# Lectures on The Historians of Bohemia/Lecture 2

II
IT is deeply to be regretted that we possess comparatively scanty records of the history of Bohemia during the period of the Hussite wars, the period on which Bohemia's claim to historical fame principally depends. It is against the works dealing with this period that the terrible destruction of books instituted by the Jesuits was principally directed. It is only recently that it has been attempted to collect and edit the contemporary records of the Hussite wars.
The great historian Palacký has ably pointed out the difficulties that beset those who attempted this task, thus refuting the foolish fables derived from German or Roman sources that had hitherto done duty as a history of the Hussite wars. For political reasons into which I do not wish to enter here the Austrian Government considered it desirable that these traditions which described the Hussites as brutal and cruel fanatics, enemies of all order in Church and State, should remain in vigour. This utterly false view has adherents up to the present day, and it is only a few years ago that a member of one of the greatest Bohemian families though not of one of those which dwelt in the country during the period of independence declared in the parliament of Prague that he and his adherents saw in the Hussites not noble heroes, but a gang of robbers and incendiaries, the communists of the fifteenth century. Hus, the speaker continued, ​must be considered the cause of a complete revolution. The Reformation was a misfortune for Europe. Among the Hussites there were few men of moral and honourable character.
It is perhaps hardly necessary to state before the present audience that the Hussite movement was at first an entirely religious one. The Hussites did not, indeed, at first lay much stress on dogmatic distinctions, but they principally strove to reform the discipline and morality of the Bohemian clergy, which had sunk to a level that it is almost impossible to imagine at the present day.
The repeated invasions of Bohemia by savage hordes collected from all parts of Europe, necessarily obliged the Bohemians to defend their country, which indeed they successfully did. Mediaeval warfare of course was accompanied by horrible cruelties, but it has been successfully proved by Palacký that the atrocities committed by the Romanist invaders of Bohemia—who wished to exterminate the whole population, as had once been done with the Albigenses—were in every way greater and more terrible than the reprisals of the Bohemians.
The period of the Hussite wars so greatly exceeds in interest every other epoch of the Bohemian history, that I shall devote to a notice of the writings dealing with this stirring time more notice than is justified by the number of those writings which have been preserved. I shall then briefly refer to the later historians up to the year 1526—an important date, for it marks the accession of the House of Habsburg and the beginning of the Romanist reaction.
The first historian whom I shall mention is ​Peter of Mladenovič, the biographer of Hus, whom he accompanied on his fatal journey to Constance. Mladenovič took part in this voyage as writer—or, as we should say, secretary—of Lord John of Chlum, one of the Bohemian nobles to whom the Emperor Sigismund had entrusted the task of conducting Hus safely to Constance and watching over his safety there. Mladenovič was present during the whole trial and the condemnation of Hus, and after the death of the martyr returned to Bohemia, where he became a prominent member of the moderate, or, as it was called, the Calixtine fraction of the Hussite Church. Mladenovič has left a detailed Latin account of Hus’s journey to Constance and his imprisonment. This book is the foundation of all records of the last days of Hus that can lay claim to any authenticity. It was edited and published by Palacký in the nineteenth century, and was very little known previously. This accounts for the fact that many totally groundless anecdotes referring to the death of the great Bohemian were circulated and frequently repeated by English as well as by Continental writers; thus it was said that an old woman had collected faggots for the stake of Hus, that Hus had before dying predicted the advent of Luther, and so forth. These unauthenticated tales are not found in the contemporary narrative of Mladenovič. Mladenovič, who has also left a short Bohemian account of the martyrdom of Hus, writes very plainly and with scarcely more grace of style than the early chroniclers of his country. He himself admits this in somewhat touching words, which I shall quote presently.
​I will give a short extract from Mladenovič’s account of the stay of Hus and his companions at Nuremberg, the city to which they first proceeded after crossing the frontier of their country. Mladenovič writes: ‘When he (Hus) arrived at Nuremberg, on the sixth day after St. Gallus with the lords whom I have mentioned, and they were dining, one Albertus, who was, I think, parish priest of St. Sebaldus, came saying that he wished to discourse amicably with them. When Hus consented, several masters came, one of whom was a doctor of divinity, as well as many town councillors of the city of Nuremberg. They discussed for four hours with the master (i.e. Hus) on all current affairs with regard to which the name of the master had been mentioned. When they had conferred on all these matters, they said: “Truly, master, that which we have heard is Catholic doctrine; we have for many years held and taught these same things, and we still hold them and believe in them; if there is nothing else against you, you will come away from the council and return with all honour.” And then with a favourable opinion they all left together.’
