum Bohemicum_ and
Paulus Stransky's _Respublica Bojema_ should at least be mentioned,
as they belong to this period. Habernfeld, who himself took part in the
last war waged by Bohemia as an independent country, and was present at
the battle of the White Mountain, has left us a clear though prejudiced
account of the events of the years 1618 to 1620. Paulus Stransky, one
of the many Bohemian Protestants who ended their lives as exiles, has
given a short but lucid account of the ancient Bohemian constitution,
and in the same volume a short history of his country.
FOOTNOTES:
[120] Edited and published by Dr. Erben in 1851.
[121] It is impossible to translate this pun. Bartholomew plays on the
similarity of the name "Vrat" to the words _zvratiti_ and _převratiti_
(to overturn and to overthrow).
[122] It is impossible to paraphrase in fewer than eight words the
Bohemian word _nemistrovany_.
[123] See my _Bohemia, an Historical Sketch_, pp. 231, 232.
[124] See Chapter IV.
[125] See page 229.
[126] _The Life_ (or rather _Captivity_) _of John Augusta_ was edited
and published by Franta-Sumavsky in 1837. The work has recently been
translated into German by Dean Joseph Müller of Herrenhut.
[127] See Chapter V.
[128] Professor Léger in his _Nouvelles Études Slaves_ has translated
into French some of Žerotin's letters which refer to his French
campaign.
[129] See Chapter V.
[130] This work has been translated into English by the late Rev. A. H.
Wratislaw.
[131] Edited and published by Dr. Erben in 1854 and 1855.
[132] It is not easy to recognise this word in Harant's self-coined
translation or rather adaptation, _trucelman_.
[133] A proverbial expression. Senftenberg is a small town in
North-Eastern Bohemia. I don't know how its inhabitants acquired this
invidious distinction.
[134] See pp. 343 and 344.
[135] See p. 345.
[136] In Bohemian _sekretaričky_.
[137] The Altstädter Ring, where the executions took place.
[138] It has often been asserted that Slavata, who was a personal enemy
of Wallenstein, was the cause of the estrangement between him and the
emperor, and indirectly of Wallenstein's murder.
[139] This portion of Slavata's works has been edited and published by
the late Dr. Jireček.
[140] Slavata uses the German word _Knecht_.
[141] Readers of Schiller's _Wallenstein_ will remember the scene at
the banquet at Pilsen (_Die Piccolomini_, act iv. scene 5), when the
servants are listening to the conversation of the generals.