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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The song ends thus:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A somewhat younger contemporary of Augusta was Brother Blahoslav, whom I have just quoted, and who, like him, also became one of the bishops of the Unity. His writings differ somewhat from those of the brethren I have mentioned above. The influence of humanism, absent from their works, is distinctly noticeable in Blahoslav. He also wrote on theology—what Bohemian writer of that period did not?—but it is evident that other studies were far more to his taste. He tells us, indeed, in the last chapter of his Grammar, that, in consequence of the state of his health, "writing on more serious, and ever on theological matters, was beyond his strength;" but there is no doubt that this statement should be considered as apologetic. Many of the brethren probably thought that their bishops should devote themselves exclusively to theological studies. From the same reason, also, Blahoslav mentions, in justification of his philological studies, that the Unity had intrusted him with the task of translating the New Testament into Bohemian.

Blahoslav was born at Prerov (Prerau) in Moravia, then one of the centres of the Unity, in 1523. In early youth he studied at the school which the brethren had established there. He then travelled to complete his studies; visited Wittenberg—where he heard Luther preach—KÖnigsberg, and Basel. On his return to his country, he was first employed as teacher at the school which the brethren had established at Prostejov. He here had as a pupil John of erotin, member of a family that always supported the Unity, the father of Charles of erotin,[91] who was famous during the last years of Bohemian independence. The authorities of the Unity afterwards sent Blahoslav to Jung Bunzlau (or MladÁ Boleslav) in Bohemia, where he was employed in arranging the archives of the community. He here began the composition of the great historical work that was in his own time his principal claim to literary fame, but which has perhaps irreparably been lost.

In the year 1557 Blahoslav became an elder or member of the smaller council of the Unity, and somewhat later on he was chosen as one of the bishops, when EibenschÜtz (Ivancice) in Moravia became his habitual residence. Like all the bishops of the brethren, he, however, spent much of his time in travel, visiting the scattered communities. He soon became one of the foremost members of the Unity, and in consequence of his enlightened and conciliatory nature was often employed as a negotiator. In 1555 and on several subsequent occasions he visited Vienna, where Archduke Maximilian, afterwards the Emperor Maximilian II., who had by the Estates already been recognised as heir to the Bohemian throne, then resided. The mediator between Blahoslav and the Archduke was the Lutheran preacher Pfauser,[92] who for a time had great influence over Maximilian. The ability of Blahoslav on several occasions protected the Unity from the dangers to which, as a community not recognised by Bohemian law, it always was exposed. When Augusta returned from prison, differences of opinion between the two bishops arose, of which we have no exact account. It is, however, certain that Blahoslav disapproved of Augusta's sympathy with the German Protestants, particularly Luther and Melanchthon. Blahoslav's intense devotion to his own language no doubt rendered him hostile to everything that tended to increase German influence in Bohemia. Augusta, to win over to his side some of the oldest among the brethren, in whom Chelcicky's hatred for the "band of masters of colleges" was yet not quite extinct, expressed in his sermons great contempt for learning and culture. In answer Blahoslav wrote his Filipika proti MisomusÜm (the enemies of the Muses), which I shall presently notice. Blahoslav, whose health had long been failing, died at Krumau in 1571, a year before Bishop Augusta.

According to Dr. Jirecek, the total sum of the works of Blahoslav amounts to twenty-eight; many of them, however, including his most important work, have been lost. His controversial writings on theology, as was then usual, mostly took the form of letters. Such writings are the letters to Brother Zachary, to Martin of Átec (Saaz), to the Lord Marshal Berthold of LÍpa, &c. Like Augusta, Blahoslav was a great writer of hymns, many of which are preserved in the Kancionali or hymn-books of the Unity. The composition of these hymns no doubt induced Blahoslav to write the curious treatise entitled Music, or, to give the full name as prefixed to the second edition of Blahoslav's book, "Music, that is, a small book containing the information necessary for singers. Written in the Bohemian language on the wish of several good friends, and first printed in the year of the Lord 1558 at OlmÜtz; now carefully corrected and reprinted; rules and instructions necessary to chanters and composers of hymns are added." In the preface to this quaint work Blahoslav writes: "A branch of pride, and not the least one, consists in the desire to be known to many, to be considered witty and sensible, and to be esteemed in consequence. The desire to obtain distinction by one's virtues and other similar things is indeed praiseworthy. Yet it is senseless to undertake too difficult a work and strive with much effort for an object as vain as the steam of smoke. There are many, too, who might be compared to that Herostratus, who, wishing to obtain great fame, burnt down the great Temple of Diana at the risk of his life.... Those only will I mention who, in our days, publish books in the Bohemian language, wishing thus to obtain great fame for themselves; some who wish to help their neighbours as much as they can, from sincere love and in a beseeming manner, I do not allude to; on the contrary, I praise their pious undertakings and holy labour; but many are guided and incited by that branch of pride which I have mentioned above, which drives them to attempt that also which is beyond their power. Thus they do what they are unfit to do, thinking it sufficient that they have done it. But how? that they don't think of or care. Many out of good Latin or German books make bad Bohemian ones, serving no other purpose than that the noble Bohemian language, already somewhat spoilt, should become yet more corrupted. This will perhaps bring matters to that point that the Bohemians will become unable to speak Bohemian correctly and rightly to understand their language and its peculiarities. Thus did it happen to the Italians, who had so amended their language that when the old Italians—that is, the Latinists, Cicero and the others—came to them, they could not understand them. And what happens with regard to translations from other languages, that happens also with regard to the composition and publication of various little songs, particularly when those who undertake this task do so not for the purpose of stirring up others to piety and godliness; often indeed they (the writers of verses), on the contrary, seek and desire by means of their useless, mischievous, and even obscene verses, which pre-occupy men's minds, either to obtain the praise of men and worldly advantage, or even to insult and injure their guiltless fellow-creatures. Who can doubt that such men should be classed with the senseless Herostratus, and that they deserve derision and contempt rather than flattering praise?

"For such godless people I should not wish to work; nor do they require it. Nature itself entices a man to frivolities, the world gives sufficient evil example, and Satan himself drills them and whispers in their ears what they are to do and when. Thus that Naso, an excellent master of the devil's works, wrote well when he said:—

Satan excited him (Ovid), and sharpened his wits to enable him to write those insidious and penetrating carmina on matters of love, by means of which he then caught young men, just as a bird-catcher catches titmice on a sticky lime-twig. Why, even among those of our own language (i.e. nation) there were similar verses, before the devil induced the people of our corner of the world to give way entirely to gluttony and drunkenness. Such worldly songs, written down in musical notes or in words in a masterly manner, we remember to have heard in our childhood, and we wondered at them. Such people (the writers of worldly songs) then I do not endeavour to instruct. They have their own good teacher who incites them."

Blahoslav's views expressed in his preface are infinitely more interesting than the contents of the little book itself. Blahoslav deals in separate chapters with the subjects of songs, the words, the rhythm, the "clauses," and the syllables.