This passage is very important, as proving that Hus was at that time by no means considered by the Germans as an enemy of their nation; no one indeed was less a hater than Hus, who, when imprisoned in a cruel dungeon, repeatedly stated that he forgave all his enemies. The true instigators of the murder of Hus were enemies who were his own countrymen—an occurrence that unhappily has been frequent in Bohemian history. Hus’s doctrine of the poverty of the clergy was naturally most obnoxious to the wealthy ​and worldly Bohemian Church dignitaries, of whom he has in his Postilla given us so biting and impressive an account. It was these men, headed by John (surnamed the ‘Iron’) Bishop of Litomysl, who persuaded Sigismund to break his word; they were aided by some of the inferior clergy of Bohemia, men who had formerly been friends of Hus, and who now exhausted all means of ingenuity and spite for the purpose of misrepresenting the words of their former friend.
Want of time obliges me to quote from the record of Mladenovič less extensively than I should have wished. My regret is, however, tempered by the consideration that two recent English writers, the late Mr. Wratislaw and the late Bishop Creighton, have quoted extensively from the book of Peter of Mladenovic. I will, however, quote a portion of his last chapter, which is entitled ‘The last days of that holy and reverend man, master John Hus, and his passion which he meekly endured.’ I must, of course, abridge the very detailed narrative. After describing the judgement passed on Hus in the cathedral of Constance on July 6, 1415, Mladenovič writes: ‘When the judgement, as stated above, had been delivered, then Hus with bended knees prayed in a loud voice for all his enemies, saying: “Lord Jesus Christ, I beg of Thee to forgive all my enemies because of Thy great mercy. Thou knowest that they have falsely accused me, brought forward false witnesses against me, drawn up false indictments against me. Forgive them because of Thy immense mercy!” When he had said this, many particularly of the most prominent ecclesiastics looked indignantly at him and began to scoff at him.’
Mladenovič then describes how the ignominous cere​monies of ecclesiastical degradation and deconsecration were performed on Hus, and how he was led to the ‘place of torment,’ which was in a field among gardens beyond the walls and fortifications of the city. ‘When he was led forth,’ Mladenovič writes, ‘some laymen who were standing near said: “We know not what this man has done or said previously, but now we see and hear that he prays and says holy words”; and others said: “Verily it were well that he should have a confessor and be heard.” But a priest who was riding near, clad in a green doublet lined with red silk, said: “He may not be heard, nor may a confessor be granted to him, for he is a heretic.”’
When Hus arrived at the spot of his martyrdom, Mladenovič tells us: ‘He prayed with a loud voice, “Lord Jesus Christ, I will bear patiently and humbly this horrible, shameful, and cruel death, for the sake of Thy gospel and the preaching of Thy truth.” When he was led past the spectators he addressed them, begging them not to believe that he had ever held, preached, or taught, the tenets that had been attributed to him by false witnesses. He was then stripped of his clothes and tied with cords to a stake, and his arms were turned backward to the stake. When his face was at first turned to the East, some of the spectators said: “Let him not be turned to the East, for he is a heretic, but to the West,” and it was done thus. When a rusty chain was placed round his neck he said, smiling to the lictors [Mladenovič thus designates the soldiers or town-officials], “Our Lord Jesus Christ, my Redeemer, was bound with a harder and heavier chain, and I, a poor wretch, do not fear to be bound with this chain for His sake.” Now the stake consisted of ​a thick pole which they had sharpened at one end and driven into the ground in this field; under the feet of the master they placed two faggots and some loads of wood. When attached to the stake he retained his boots, as his feet were fettered with a chain. They then heaped up round his body these wooden faggots mixed with straw, so that they reached up to his chin.’
Mladenovič then mentions the last attempt of the Imperial marshal, Happe of Pappenheim, to induce Hus to retract his teaching, and then thus describes the execution: ‘When the lictors lighted the pile the master first sang with a loud voice, “Christ, son of the living God, have mercy on us,” and then again, “Christ, son of the living God, have mercy on me.” When a third time he began singing, “Who art born of the Virgin Mary,” the wind soon blew the flames into his face; then still silently praying and moving his lips and head, he expired in the Lord. The space of time during which, after becoming silent, he still moved before dying, was that required to recite two, or at the utmost three, Paternosters.’
Mladenovič then tells us that the earthly remains of Hus were thrown into the Rhine, that his garments, to which the executioners had a traditional claim, were also destroyed, ‘lest the Bohemians should consider them as relics,’ and that the executioners were compensated.