The Replika proti Misomusum—written, like all the existent works of Blahoslav, with the exception of a small Latin historical treatise, in the national language—has already been mentioned. Bishop Augusta had, in his sermons and elsewhere, spoken contemptuously of learning, and it was believed among the brethren that he had Blahoslav particularly in view. The latter repelled these attacks in the treatise which I have just named. "It is, and has been for years," he writes, "the custom of some somewhat prominent men to quote, for the purpose of disparaging the ancient teachers (i.e. the fathers of the Church), a saying of Brother Lucas, according to which he had written nothing which he had not found within the Unity. And they explained it thus: that Brother Lucas had taken nothing from the ancient teachers, but that he had learnt what the Unity possessed when he joined it, and then wrote, &c. I also a year ago heard Brother Augusta state this. Most certainly those who thus expound Brother Lucas did not understand, and do not understand his words. Could but Brother Lucas hear them, what evil thanks would he render them! Where is that saintly man, Brother Lawrence KrasonickÝ, that he could by word of mouth vividly explain this to them. What he has written in his books they will not read, because of the weakness of their intellects, and because their minds are full of vanity.

"But as those men who could have treated this subject usefully are no longer with us, I will write down briefly what is now on my mind.

"In the days of Brother Lucas the Unity had many enemies against whom he had to write by order of the elders. He had to write in a fashion that did not stir up enemies nor open the gates of the Unity to the foe, but rather reduced to silence, and even to assent, one opponent by this, another by that argument. That he continued obnoxious to some in spite of his labours is known. There were also some who feared that he would lead them back to Rome, the doctors (i.e. the ecclesiastics of the Church of Rome), &c. And because of these foolish and false ideas about him he had to make such speeches as should close the mouths of some. Real truth did Brother Lucas speak when he said that he wrote nothing that he did not find in the Unity. He found in it truth as the essence (of doctrine) as to service (ritual), &c. This truth he wrote, he adorned, he spread, explaining its various branches wisely and to many.... Some one will perhaps say that I praise learning and the learned. Yes, it is true that I praise both learning or knowledge and cultivated people. But I do not praise those who use their learning or knowledge for evil purposes. I will say, as an example, 'We praise wine, and we praise also drinking or the use of wine, but drunkenness and drunken people we do not praise.' Generally we do not praise the evil use of God's good gifts. 'Abusus non tollit rem.' The sword is good, but it can serve one to good, another to evil purposes.

"Others again may say: 'You attach too much importance to learning and the learned.' Indeed some good men say that through learning discord has entered into Churches, and that this might happen to the Unity also. He would indeed attribute too much importance to learning and knowledge who should fancy that without the 'seven arts' God's truth, that is, the Gospel, cannot be preached, or that our salvation is founded on this learning or knowledge. But he who would say this must indeed be very silly."

"I, on my part, hold that those who work for the word of God require for that purpose a special gift of God which is called eloquence, which enables them to declaim, to teach, to admonish, to warn. The Lord at first gave eloquence to His servants as a gift in so miraculous a manner, that it was not necessary that they should learn. But then wonders and miracles ceased. Henceforth, as the Spirit of God recognised that eloquence is necessary to the Church, it is not harmful to teach eloquence whenever and to whatever person it is possible (to do so). Surely a man cannot wait till God miraculously throws down eloquence to him from heaven! That would indeed be as if a peasant neither sowed nor ploughed, but waited till manna rained down on him from heaven."

"Do not our young men, I say, when they are taught to preach, learn besides piety and knowledge of God's word, eloquence as well? It is obvious to all that many of these young men, though they do not know Latin, are more learned in their speech, and more eloquent than some fairly learned Latinists. Still it is certain that if, besides their other studies, they also learnt Latin and were acquainted with dialectics and rhetoric, they would be much more intelligent, more capable, readier for all work, and more useful."

Blahoslav here expresses the views of the more cultivated members of the Unity, men to whom to so great an extent the literary development of Bohemia is due. That it was necessary that Blahoslav should write such a treatise proves, on the other hand, that the ideas of Chelcicky and the "small party" still found adherents among the brethren.

Another work of Blahoslav that has been fortunately preserved is his Grammatika CeskÁ. Only one MS. of this work is known, and that was only discovered by Mr. Hradil in 1857 in the library of the Theresian College in Vienna. This book is indeed an example of the obscurity which still covers ancient Bohemian literature, and of the possibility that, of the many other ancient books that are known to have existed but have been lost, some may be yet recovered. The condition of Bohemian literature in this respect recalls rather that of ancient literatures than that of other modern European countries. Blahoslav's Grammar has great interest in spite of its rather unattractive name, which is not indeed quite correct. Besides a full account of the construction of the Bohemian language based on Latin grammar, with which Blahoslav was thoroughly acquainted, the book contains a series of short but very pertinent critical notes on some earlier Bohemian writers, beginning with Hus. I have already quoted Blahoslav's criticisms on Lucas, KrasonickÝ, and Augusta. It may be interesting here to quote his self-criticism also. Under the heading of "The Works of Blahoslav" he writes: "It seems to me, if some think that my opinion on this subject is just, that no good Bohemian can blame my manner of writing Bohemian, as shown in my version of the New Testament, which has been twice published and printed at Ivancice. Also of the little book called Additions to (i.e. notes on) Music, or simply Music. I think that, particularly in its last edition, it contains good and also graceful Bohemian writing. Of other similar works of mine I am silent; let the result show the truth. 'Decere nam mihi videtur ut de metipso quam modestissime loquor, cum mihi sim bene conscius, quam et mihi sit curta suppellex.' We know that we are all imperfect, but yet to a different degree, some more and some less."

Posterity has on the whole confirmed Blahoslav's judgment. His works, particularly his translation of the New Testament, are still considered models of Bohemian writing. One cannot, however, help regretting that he, who was so severe on "Latinisms", should have interspersed his writings with Latin words, and sometimes with Latin sentences, that are most disturbing and irritating to the reader. Blahoslav seems to have inserted these patches of Latin as evidence of his learning, in the same manner as English novelists some time ago were given to introducing into their writings fragments of French as evidence of their knowledge of the ways of society.

Of later writers of the Unity I may mention Brother Jaffet. He entered the ecclesiastical service of the Unity in 1576, and afterwards became a member of the "small council". He also was a voluminous author, but many of his works have been lost and the others remain in MS. His most important works were the Voice of the Watchman, which appeared about the year 1600, and a work which he published in the year 1607 under the somewhat long-winded title of The Sword of Goliath for the defence of God's people against their enemies, that is, the Description of the ... constant succession ... of true and genuine bishops and priests within the Unity of the Brethren. In the preface to this work Jaffet declares that his purpose is to prove that the brethren have always preserved the apostolic succession which they received from the Waldenses. As a proof of this assertion, Jaffet published a list of the ordinations which took place within the Unity from its beginning. This list Dr. Gindely, who had thoroughly studied the history of the Unity, declared to be spurious. Brother Jaffet died at Horadovic in 1614. He was one of those enemies of Rome on whom vengeance was wrought after their death. When his burial-place, the former Minorite monastery of Horadovic, was in 1621 returned to the monks of that order, the remains of Brother Jaffet and of three other Bohemian brethren were disinterred and burnt in the churchyard.

It would be very easy to continue this account of the theologians of the Unity. All their writings still have an intense interest for Bohemians. Writing for other readers, I shall limit myself to the authors already mentioned, who are indeed the most prominent and representative members of the Unity.