Mladenovič finishes his account of the death of Hus, and at the same time his book, with the following words: ‘I have written in a very plain manner this account of the famed master John Hus, his death and his agony, which in the course of time have ever more vividly been recalled to my memory; for I considered that ​I ought not by the ornamented composition of painted words to deprive my narrative of its kernel, while the sound of my words caressed the ears of my audience; rather did I think that I should truthfully record the pith of the matter, the order of the events of which I had knowledge, both by eyesight and by the testimony of one who knew of these events telling no untruths and admitting even the simplicity of plain words.’
As both the friends and the enemies of Hus foresaw, the death of the great Bohemian was the signal of a general uprising in Bohemia. Though I should be straying from my subject if I entered more closely into this matter, I should yet point out that even in accordance with the rough and cruel laws of those days, the execution of Hus was a judicial murder. In Bohemia it was felt as an insult to the whole nation, and the Hussite wars were inevitable.
Though the record of Hus is, I think, pretty well known in England, great ignorance I believe prevails with regard to the Hussite wars. It is one of the many merits of the great historian Palacký, who here, as elsewhere, has been the pioneer of modern historical research in Bohemia, that he has drawn attention to the great importance of the Hussite wars. Had not the genius of generals, such as Žižka and Prokop the Great, enabled the Bohemians to beat back the forces of all Europe in arms against the country, the establishment in Bohemia of a national Church which amid various vicissitudes lasted for nearly two centuries, would have been impossible. Hus himself, indeed, would have figured in history only as an isolated enthusiast like Savonarola.
​Of the historians of the Hussite wars undoubtedly the greatest was Lawrence of Březov. The learned Professor Goll, in his able introduction to his recent edition of Březov’s history, lays great stress on this superiority. Yet the name of Březov, like that of so many Bohemian historians, was almost unknown up to the middle of the last century. It is true that in Ludewig’s Reliquiae, published at Halle and Frankfurt in 1720, we find the name of one Byzynius, who is mentioned as the author of a Diarium Hussiticum, but it is not without difficulty that we ascertain that the person referred to is Lawrence of Březov. The researches of Palacký, and more recently of Professor Goll, however, throw considerable light on the personality of the foremost historian of the Hussite wars. According to Professor Goll, Březov was born in 1370, as a member of an ancient noble family of Bohemia, and in 1394 obtained the rank of Master of Arts at the university of Prague. Previously (in 1391) he had through the favour of Queen Sophia, wife of Wenceslas IV of Bohemia, obtained permission to hold an ecclesiastical benefice, though he had not yet reached the appointed age. As Professor Goll remarks, the revenue appeared to him most important, for he had no intention of formally entering the ecclesiastical state. Březov evidently enjoyed great favour at the court of King Wenceslas, and according to a very probable conjecture held the office of secretary or chancellor to the king.
Besides his great historical work which is written in Latin, and a rhymed chronicle celebrating the important victory of the Bohemians at Domažlice (Tauss) ​which is in the same language, Březov also wrote works in his native tongue. Thus he wrote in Bohemian an Interpretation of Dreams, no doubt intended to please the not very cultivated taste of his patron King Wenceslas, and a Chronicle of the World, parts of which have been preserved in MS. He also translated into Bohemian the Travels of Sir John Mandeville, from a German version by Otto of Daymark.
But the most important work of Březov is his chronicle of the Hussite wars; unfortunately it deals only with a portion of that stirring epoch in the annals of Bohemia; he begins his work with the introduction into Bohemia of communion in the two kinds in 1414, a few months before the death of Hus. This is an event of great importance, as it signified the secession of Bohemia from the Western Church. The book breaks off quite abruptly at the year 1421. It appears probable that Březov, of whom the last contemporary mention dates from the year 1436, wrote the book late in life, and that death overtook him while working at his history. It is certain—as Dr. Goll has skilfully proved—that the book was not written immediately after the occurrence of the events which it describes. On the other hand, the hatred and contempt with which Lawrence invariably speaks of Sigismund—‘the Hungarian king,’ as he always calls him—render it improbable that his book was written in or immediately before the year 1436, at which time Sigismund was, though somewhat reluctantly, almost universally accepted as king by the Bohemian people.
Lawrence of Březov writes as a thorough Calixtine, that is to say, as a member of the more moderate section of the Bohemian Church. He is equally opposed ​to the Romanists and to the extreme or Taborite section of the Hussite party. As Palacký has pointed out in his note on Březov, that historian is often unfair to the Taborites, and this is the more to be regretted as all their own records have perished. He has to an undue extent impressed on the Taborite leaders the stigma of cruelty, though cruelties were committed by all parties during the Bohemian religious wars of the fifteenth century.
The introduction to the chronicle gives insight into the opinions and views of the prominent Bohemians during the period of the Hussite wars. Březov writes: ‘When I contemplate the present vast ruin and the calamities of the once happy and famed Bohemian kingdom, which is devastated and destroyed by the discord of internal strife, then my understanding becomes dull, and my mind bewildered by sorrow lacks the vigour of intellect; yet that the posterity of the Bohemian race may not lack a record of this terrible and indeed prodigious catastrophe, and may not through perverse idleness again encounter such or similar misfortunes moved also by the desire of preserving the memory of what I perceived with truthful eyes and ears, I have in the present pages recorded these facts in writing.’
Dr. Goll, whose introduction to his edition of Březov is a masterpiece of historical criticism, justly remarks that these words could not have been written during the glow of triumph that immediately followed the great Bohemian victories, but rather at a time when the evils of even successful civil war became apparent. Dr. Goll is, however, no doubt right in conjecturing that Březov took notes at the time of the events he described; ​the intense vivacity of some of his battle-pieces, which, if I may be permitted a vile anachronism, appear as photographic snapshots before our eyes, bears witness to this.
Březov deals in a rather cursory manner with the events of the years 1414 to 1419, and it is only of the events of the period which begins in 1419 and ends in 1421 that he gives us a detailed and moving account. It should be noted that these two years, as regards their importance, may well count for two centuries in the history of Bohemia. The victory on Žižka’s Hill was the first successful fight for liberty in the Middle Ages. The success of these armed bands of citizens and peasants against half the nobility of Europe and their countless followers, found an echo in all countries and produced a democratic movement which has been little noticed, and to which it is of course not my purpose to refer here.
I will now quote part of Březov’s account of the siege of Prague by Sigismund in 1420, and of the subsequent Hussite victories in the two battles near Prague—that of the Žižkov and that of the Vyšehrad. Brezov writes: ‘On the thirtieth of June, which was the Sunday nearest to the feast of St. Peter the Martyr, the Hungarian King Sigismund approached the [Hradčany] castle of Prague with a large army, consisting both of Bohemians and of men of foreign nations. After mass had been said, the king himself with some of his principal followers was solemnly received at the gates of the castle by the clergy, who then followed him in procession amidst the ringing of bells and the ​singing of canticles and hymns. Meanwhile his army was encamped on the plain between Bruska and Ovenec; it was intent on capturing Prague, which they considered a heretical city because of its holy communion by means of the chalice and its faith in the gospel. To this camping-ground many and manifold men flocked daily from all parts of the world, duchies, provinces, and districts, because of the crusade which the Pope had proclaimed against the Bohemians, principally because they received communion in the two kinds. They all came for the purpose of capturing the glorious and magnificent city of Prague, hoping that by thus destroying and frustrating communion in the two kinds, they would obtain remission of their sins and penalties; for the priests had falsely promised them this, thus in various ways inciting them to murder all faithful Bohemians of both sexes.
‘Now in this army, which consisted of a multitude of more than 150,000 men, there were archbishops, bishops, the patriarch of Aquileja, doctors of divinity and other spiritual dignitaries, secular dukes and princes, about forty in number, many marquises, counts, barons, and nobles, and so many soldiers and camp-followers that they covered the whole vast plain, and their magnificent tents and encampments appeared as three vast cities. There were here men of various nations, tribes, and tongues, Bohemians and Moravians, Hungarians and Croatians, Dalmatians, Bulgarians, Wallachians, Ruthenians [Racians], Slavonians, Servians, Prussians, Thuringians, Styrians, men of Meissen, Bavarians, Saxons, Austrians, men of Franconia, Frenchmen, Englishmen, men of Brabant and Westphalia, Dutchmen, Switzers, Lusatians, Suabians, Carinthians, Ara​gonians, Spaniards, Poles, Germans from the Rhineland, and many others. These men stood on the tops of the hills on the side of the river which is opposite the monastery of the Holy Cross [and the church of St. Valentine], and, howling like dogs, threatened the city daily, saying: “Ha, Ha, Hus, Hus, Heretics, Heretics!” and if any Bohemian fell into their hands unless he was promptly rescued by the Bohemians who were on their side they immediately burnt him mercilessly, even if he had never received communion in the two kinds.’