It would, however, be impossible to pass in silence the name of Wenceslas Budovec of Budova. He was a prominent leader of the Brethren, a very striking figure in Bohemian political life, and belongs to literature also, as the author of several Bohemian works, mostly of a theological character. He was born in 1547 as a member of a noble but not opulent family, and was educated in accordance with the doctrine of the Unity. When eighteen years of age, Budova, as was then customary for young Bohemian nobles, undertook extensive travels, visiting Germany, the Netherlands, England, France, and Italy; that he visited Rome also is specially recorded by his biographers. Shortly after his return to Bohemia in 1577, he was attached to the embassy which Rudolph II., German emperor and King of Bohemia, despatched to Constantinople. A man of studious nature, and, like most Bohemians of his time, intensely interested in theological research, Budova employed his spare time—always granted amply to an able man who is member of an embassy but not the ambassador—in endeavouring to obtain information on the Mohammedan religion. The result of these studies was his celebrated Anti-Alkoran, which I shall again refer to. It may here be mentioned incidentally, as a proof of the bitterness of religious animosity in Bohemia at the beginning of the seventeenth century, that Budova was afterwards accused by the Romanists of having written a book in praise of Mohammedanism; whereas the mere name of the book should have been sufficient to disprove so absurd an assertion. After spending about seven years in Turkey, Budova returned to Bohemia, and took an important part in the political events that led to the granting of the "Letter of Majesty" to the Bohemian Protestants[93] by Rudolph II. in 1609. He acted, indeed, not only as leader of the brethren, but of all those who were opposed to the increasing pretensions of the Church of Rome. The Bohemian national movement, as Dr. Gindely has remarked, acquired through him a somewhat Puritan character. When Budova presided over the Protestant meetings, he always called on all present to pray before he opened the proceedings. All then fell on their knees and sang a hymn. The signing of the "Letter of Majesty", and of the agreement that was drawn up simultaneously,[94] is principally due to Budova. Though the force of circumstances prevented these enactments from entering fully into practice, and the events of 1618 and 1620 swept away all religious liberty in Bohemia, they might, had time permitted, have established in Bohemia a just and fair system of religious toleration.

In the events which followed the memorable Defenestration of Prague in 1618, Budova played a less prominent part, He was, however, chosen as one of the "directors", \[95] and was also a member of the deputation that welcomed King Frederick at the Bohemian frontier. The new king appointed Budova president of the Court of Appeal, and in consequence of his former relations with Turkey he was attached as special commissioner to the Turkish ambassador who appeared at the court of Prague. He was present at the banquet given to the Turkish embassy by Count Thurn, of which Slavata has left us so insidious, and probably mendacious, an account.[96] After the battle of the White Mountain, Budova accompanied his wife and other members of his family to the frontier, where they were in safety. He then returned to Prague, stating that he could not abandon the Bohemian crown that had been intrusted to his custody. When asked why he had not fled, he spoke the often-quoted words: "I am weary of my days. May God deign to receive my soul, so that I may not behold the disaster which, as I know, has overcome my country." Budova was one of the Bohemian leaders who were decapitated on June 21, 1621, and is mentioned in SkÁla's account of that tragic event.[97] He refused the assistance of both Capuchins and Jesuits, and as no member of the Unity was allowed to assist the dying brethren, he walked resolutely and alone to the scaffold.

Of several religious works of Budova that have been preserved, the already-mentioned Anti-Alkoran is most worthy of notice. In the preface Budova explains how the book came to be written. The firm and intense religious feeling of the man is noticeable in every word. "From my earliest youth," he says, "God influenced my parents to that purpose that they sent me out of Bohemia to distant countries that I might acquire learning, and this happened in 1565. After having viewed the most prominent Christian countries, and having spent some time studying at academies, and seen the courts and governments of the foremost potentates, kings, and princes, and also the Italian land and Rome, I by God's grace returned to Bohemia and to my dear family in 1577. Then, however, I became very desirous of visiting the Eastern countries—those that the Turk, that Gog and Magog, who is the chief enemy of Christendom, has taken from the Christians, and now rules—and of seeing what the manner of the infamous Turkish religion is, and how the work of God continues among those Christians who live under the Turkish yoke, as it were in a Babylonian captivity."

Budova then tells us how he became a member of the numerous embassy that accompanied the ambassador John of Zinzendorf to Constantinople. While most of his companions, after a short stay at Constantinople, continued their travels to "Jerusalem, Damascus, Babylon, Arabia, and Persia," Budova was detained there, for he had accepted the position of hofmistr (master of the ceremonies) to the ambassador. "I then," Budova writes, "decided to make inquiries as to what the religion, or rather irreligion, of the Turks really was, and, as it were, to outline and depict for others that Turkish Antichrist with his fables and other frauds. It was of great assistance to me that I had with me a copy of the Alkoran (Koran), which in Spain had been translated from the ancient Arabic, such as it was at the time of Mahomet, into the Latin speech. This book was then, at the time of Luther, about the year 1550, printed with a preface by Philip Melanchthon. I, possessing this work, often entered into discussions, not only with the Turks, but also with the renegades—that means those who have fallen from the Christian faith, and of such there are here not hundreds but thousands. The result was that they themselves were surprised, and had to laugh at those most foolish fables (of the Koran), which are sillier than anything that has been taught by any heathens since the beginning of the world. Then, overcome by their consciences, they arrived at this conclusion—that they did not believe in God and in eternal life, but that, in accordance with Epicurus and the Sadduceans, they considered every religion as a political institution, and favoured such religious doctrines as were convenient to their bodily welfare, and contributed to their glory and advantage in the world. And as at Constantinople I saw all this with my eyes, that 'Gog and Magog', which in Bohemian can be described as the secret building, the extraordinary edifice composed of parts of the New and Old Testament, in which that Satan (i.e. the Sultan) endeavours to hide himself with his Alkoran—as I talked much on these subjects with Turks and renegades, that is, men who have abandoned the Christian faith, therefore am I better able to write on these subjects than those who only write what they have heard at second-hand." The Anti-Alkoran is divided into three parts. The first consists of copious extracts from the edition of the Koran mentioned in the preface; the second contains a refutation of the Mohammedan creed. The third part, scarcely connected with the others, consists of nine small treatises, which prove that the inclination to mysticism, that proved so harmful to KomenskÝ and many brethren, existed in Budova's mind also, and that, like so many of his contemporaries, he was given to the study of astrology.

Budova's letters, some of which, addressed to Peter of Rosenberg and preserved in the archives of Wittingau (Trebon), have recently been published, bear witness to the fervent piety so characteristic of Budova. In a letter addressed to Lord Peter in 1611, Budova informs his correspondent of the state of public affairs in Bohemia; he adds: "The Poles have obtained a victory over the Muscovites, and the German Electors will meet shortly at NÜremberg. May God deign to grant that all these matters may, to His honour and glory, be settled in a manner conducive to the general welfare, and above all, to concord, love, and enduring peace; then may we in Bohemia also be able, after all these incessant tempests, whirlwinds, and storms of the last three years, to obtain rest, and, as it were, to recover a little. But God threatens us with the plague, perhaps wishing to rescue us from the evil things that are preparing and to render us more obedient to His will and counsel. I constantly commend your Grace to God's mercy. May God's love render your Grace and all those who through God's favour believe in the Lord Christ day by day more able to find and expect those eternal heavenly blessings to which with certain faith we look forward."