Březov then tells us how Žižka and his Taborites, who, sinking all minor differences, had hastened to the aid of Prague, fortified the hill then known as the Vitkov, but which henceforth was always known as the Žižkov or Zižka’s Hill. They thus secured for the party of Church reform communication with the open country, where the peasants were everywhere rising in arms against the German and other invaders, while many Bohemian knights who sympathized with the Hussite doctrine were also hastening to take part in the defence of the venerated capital of Bohemia.
The Germans, Hungarians, and other allies of Sigismund finally decided that a general attack on the city should be made on July 14. Březov writes: ‘On the Sunday nearest to the feast of St. Marguerite the whole royal army was ready. It was decided that one part of it, a few thousand men, should first seize the wooden fortifications that Žižka had erected on the hill. When this had been done three attacks were, according to the instructions of the captains, to be made on the city. From the castle the Bohemian troops of ​Sigismund were to attack the Saxon house; other columns were to attack the new town from the Vyšehrad, and the old town from the Spital field.’
Of the attack on the Žižkov, Březov writes: ‘The men of Meissen with their seven or eight thousand horsemen ascended the hill with much clatter and the sound of trumpets, and they occupied the wooden forts and the small tower in the vineyards. When they attempted to scale the wall that had been constructed out of earth and stones, two women and one girl, and with them about twenty-six men who had remained in the earthwork, manfully defended themselves with stones and spears, for they had neither arrows nor firearms. One of these women, though unarmed, surpassed the men in courage, and would not retire from her post. “It is not beseeming,” she said, “that a faithful Christian should give way to Antichrist.” Thus fighting bravely, she was killed and gave up the ghost. Žižka, who hurried to the spot, would himself have been slain had not his men with their fighting-clubs delivered him from the hands of the enemies. Now while the whole city feared its ruin, and all were with their children praying tearfully and placing their hopes in heaven alone, a priest came to the hill carrying the body of Christ in the sacrament, and behind him followed about forty bowmen and some peasants who were not in armour, but carried their fighting-flails.
‘The enemies seeing the sacrament, hearing the tolling of the bells and the loud cries of the people, were ​seized by sudden fear, turned their backs and fled hastily, each man striving to outpace the other. In this sudden rush many were not able to control their horses, and falling from the high rocks broke their necks, while many were killed by the pursuers; thus in less than an hour’s time more than four hundred men were either killed, or mortally wounded, or led forth as prisoners. After this the king with his army silently returned to his encampments overwhelmed with fury, disgust, lament and sorrow. But the men of Prague, kneeling down in the Spital field, rendered thanks to God, intoning the Te Deum laudamus with loud voices; for they knew that not through their own valour but miraculously God had granted their small number victory over their enemies. Then with hymns and songs they joyfully returned to the city, and then the music turned to delight, the sorrow of the women, virgins, and children to rejoicing and gladness, all of whom the enemies of the truth had intended mercilessly and cruelly to murder as heretics and children of heretics; and all praised the mercy of God, who had powerfully delivered them from the hands of their cruel enemies.’
The pages of Březov’s book that deal with the events at Prague and the battles that were fought around the city are so stirring, that it is with real reluctance that I refrain from quoting from them more copiously than time will now permit me. The victory of the Žižkov induced Sigismund the Hungarian king to abandon the siege of Prague. After some futile negotiations he for a time left the neighbourhood of the capital, while the vast forces of the crusaders dispersed to their various countries. The troops of Sigismund continued, however, to hold the royal castles ​of the Hradčany and of the Vyšehrad. In the autumn of the year 1420, the Hussites began to besiege the Vyšehrad, and Sigismund, wishing to relieve the garrison, again approached the city of Prague. The result of these movements was the battle of St. Pankrace or of the Vyšehrad, fought on November 2, which the men of Prague justly considered as their crowning mercy; for the defeat that they here inflicted on Sigismund freed the Bohemians from his rule for a considerable period, while the leading part that the citizens of Prague had taken in this campaign obtained for their town a temporary hegemony over almost all Bohemia. I can quote only a small portion of Březov’s account of this great victory. After enumerating the forces of Prague, of the Utraquist nobles, and of the men of some of the Hussite towns who together formed the besieging army, Březov writes: ‘Thus the Vyšehrad was encircled in every direction, so that provisions could not be brought into the castle either by any footpath or by means of carts. Not a little terrified, the men on the Vyšehrad wrote to King Sigismund begging for provisions, of which, they said, they had great lack. The king in his haughtiness promised to give them abundance of provisions and to drive back the citizens of Prague; in truth he did nothing for five weeks, and for three weeks they were obliged to feed on the flesh of horses.’
After some fruitless attempts to revictual the Vyšehrad by means of boats on the Vltava, Sigismund at last decided to give battle to relieve the garrison, which had already agreed to capitulate if they did not receive provisions within a certain time. Sigismund had not this time a cosmopolitan army at his disposal. ​His army consisted principally of the knights and nobles of Moravia; of these many were themselves partisans of Church reform, but their dynastic or rather feudal feelings overcame all other considerations, and they bravely though reluctantly rallied round the standard of the king. Of the battle of the Vyšehrad, Březov writes: ‘On the vigil of the day of All Saints the king arrived at midday at the new castle of Kunratic, but he was afraid of attacking on that day, as he expected further levies from the Moravian lords. These men arrived towards evening, and slept in armour in the woods, that all should be ready on the following day to drive from the field the Praguers and their allies. During the night the king sent a messenger to his mercenaries in the castle of Prague, ordering them to be under arms early in the morning, and descending from the castle to attack the Saxon house and the bridge-tower and if possible to burn them; the king himself would at the same hour drive the Praguers from the field, as he had received large reinforcements.
‘But God, who resists the haughty and is gracious to the humble, decreed that the messenger with his letter fell into the hands of the men of Prague, who were warned by the tenor of the king's letter and learnt all his plans. Therefore the commanders of the Praguers vigilantly gave instructions to the people, decreeing what post each leader with his men was to hold and bravely defend on the morrow. Then it befell that, when the fifteenth hour had passed, the king with from fifteen to twenty well-armed men left the new castle and approached the spot where the men of Prague lay; then, standing on the top of a height opposite ​the church of St. Pankrace, he drew his sword and waved it in the air, thus calling on the garrison of the Vyšehrad to make a sortie against the Praguers, because he with a large force, which they could not see, was also preparing to attack the men of Prague.
‘But as the king had by the grace of God missed the time fixed by the agreement, the captains of the Vyšehrad secured the gates of the citadel, allowing no one to attack the city of Prague, though some of the men who were Germans wished to do so. The nobles in the royal army, seeing that the men of the Vyšehrad did not intend to help the king, and that the Praguers were strongly entrenched, advised him to desist from the attack on Prague; he would thus avert great damage from his army. But the king said: “Avaunt from me. I must assuredly fight with these peasants to-day.” Then Lord Henry of Plumlov speaking affably said: “Know, lord king, that you will incur great loss to-day; for my part, I fear the fighting-flails of these peasants.” The king answered, “I know that you Moravians are cowardly and unfaithful to me.” Then the said Lord Henry with the other barons of Moravia immediately leapt from their horses, and he said: “We are prepared to go where thou sendest us, and we shall be there where thou, O king, wilt not be.” Then the king assigned to them the most perilous spot, ordering them to attack the Praguers in the low grounds near the river, where there are many morasses and fishponds. The Hungarians he ordered to march ​through the upper grounds along the high road, and thence to attack the army of Prague. They then attacked in both directions the Praguers who, though they were behind entrenchments, at first took to flight and crowded round the church of St. Pankrace. Then Lord Krušina, seeing this, addressed them in a loud voice, saying, “Dear brethren, turn back and be to-day brave soldiers in Christ’s war, for it is God’s not your own battle that you are fighting to-day; you will see that the Lord God will deliver into your hands all His enemies and your own.” Hardly had he finished speaking when some one cried out: “The enemies fly! they fly!” Hearing this they all rushed manfully forward, drove the enemies from the entrenchments and turned them to flight. The Praguers and the nobles, who were on their side, struck down cruelly those who were flying, some near the marshes and fishponds, many in the fields and vineyards.’
A few, however, were spared, for Březov writes somewhat later: ‘Lord Henry of Plumlov was mortally wounded and made a prisoner; he was conveyed to the cemetery of St. Pankrace, and expired there after receiving communion in the two kinds.’
Březov then gives a long list of the Moravian nobles who fell in this memorable battle. I will, however, only quote the last words of his account, obviously written just after he had visited the battlefield; he writes: ‘What man who was not more cruel than a pagan could pass through these fields and vineyards, and view the brave bodies of the dead without compassion? What Bohemian, unless he were a madman, could see these dainty and robust warriors, these men so curly-​haired and so comely, without deeply bewailing their fate?’
It should be mentioned that Sigismund's distrust of the Moravians, which caused him to assign to them the most perilous post, contributed to arouse in their favour the sympathy of their Bohemian countrymen.