This short notice of Budova's literary work would be incomplete if I omitted to mention that many of the state papers published by the Provisional Government of 1618, and by the Government of King Frederick—which both displayed a feverish but futile diplomatic activity—are the work of Wenceslas of Budova.

Before referring to KomenskÝ, the last great Bohemian writer of the Unity, mention should be made of some fruits of the literary activity of the brethren which were the joint works of several members of the community. Of these, the most important is the translation of the Holy Scriptures known as the "Bible of Kralice." From the time of Hus, when the Bohemian people obtained free access to the Bible, parts of the Scriptures had been frequently translated into Bohemian, and Brother Blahoslav, as already mentioned, published the whole New Testament in the national language. Towards the end of the sixteenth century the authorities of the Unity decided on publishing a complete Bohemian version of the Bible. Several clergymen of the Unity took part in the labours necessary for this purpose, which began in 1577 and ended in 1593, when the complete version was printed and published at Kralice in Moravia. Other editions followed in 1596 and 1613. The New Testament was printed in these editions exactly according to Blahoslav's already existent translation. The translation of the Old Testament was the joint work of several divines. The Bible of Kralice endeared itself to the Bohemian Protestants in the course of a very few years. With KomenskÝ's Labyrinth of the World, that will be mentioned presently, it was the only book that many Protestants whom the Austrian Government expelled from Bohemia after the battle of the White Mountain took into exile with them. This is referred to in the well-known song of the Bohemian exiles, in which they are made to say—

After the forcible re-establishment of the doctrine of Rome, it became a grave offence to be found in possession of a copy of the "Bible of Kralice". The Jesuits in particular were indefatigable in their endeavours to discover and destroy all copies of the book. The "Bible of Kralice" has recently been reprinted by the British Bible Society exactly from the edition of 1613.

Another interesting record of the Unity is the collection of reports of the proceedings at the general meetings of the community. It has already been mentioned that these meetings were very frequent. The numerous hymn-books ("Kancionaly", as they were called) of the brethren also deserve notice. They contained hymns by Brothers Lucas, Augusta, Blahoslav, and many others. The last Bohemian Kancional was published by KomenskÝ in 1659, when the brethren had already long been expelled from their native land.

I have now to deal with KomenskÝ, who, under the Latinised name of Comenius, is widely known beyond the limits of Bohemia. The value of KomenskÝ's writings has been judged very differently at different periods. His mystic, not to say superstitious and credulous, nature was particularly antipathetic to a French writer such as Bayle. The latter has, therefore, in his Dictionnaire Historique et Critique judged the whole work of KomenskÝ very unfavourably, and this judgment has often been repeated. With time opinion changed. His educational works, though for a long time only those that are little more than school-books were well known, began again to attract attention. In the present century the first Bohemian edition of the Didactica Magna was rediscovered, and extracts were made from the almost inaccessible Amsterdam folio of 1657, in which alone some of his educational works are contained. The very great merits of KomenskÝ as an instructor of the young are now recognised by most prominent teachers, who alone are competent to give an opinion on this point.

Recently public opinion has perhaps veered too much in the contrary direction. Not content with declaring, what is undeniable, that KomenskÝ was a learned and original writer on educational matters, and the author of one of the most fascinating allegorical tales that have ever been written, great importance has been attributed to his writings on philosophy, or, as he would have called it, "Pansophy." No one can impartially claim for KomenskÝ high rank as a philosopher, and it is certainly a mistake to speak of KomenskÝ's system of philosophy. There is no philosophical system of KomenskÝ in the sense that there exists a philosophical system of Spinoza. KomenskÝ is not only, when writing on "pansophy," constantly carried away by mystic ideas—the idea of "light," which he interpreted in a mystic manner, seems ever to have pursued him—but his "pansophic" works constantly encroach on the domain of natural history. This is the more to be regretted, as KomenskÝ's views on natural history were very often incorrect, and the fatal credulity which induced him to study the "prophecies" of Kotter, PonatovskÁ, and Drabik here also led him to accept as true the most absurd statements.

The life of KomenskÝ is a very sad one, and his patience, resignation, and unlimited trust in God must win for him the esteem of all sympathetic readers of his many works. An exile from his country early in life, only once the hope of a return to Bohemia appeared to him. It was when, after the victories of Gustavus Adolphus, his Saxon allies for a time expelled the Catholics from Bohemia. KomenskÝ was then already celebrated as a writer on educational topics, and he would probably, had the task of reorganising the schools of Bohemia been confided to him, have rendered these schools models for all Europe. He indeed confidently expresses this idea in his writings. But Wallenstein soon drove the Saxons out of Bohemia, and it is in any case doubtful whether the Lutheran Saxons would have intrusted KomenskÝ with the mission which he so ardently desired. Fate willed it that he was only able to make isolated attempts at establishing his new system of education in various countries and without continuity. The circumstances of his life were also as unfavourable as possible to his career as a writer. Travelling from Moravia to Bohemia, thence to Poland, Germany, England, Sweden, Hungary, Holland, ever unable to obtain tranquillity, often in financial difficulties, twice deprived of his library by fire, forced to write school-books when he was planning metaphysical works that he believed to be of the greatest value, he always undauntedly continued his vast literary undertakings. The critic who judges KomenskÝ from a purely literary standpoint will probably give preference over all his other works to the thoughtful, pessimistic, yet sometimes playful, allegorical narrative which he has called the Labyrinth of the World. This opinion coincides with that of the people of Bohemia. Since they have been free to read the works of their ancient writers, no book is more constantly in their hands than the Labyrinth.

Before noticing a few of the many works of KomenskÝ, I shall give a brief account of his adventurous life.[98] John Amos KomenskÝ was born at Ungarisch Brod in Moravia, or, according to some authorities, in the small neighbouring town of Nivnice, in 1592. He received his first education at Ungarisch Brod, and after the early death of his parents visited the school of Stranic, where Drabik—destined to have so fatal an influence on KomenskÝ—was also then studying. KomenskÝ's early impressions of the schools of the Unity were decidedly unfavourable. He complained that the masters made no attempt to attract the interest and attention of their pupils, overburdened their memories by insisting on unnecessary mechanical enumerations of words and facts, and stimulated the failing memory by the incessant and exaggerated application of corporal punishment. In the Labyrinth, written in KomenskÝ's youth, he graphically describes his school experiences. It is probable that these experiences first suggested to him his vast plan of remodelling the then accepted system of education. From Stranic KomenskÝ proceeded to Prerau (Prerov), then one of the centres of the Unity. He here continued his studies in view of becoming a member of the clergy of the community. He seems when very young already to have resolved to adopt this career.

For the purpose of completing his studies KomenskÝ was by the chiefs of the Unity sent to the University of Herborn in Nassau. That university, founded at the end of the sixteenth century by John the Elder, Count of Nassau, was then at the height of its fame. The religious teaching there was in accordance with the "Catechism of Heidelberg", that is to say, mainly founded on Calvin's views. The Unity was more in sympathy with these views than with the teaching of the Utraquist University of Prague. The brethren, therefore, often sent their promising youths to Herborn, though the regulation that the students dined at three different tables, where different meals were served according to the payment made by each student, offended their democratic views. At Herborn KomenskÝ became acquainted with Altsted (or Altstedius), who, though still a young man, was already celebrated as a writer on educational subjects. His theories had a considerable influence on KomenskÝ. From Herborn KomenskÝ proceeded to Heidelberg, where he also pursued his studies for some time. Before returning to his country he made a somewhat extensive journey through Germany and the Netherlands. Writing forty years later, he tells us that at this time (in 1613) he first visited Amsterdam, "the pearl of towns, the ornament of the Netherlands, the delight of Europe."

In 1614 KomenskÝ returned to Moravia, and was ordained a minister of the Unity in 1616, as soon as he had attained the necessary age. He was first sent to the small town of Fulneck in Moravia, where he married and spent the happiest and almost the only tranquil years of his life. It was not his destiny to continue long undisturbed in the pursuit of his religious duties, and of the studies to which he was already devoted. The events of the Bohemian war cast their shadow even over the peaceful community of Fulneck. Rumours of the events of the war between Bohemia and Austria occasionally reached the brethren. As KomenskÝ wrote: "Lightning shines before it strikes, and by its light we could see the glooming, gathering clouds of persecution," After the battle of the White Mountain the brethren, as the most decided opponents of Rome, were naturally the first to suffer. Detachments of troops, generally Spaniards, who were chosen for this purpose because of their greater bigotry and ferocity, scoured Bohemia and Moravia in every direction, burning down the settlements of the brethren, and killing or driving from the country the members of the communities. In 1621 a Spanish detachment attacked Fulneck and burnt down the town, forcing the brethren to fly for their lives. The MSS. and library of KomenskÝ were here for the first, but unhappily not for the last time burnt and destroyed. KomenskÝ himself managed to escape and sought refuge in Bohemia at Brandeis-on-the-Adler, which has already been mentioned as one of the centres of the Unity. The little town then belonged to Charles, Lord of erotin.[99] Though during his whole life a devoted member of the Unity, erotin had remained faithful to the House of Austria during the war that had just ended, and had even been menaced by the Moravian nobles, who had adopted the cause of Frederick of the Palatinate. In acknowledgment of his services, he was not by the Catholics included in the general decree of exile, and the Austrian authorities at first even overlooked the fact that many members of erotin's Church, among whom was KomenskÝ, sought refuge at Brandeis. KomenskÝ's intense literary activity, that had already begun at Fulneck, continued at Brandeis. There, besides minor works, the Labyrinth of the World was written, though the book was afterwards enlarged.

All KomenskÝ's writings while at Brandeis bear witness of an intense mental depression. Not only did he feel deeply the ruin and dispersion of the religious community which he had just begun to serve, but he also about this time lost his young wife, probably during the flight from Fulneck to Brandeis. Writing of this period about ten years later KomenskÝ says: "God willed it that, not only through the lamentable war, but also through the plague that spread throughout the country, great slaughter took place. I thus lost miserably my wife and my children, relations, connections, and kind benefactors. I suffered anxiety on anxiety that filled my heart. But what was harder to bear than all else was that God appeared to have abandoned our country and Church and left us orphans, for all the churches of Bohemia and Moravia were deprived of their faithful spiritual guides, many subjects lost their evangelic lords, these again lost their beloved subjects,[100] and the servants of God lost their churches."

The respite granted the brethren through the intercession of erotin did not last long. Every year the persecution of all in Bohemia who were outside the pale of the Church of Rome became severer and their position more precarious. At a secret meeting of the brethren in 1625, at which KomenskÝ was present, it was decided altogether to abandon Bohemia, and a discussion arose as to the country where the members of the Unity should seek refuge. It was finally decided that the brethren should separate, some proceeding to Poland, others to Hungary and Transylvania. Poland then had a large Protestant population, and this is still the case as regards the two other countries mentioned. Before finally leaving Bohemia, it was decided that messengers should be sent out in different directions to obtain information as to where the brethren could find quarters. KomenskÝ, with two companions, started for Poland. In that country Count Raphael Lescynski, himself a member of the Unity, was known as a warm friend of the brethren.

During his journey KomenskÝ first heard of the so called prophecies of one Christopher Kotter. Characteristically enough KomenskÝ immediately forgot all other preoccupations and obtained an interview with the "prophet." Henceforth his belief in Kotter was implicit, and he immediately decided on translating into Latin and into Bohemian the German prophecies, which are a tissue of absurdities.[101] The fact that a generally respected Protestant divine as KomenskÝ had desired an interview with Kotter of course greatly increased the man's celebrity. Even the Elector of Brandenburg, and Frederick, ex-king of Bohemia, requested that he should be presented to them. From Germany KomenskÝ continued his journey to Poland, and having, as he tells us, received satisfactory assurances from Count Lescynski, he returned for the last time to Bohemia towards the end of the year 1626.

He here again fell under the influence of a visionist, in whom he thoroughly believed, and whose hallucinations he even many years afterwards considered worthy of being recorded in print. Julian PonatovskÁ, an impecunious Polish nobleman, had been received as a member of the Unity and appointed preacher at MladÁ Boleslav. When the communities of the brethren were dispersed, Charles of erotin secured PonatovskÁ's safety by appointing him to the office of librarian at his castle at Namest in Moravia. Christina, PonatovskÁ's daughter, appears to have been of a highly hysterical nature, which, added to the intense religious excitement of the times, induced her to deliver "prophecies," which were generally received with the greatest interest. The pathological side of the question need not be dealt with here. It is sufficient to state that Christina, who had recently been reading the Revelation of St. John, declared that she had heard the voice of the Lord, who had chosen her as intermediary for the purpose of informing the faithful of the approaching defeat of Rome.

It was the misfortune of KomenskÝ to be brought accidentally into contact with the "prophetess." Christina had not joined her father in Moravia, but remained at Branna in Bohemia, not far from TremeŠna, where KomenskÝ was then staying. Christina suddenly became dangerously ill at Branna, and as the minister of the Unity who resided at TremeŠna happened to be absent, KomenskÝ was sent to Branna in his stead. He has given a rather curious account of his visit to the prophetess. She appeared to be in a state of ecstasy, and constantly repeated the words "Bridegroom, bridegroom!" Somewhat later she began to communicate her prophecies to KomenskÝ and the other persons present. She again prophesied that the Protestants would shortly obtain a complete victory over Austria and the Pope. To these prophecies also KomenskÝ gave immediate implicit faith. Though he soon left Branna, he remained in communication with Christina. The latter soon recovered from her illness, but continued to prophesy; her prophecies, indeed, became even more definite. She now announced that, through the will of her heavenly bridegroom, Jesus, Papacy would be abolished; that the Turks would be converted to Christianity, and that Ferdinand II. and Wallenstein would perish by violent deaths. Wallenstein was then residing at Jicin in Bohemia, and Christina, accompanied by a female friend, proceeded there to acquaint him with her prophecies. The great general was not at home, but Countess Wallenstein, who saw Christina, was greatly embarrassed, and consulted some Jesuits on the subject of her visionary visitor. The Jesuits advised that Christina should immediately be sent to jail; but it was finally agreed merely to remind her of the decree that had already banished from Bohemia all members of the Unity. Wallenstein was, on his return home, informed of the visit of the prophetess. He smiled, and remarked that the Emperor indeed received messages from Rome, Constantinople, and Madrid, but that he had received one from heaven.