Professor Ernest Denis, who in his brilliant work Hus et la Guerre des Hussites has translated into French a considerable portion of Březov’s account of the battle of the Vyšehrad, truthfully writes: ‘There is nothing in history more touching than this grief of the victors who deplore their victory, and—forgetful of temporary divisions and full of pity for their brethren who have separated from them—reserve all their hatred for the foreigner who has encouraged internal strife, profits by it, and strives to rule the country by the destruction of all Bohemian parties.’
I feel that I have already devoted too much time to the chronicle of Lawrence of Březov, though it is the greatest—some have said the only truly great—historical work that deals with the Hussite wars.
Together with his edition of Březov’s chronicle, that brilliant historian Professor Goll has also edited two minor documents dealing with the Hussite wars. They are the so-called chronicle of the university of Prague, and that of Bartošek of Drahonic. The former work is a mere compilation of writings derived from various sources; and even its tendency differs, as we find Hussite sympathies in some and Romanist sympathies in other parts of the book. The writer has copied extensively from the chronicle of Březov. The chronicle of Bartošek of Drahonic is the work of a soldier, and warlike deeds obviously alone had interest for the writer. He ​served in the armies of Sigismund it may be noted that he was one of the king’s men who garrisoned the Vyšehrad, and he writes as a royalist and a Romanist. Yet that strange antipathy to everything German which is innate in the Bohemian appears in his book also. Thus, when referring to the death of Albrecht of Habsburg, who for a short time succeeded Sigismund as King of Bohemia, he writes: ‘He died, after an illness of some weeks, about the octave of St. Gallus; may his soul rest in peace, for he was a good man though a German, brave and merciful.’
Before referring to some other chroniclers belonging to this period whose writings have been edited and collected in one volume by Palacký, I must mention the name of the great Bohemian general John Žižka of Trocnov. Though Žižka is undoubtedly known as a maker rather than a writer of history, yet I feel justified by the example of Bohemian writers on the literature of the country in including Žižka among the historians of Bohemia. Very scant but very precious relics of Žižka’s writings have been preserved; they consist of a war-song that has aptly been named the Bohemian Marseillaise of the fifteenth century, a document containing the regulations of war used by the Hussites which give a strange insight into the thoroughly democratic organization of the Bohemian armies, and of several letters on political and military subjects. Of these the most valuable is the celebrated letter ‘to the allies of Domažlice.’ I do not hesitate to affirm that this letter, plain and matter of fact as it is, is perhaps the most valuable record of the Hussite wars. The citizens of Domažlice, a Bohemian town not far from ​the Bavarian frontier, were in consequence of their geographical situation very much exposed to German attacks. Obviously rather despondent, they applied to Žižka for aid. The following is Žižka’s reply: ‘May God grant that you may return to your former reliance and be the first to do worthy deeds, O dear brethren in God. I beg you, for the sake of the Lord God, to remain in the fear of God, as His most beloved sons, and not to complain if He chastises you. Remembering the founder of our faith, the Lord Jesus Christ, you will defend yourselves bravely against the wrongs which these Germans endeavour to inflict on you. You will thus follow the example of the ancient Bohemians, who valiantly using their lances, defended both God's cause and their own. And we, dear brethren, seeking the law of God and the good of the commonwealth, will do all that is in our power that every one of our men who is able to wield a club, or even to hurl a stone, should march to your aid. And therefore, dear brethren, be it known to you that we are collecting our men from all parts of the country against these enemies of God and devastators of the Bohemian land. Therefore instruct your clergy, that they may when preaching rouse the people against the armies of Antichrist. Let it also be proclaimed in the market-place that all able men, young or old, must be ready at any moment. And we, God willing, will be shortly with you. Have bread, beer, fodder for the horses ready, as well as all weapons of war. For indeed it is time to march not only against the internal enemies, but also against the foreigners. Remember your first campaign, when you fought bravely, humble men against the great, few against many, unclothed against men in armour. For the arm ​of God has not been shortened. Therefore trust in God and be ready. May the Lord God grant you strength!’
It is hardly necessary to draw attention to the strongly Cromwellian ring of this stirring letter. I may here note that when I, writing some years ago, compared Žižka to Cromwell, I was quite unaware of the fact that this comparison had been made some years before by the late Bishop Creighton.