Christina returned to Branna, and as her father had died meanwhile, she decided to join KomenskÝ and his wife—he had remarried very shortly after the death of his first wife—and a party of other exiles, who were on the point of leaving Bohemia. They set out in January 1628; and on crossing the frontier of their country in the direction of Silesia, "they all knelt down and prayed to God with cries and many tears, entreating Him that He would not finally avert His mercy from their beloved country nor allow the seed of His word to perish within it." In February KomenskÝ arrived at Lissa, a small town in that part of Poland that is now known as the Prussian province of Posen. PonatovskÁ for some time continued a member of KomenskÝ's household, and the controversy concerning the true inspiration of her prophecies raged for a considerable time. A joint meeting of doctors and ministers of the Unity did not settle the question, as the opinion of the doctors was in direct opposition to that of the ecclesiastics, of whom KomenskÝ was one. The latter never wavered in his belief in Christina's prophecies.[102] He maintained that it could nowhere be proved that the Church had been deprived of the gift of prophecy. Before dismissing Christina PonatovskÁ it should be stated that some time after these events she married a young man employed at the printing-work of the Unity at Lissa, had two sons and three daughters, and in later years "disliked all reference to her prophecies."

It would, however, be doing KomenskÝ bitter wrong if we supposed that he was, while at Lissa, exclusively occupied with the prophecies of Kotter and PonatovskÁ.

The period of his first residence at Lissa was, on the contrary, one of incessant and fruitful hard work. His duties as a preacher and schoolmaster were fulfilled with equally great conscientiousness, and, from the few sermons that have been preserved, it appears that in this respect also his ability was exceptional. It was also at this time that most of KomenskÝ's educational works were written, though many were re-modelled later. It is therefore very difficult to fix the chronological order of KomenskÝ's works, and even to decide whether the Bohemian or the Latin version of some of them is the original one. The beginning of the "pansophic" studies also dates from this time, and the Physica, KomenskÝ's first philosophical work, was completed as early as in 1632.

Of external events there is at this period of KomenskÝ's life little that requires mention. The monotonous life of the brethren was only occasionally interrupted by the echoes of the events of the Thirty Years' War. In 1631 the news of Gustavus Adolphus's great victory at Breitenfeld, and in the following year that of the occupation of Bohemia by the Saxons, reached Lissa. I have already noticed the brief and vain hopes that KomenskÝ founded on these events.

It is worthy of notice that even in those troublous times KomenskÝ's literary work soon became known. His "pansophic" studies, that appeal so little to modern readers, then attracted almost more attention than his really valuable educational works. Among those who appear to have taken an early interest in KomenskÝ's "pansophy" was Samuel Hartlib, a learned Englishman, who was probably of German origin, "who resided in London, and took a keen interest in everything that savoured of intellectual progress."[103] Hartlib seems, indeed, first to have heard of KomenskÝ as the author of Janua Linguarum, an educational work that then, and even long after, enjoyed great celebrity; but he was principally interested in KomenskÝ's philosophical studies. Hartlib entered into correspondence with him, requested information on the subject of "pansophy," and offered pecuniary assistance should KomenskÝ wish to visit England.

The latter seems to have received these proposals favourably, and he forwarded to Hartlib a sketch describing all the pansophic works he intended to write. Many of these works perished afterwards when the town of Lissa was burnt down, and it is therefore a mere matter of conjecture how many of them already were in existence. It is, however, certain that KomenskÝ at that time had already compiled a complete table of contents of his pansophic works under the name of Synopsis Operis Consultatorii.[104] Hartlib appears to have been delighted with KomenskÝ's communication, and, contrary to the author's wishes, he published his pansophic sketch at Oxford in 1637.

KomenskÝ does not seem to have resented this breach of faith. He had perhaps already made up his mind to visit England, where the publication of his work was likely to increase his fame. Disputes with other ministers of the Unity, who disapproved of KomenskÝ's visionary opinions, had rendered residence at Lissa distasteful to him. The death of Count Lescynski in 1637 was also a reason for leaving Lissa, though his son and successor, Count Bohnslav Lescynski,[105] continued to afford protection to the brethren even after he had adopted the Roman faith.

In the year 1641 KomenskÝ started for England, and, after a very perilous journey, during which his vessel was once driven near to the Norwegian coast and he was once nearly shipwrecked, he arrived in London on September 21st of that year. The description of the perils of the sea, which KomenskÝ introduced into the later editions of the Labyrinth, is founded on these personal experiences. Of the small coterie that welcomed KomenskÝ in London, Mr. Keatinge gives the following interesting account. "KomenskÝ," he writes, "was received with open arms by the little band, of which Hartlib was the centre. A man of great enthusiasm but less judgment, Hartlib knew everybody in England who was worth knowing.... At that time in easy circumstances, he was living in Duke's Place, Drury Lane, an address which, we may be sure, was the centre of KomenskÝ's London experiences. Here would have met to discuss the intellectual and political problems of the day men like Theodore Haak, John Durie, John Beale, John Wilkins, John Pell, and Evelyn, who had just returned to London after a three months' journey through Europe. Milton was living in London, and must certainly have met and conversed with the illustrious stranger."

KomenskÝ's impressions of England are contained in an interesting letter which, shortly after his arrival on the 18th (old style 8th) of October 1641, he addressed to his friends at Lissa.[106] After describing his journey and the kind reception given to him by his English friends, KomenskÝ writes: "What, after having now spent nearly a month here, I have been able to see, hear, and understand, I will briefly report, dealing first with public affairs and then with my own.

"This nook of the earth has much that differs from other countries, and is worthy of admiration. What interests me most are those matters which concern the glory of God and the flourishing state of the Church and the schools (both now and, it is to be hoped, yet more in the future).

"If I enumerate some points specially, I know it will not be displeasing to you and to the friends of God.

"I.[107] The ardour with which the people crowd to the churches is incredible. The town has 120 parish churches, and in all of them—of all those which I have visited, I state this as an ascertained fact—there is such a crowd that space is insufficient.

"II. Almost all bring a copy of the Bible with them.... Therefore the preacher, when reading his text, twice mentions book, chapter, and verse. If the text is short (for he often chooses a single line), he reads it twice over also.

"III. Of the youths and men, a large number copy out the sermons word by word with their pens. For here, thirty years ago (under King James), they discovered an art which now even the uneducated practise, that of 'tachygraphia,' which they call stenography....

"IV. After the sermons, most fathers of families repeat the sermon at home with the members of their household. Sometimes two or three families meet for this purpose.

"Of books on all subjects in their own language they have an enormous number, so that I doubt whether any country is equal to them, particularly as regards books on theology. There are truly not more bookstalls at Frankfurt at the time of the fair than there are here every day. Verulamius's (Bacon's) work De Scientiarum Augmentis has also recently appeared in English.

"VI. Their thirst for the word of God is so great, that many of the nobles, citizens also and matrons, study Greek and Hebrew to be able more safely and more sweetly to drink from the very spring of life. Do not think that only one or two do this; there are many, and day by day this holy contagion spreads farther.

"VII. Some select men designated by Parliament are now working that they may have the text of the Bible as accurate as possible, corresponding in everything with the sources, and furnished with very short marginal notes. Here, however, political considerations have somewhat interfered, for they have fixed them a term of a few months only; but I hope the time will be prolonged.

"VIII. They are vehemently debating on the reform of the schools of the whole kingdom in a manner similar to that to which, as you know, my wishes tend, that is, that all young people should be instructed, none neglected, and that their instruction should be such that it lay down the foundations of Christianity more deeply and more solidly in the tender minds, thus afterwards rendering greater the efficacy of religious ministration.

"IX. They are endeavouring to found a special illustrious school—whether in London or elsewhere has not yet been settled—for young men of noble birth, separated from all mixture with plebeians.

"X. An instruction for parents as to the provident care of their children in infancy and their wise preparation for further culture in accordance with my Instruction[108] ... had been prepared here before I arrived...."

Paragraphs XI. and XII. have little interest, but the last part of the letter, which deals with the political situation of England, and reflects, no doubt, the opinions of KomenskÝ's English friends, is worth quoting. Paragraph XIII. begins thus: "The questions concerning episcopal rank give much trouble here; some wish to preserve it in its entire former dignity, others to abolish entirely both the name and the office; others again wish to retain the episcopal name and office, but to suppress the worldly pomp, the too great luxury and the uncalled-for interference in temporal matters, which are too often the results of the episcopal system. The larger part of the nobles, however, and almost all the people, desire the complete suppression (of the episcopal rank); so hated has the whole order of bishops become because of the abuse of their office, and because of their endeavours to rule men's consciences and oppose the liberty of the people. Even our own Bishop of Lincoln (of bishops the most learned, the most cultivated, and politically the most sagacious), who was three years ago deprived of his office by the Archbishop, imprisoned, but then liberated by Parliament, is beginning to be badly spoken of, and there are some who predict evil for him. They say he will not only be deprived of his office together with the other bishops, but also that he will again be imprisoned. For new plots against the Parliament have been discovered, some secret, some almost open. But I hope and believe in better things for the good bishop. When, the other day, he invited me as well as DurÆus (Durie) and Hartlib to dine and discuss with him, he spoke most reservedly on all these matters. He only remarked that he did not know whether he and his colleagues should be reckoned among the dead or among the living. Should things take a more peaceful turn, he promised great aid to us and to ours....

"XIV. Archbishop Laud is detained in prison, with no hope of liberation. For while Parliament is prorogued, commissioners have been appointed who will inquire into his acts and be informed of the various grievances against him, which Parliament had not time to hear. This has been done. They also say that such matters have been produced that there is no hope for his life.

"XV. The decision of the Parliament, published before its prorogation, which decreed the removal from all churches of such 'articles of ceremony' as altars, crosses, &c., which had been introduced by the Archbishop, has within the last days been carried out almost everywhere, In one of the churches here in London there was a window, the religious and very artistic painting of which, they say, cost £4000, that is 16,000 imperials. The ambassador of the Spanish king who resides here offered to pay the whole of this sum if he could have the window intact. But the somewhat exaggerated zeal of the people despised the proffered money and broke the window, considering that it was wrong to obtain gain by means of idolatrous objects."

KomenskÝ's visit to England was, like so many of his undertakings, a complete failure. He seems indeed to have realised this soon, and to have acquired in a short time a considerable insight into the state of affairs in England. KomenskÝ's plan of founding a "Christian Academy of Pansophy" was at best absurd, but it was doubly so at a moment when England was drifting rapidly towards civil war. Quite at first, however, KomenskÝ appears to have believed in the feasibility of his favourite plan, and he even meditated whether "the Savoy in London, Winchester, outside of London, or Chelsea, very near the capital, would be the best site for the academy." The question naturally arises, What was the object of the academy that KomenskÝ, Hartlib, and other enthusiasts planned? Mr. Keatinge suggests that the academy had no further purpose than "to organise a collection of laboratories for physical research." This, though undoubtedly part of the plan, was certainly not the whole plan. The academy, according to KomenskÝ, was to be composed of the wisest men of all countries, who, among many other things, were to elaborate a universal language. They were to meet in England "because of the heroic deeds of the Englishman Drake, who by five times circumnavigating the world furnished, as it were, a prelude to the future holy unity of all nations." KomenskÝ's plans are so obviously utopian that it is scarcely necessary to mention that they came to nothing. An universal language will never be accepted, and universal peace, or the "holy unity of all nations," as KomenskÝ termed it—though the events of the last few months prove that that ideal still has believers—was certainly impossible in KomenskÝ's time, and probably will continue an impossibility.

Though long convinced that his fantastic plans found little favour in England, KomenskÝ yet remained in London up to June 1642. He here wrote, for the benefit of Hartlib and his other English friends, his Via Lucis, in which millenarian views are very noticeable.

Soon after his arrival in London, KomenskÝ had received a letter from Louis de Geers, a rich Dutch merchant, who had important business connections with Sweden. He had already entered into correspondence before, and the letter of De Geers was forwarded to KomenskÝ from Lissa. De Geers in his letter suggested that KomenskÝ should proceed to Sweden for the purpose of reorganising the schools of that country according to his new educational theories. It is a proof how soon he had lost his hope in English aid for his pansophic plans that in November 1641 KomenskÝ already conditionally accepted the offer of De Geers. The latter had really thought of KomenskÝ only as a man who was already an authority on matters of education; but KomenskÝ himself, sanguine as ever, saw in a visit to Sweden an opportunity of expounding his pansophic views to the Chancellor Oxenstiern, and also—a more sensible object—of enlisting the sympathies of the Swedish statesman for the Bohemian exiles.

In June 1642 KomenskÝ left England, and first proceeded to Holland. It is a proof of the great celebrity that he had already attained that he here received yet another invitation. While travelling in Holland, KomenskÝ met Richard Charles Winthrop, formerly Governor of Massachusetts, who suggested to him that he should proceed to America and become rector of Harvard College, that had been founded six years before. KomenskÝ, who was bound by his agreement with the Swedish Government, in the name of which De Geers had negotiated with him, declined the offer. In September 1642 KomenskÝ arrived in Sweden, had an interview with De Geers, and afterwards at Stockholm met the Chancellor Oxenstiern. KomenskÝ has left a detailed and very interesting account of the latter interview, from which want of space unfortunately prevents my quoting. KomenskÝ, of course, laid great stress on his visionary views and on his "pansophic"—philosophical one can hardly call them—writings. The great Chancellor, on the other hand, warmly praised KomenskÝ's educational works, and suggested, as De Geers had already done, that he should write a series of Latin school-books for the use of the Swedish schools. With characteristic tact, Oxenstiern remarked that if he facilitated the study of the Latin language, KomenskÝ would prepare the way to further more profound studies. As KomenskÝ refused to remain in Sweden, it was decided that he should settle at Elbing, in Prussia, not very far from Sweden.

KomenskÝ spent six years (1642-1648) at Elbing, occupied partly with the preparation of the school-books he had been commissioned to write, partly with his favourite "pansophic" studies. His life here, as almost everywhere, was a troubled one. The agents of the Swedish Government urged him, in a manner that was not always delicate, to proceed with the task he had accepted and not to waste his time on works of a different nature. On the other hand, Hartlib, with the characteristic inability of a rich man to understand that others have to work for their living, bitterly reproached KomenskÝ with having abandoned the sublime works that had been planned in London for the purpose of writing school-books.