I have already alluded to the collection of ancient chronicles, belonging to the period of the Hussite wars, which was edited by Palacký. They are all written in the national language, and are a true but little-explored storehouse for Bohemian historical research. Time obliges me to refrain almost entirely from quotation. Among the most interesting parts of the chronicle is the account of Žižka’s invasion of Hungary in 1423, by means of which he hoped to force Sigismund to renounce his claims to the Bohemian crown. Though Žižka obtained brilliant successes, the constant attacks of the Hungarian horsemen finally obliged him to retreat, and it was in this retreat that Žižka’s military genius appeared more clearly than on any other occasion. Professor Leger, who has translated into French a considerable portion of the account of Žižka’s Hungarian campaign, writes: ‘This account written by Xenophon in good Greek of Athens would no doubt have become a classic; but it was unfortunately written in Bohemian by a contemporary, probably an eye-witness.’ Another intensely interesting part of this chronicle is the account of the death of Žižka. The chronicler writes: ‘Here—at Přibyslav—brother Žižka was seized with a deadly attack of the plague, and gave his last instructions to ​his faithful brother-Bohemians, saying that fearing their beloved God they should firmly and faithfully defend God’s law in view of His reward in eternity. And then, after brother Žižka had commended his soul to God, he died on the Wednesday before St. Gallus.’ So many repulsive tales which I shall presently have to notice briefly were afterwards circulated with regard to Žižka’s last moments, that this authentic account, probably that of an eye-witness, has great interest. To a Bohemian the peaceful end of Žižka appears most fitting. He who had so often fought what he firmly believed to be God’s battle assuredly did not dread entering into God’s peace.
It is more because tradition has decreed that Pope Pius II should be counted among the historians of the Hussite war than because the book has any value, that I must briefly allude to the De Bohemorum Origine et Gestis Historia of Aeneas Sylvius. The writer, a thorough scholar of the period of the Renaissance, has written his book in the then fashionable Latinity teeming with classical reminiscences. Thus the account of the death of the two Prokops at the battle of Lipan, which closed the Hussite wars, is obviously modelled on Sallust’s account of the deaths of Catiline and the man of Faesulae. This manner of writing—often very effective when dealing with the Italians of the Renaissance—who were not really so very different from their forefathers—is totally out of place when writing of the rugged, northern Puritan Bohemians.
Many untruthful tales concerning Bohemia that have since been incessantly repeated, are due to Aeneas Sylvius; among these is his report of the death of Žižka, whom he describes as dying blas​pheming and ordering his skin to be used as a drum. It is difficult to read anything more repulsive than this account of the death of a man who, though not untouched by the cruelty of his time, was according to his own lights a fervent Christian and a true Bohemian patriot.
The two last historians of this period whom I shall mention are Bishop Dubravius of Olmütz, and Bartoš, surnamed ‘the writer.’ Dubravius has left us a Latin history of Bohemia from the earliest period to the accession of Ferdinand I in 1526. The book has little historical value; of the Hussite wars Dubravius writes as a strong and not very scrupulous partisan of Rome.
More interesting is the book of Bartoš, or Bartholomew, surnamed ‘the writer.’ The book of Bartoš, who was a town official at Prague, is written in Bohemian, and is entitled Chronicle of the Seditions and Tumults at Prague. It deals with a period of only fifteen years, and treats of the troubles—caused by two rival demagogues, Hlavsa and Pašek—that broke out at Prague during the reign of the weak King Louis. The portraits of the two rival demagogues are very striking, but I have not time to quote them here. Those interested in the matter will find a translation of this part of Bartoš’s book in my History of Bohemian Literature. Interesting also are Bartoš’s account of the election of Ferdinand I in 1526, and of the introduction of Lutheranism into Bohemia, which for a time diminished the usual antipathy between Bohemians and Germans.
The Chronicle of Bartoš carries the history of Bohemia on to the year 1526. That year is a great ​landmark in the history of the country. It is the year of the accession of the House of Habsburg. The first attempts to transform the Bohemian monarchy from an elective to a hereditary one date from this time, and the reaction in favour of Rome begins at the same date. I shall in my next lecture treat of the historians of Bohemia from this period up to the year 1620, which for a time almost marks the extinction of the Bohemian nation.
* ↑ Entitled Relatio de Magistri J. Hus causa.
* ↑ The nineteenth of October.
* ↑ Tom. vi, p. 435.
* ↑ By the name of the castle of Prague Březov always designates the Hradčany castle, not the older acropolis on the Vyšehrad.
* ↑ The Hradčany.
* ↑ A building on the left bank of the Vltava, near the bridge of Prague.
* ↑ At that time an open space on the site of the present Karlin or Karolinenthal suburb of Prague.
* ↑ That is to say, the Hradčany.
* ↑ The agreement between the citizens of Prague and the garrison, stipulating that the latter should capitulate if not relieved before a certain time.
* ↑ The leader of the Moravians.
* ↑ The leader of the national army.
* ↑ In German, Tauss.