In 1648, on the death of Bishop Justinus, the members of the Unity assembled at Lissa chose KomenskÝ as one of their bishops. He outlived all his colleagues, and eventually became the last bishop of the Bohemian Brethren. On receipt of the news of his election, KomenskÝ started for Lissa, but not until he had forwarded to Sweden some of the school-books which he had been commissioned to write. The year 1648 brought a great blow to the members of the Unity and to the Bohemian Protestants generally. The Treaty of Westphalia was signed in that year, and no stipulations in favour of the Bohemian exiles were contained in it. At the risk of prolonging the war, the Austrian Government maintained its principle that no one who did not profess the creed of Rome should be allowed to reside in Bohemia or Moravia; to Silesia slight concessions were granted. All the hopes of the exiles that they might once be able to return to their beloved Bohemia were now destroyed for ever. Oxenstiern had to the last defended the cause of the exiles, and did not deserve the severe reproaches that KomenskÝ addressed to him.

All hopes of worldly aid having vanished, KomenskÝ relied more than ever on the intervention of God, and on the visions and prophecies which announced that such an intervention would shortly take place. "If there is no aid from man," he wrote to Oxenstiern, "there will be from God, whose aid is wont to commence when that of men ceases." KomenskÝ's relations with Kotter and PonatovskÁ prove sufficiently that it was not now that mysticism and credulity first obscured his generally clear brain; but it is evident that KomenskÝ never quite recovered from the blow inflicted by the Treaty of Westphalia, which to his generally optimistic nature appeared unexpected. His reliance even on the prophecies of an impudent liar and humbug such as Drabik injured his reputation in the learned world, and threw obloquy even on his masterly, wise, and perfectly sane educational works.

Ever restless, KomenskÝ was not prevented, even by the responsibilities of his new dignity, from undertaking new wanderings. It has already been mentioned that when the members of the Unity were expelled from Bohemia many brethren sought refuge in Hungary. They now complained that for many years they had not seen their brother KomenskÝ, who had meanwhile acquired such celebrity. KomenskÝ was already meditating a visit to Hungary when he received a letter from George Rakoczy, prince of Transylvania, inviting him to visit his domains, and to introduce there the educational reforms which had rendered him celebrated. Rakoczy then ruled not only over Transylvania, but also over a considerable part of Northern Hungary, including the towns of Tokay and Saros Patak; the latter of these towns was indeed a frequent residence of the Transylvanian princes. Having obtained the consent of the other seniors or bishops, KomenskÝ in 1650 again set out on his travels. On his journey he passed through PuchÖ, a small town in Northern Hungary, and assisted at a meeting of the members of the Unity which took place there. Among those present was Nicholas Drabik, a former school-fellow of KomenskÝ, who proposed to accompany him on his farther journey. Drabik had already some years previously forwarded some "prophecies" to KomenskÝ, and the latter now fell entirely under his influence.

It is with pity and shame that I refer to Drabik's prophecies in connection with so great and good a man as KomenskÝ; their value was about the same as that of the political predictions of a third-rate writer of leading articles; the style is a vile imitation of that of the Revelation of St. John. The leading idea is the destruction of the House of Austria, which is described as the bestia of the Apocalypse. The nations that were to effect this downfall varied in the predictions according to the political situation of the day. Turkey was then almost always at war with the House of Habsburg, and therefore always figured among these nations. At this moment Drabik announced that he had just had a vision informing him that enemies coming from four directions were surrounding "the beast." They were the princes of the House of Rakoczy, "the dearest instruments of God," from the east; the Greeks and Servians from the south; the Poles, Lithuanians, Russians, Tartars, and Turks from the north; the Swiss from the west! The Hungarian crown was assured to Sigismund Rakoczy, at whose expense Drabik was then living. KomenskÝ, who had received former "prophecies," ventured to remark that in them the crown of Hungary had been assured to Sigismund's father, Prince George Rakoczy (who had died in 1648). Drabik then "burst out into tears," and thus pacified the kind-hearted KomenskÝ. It may incidentally be remarked, that when Prince Sigismund died in 1652, Drabik again calmly transferred his prophecy, this time to that prince's brother and successor, George II. of Transylvania. While Kotter may have believed in his visions, and physical circumstances probably explain those of PonatovskÁ, Drabik was simply an impostor, who managed not only to live at free quarters, but also to obtain considerable sums of money as a remuneration for alleged negotiations with Turkey. It was indeed through him that KomenskÝ, who was integrity personified, was at Saros Patak accused of indelicacy in financial matters and of greediness for money. These accusations were afterwards echoed by the divines with whom KomenskÝ was engaged in controversies during the last years of his life, and they also found their way into Bayle's Dictionnaire Historique et Critique.

It must be sufficient to note the enormous influence Drabik acquired over KomenskÝ; to account for it is impossible, unless we assume that much suffering and disappointment had weakened his intellect. This is, however, disproved by the fact that the educational works which KomenskÝ continued to write nearly to the end of his life show little trace of waning mental power. It must be taken into account, also, that visions and prophecies found very general belief in those days. Mr. Keatinge, in his interesting book to which I have already referred, mentions several instances of learned Englishmen who had read the prophecies of Drabik (or Drabicius, as he was called in England), and fully believed in them. Bayle also writes that when, in 1683, the news that the Turks were besieging Vienna reached Paris, the name of the prophet Drabik was in every mouth. Drabik at last came to an evil end. A few months (fortunately) after KomenskÝ's death, Drabik was arrested as a swindler and conspirator. He confessed his impostures and was executed, though he had accepted the creed of Rome in the hope of saving his life.

KomenskÝ's activity as a teacher while at Saros Patak was indefatigable. He attempted to improve and reorganise the "gymnasium" of the town, and also wrote several new educational works during his stay in Hungary. He encountered, however, many obstacles; the local teachers were opposed to him, and reproached him with his intimacy with Drabik; linguistic difficulties also arose. If KomenskÝ yet remained four years in Hungary, it was mainly for political purposes. He still hoped to contribute to the formation of a Protestant League which would drive the Austrians out of Bohemia, and thus enable the brethren to return to their beloved country. KomenskÝ now hoped for aid from England, since Cromwell was famed all over the Continent as the protector of persecuted Protestants. After the death of Sigismund Rakoczy, KomenskÝ actually succeeded in inducing his brother and successor, George II., to endeavour to negotiate an alliance with England and Sweden against Austria. When the Transylvanian embassy started for London, it was instructed to pass by Lissa to consult with KomenskÝ, who had already returned to Poland. His knowledge of English affairs would, it was thought, prove useful, and it is probable that the state paper which the ambassadors presented to Cromwell was from the pen of KomenskÝ. KomenskÝ, indeed, always seems to have continued to communicate with his English friends. As late as in 1658, Cromwell and Thurloe, no doubt through the intermediation of Hartlib, suggested that the Bohemian Brethren, together with the Vaudois or Waldenses, whom the Duke of Savoy was then persecuting, should be established in Ireland. Lands formerly belonging to Roman Catholics were to have been given to them, and it was thought that the Protestant element in Ireland would thus be strengthened. KomenskÝ, perhaps injudiciously, declined the proposal. He stated, either in consequence of his own conviction or because of his belief in the wretched Drabik's prophecies, that the brethren would shortly return to their own country, and therefore could not travel to distant lands.

In 1654 KomenskÝ returned to Lissa, but his stay there was now short and troubled. War between Sweden and Poland broke out in the following year, and the victorious Swedes occupied Lissa in August 1655. The only policy for the homeless community of the brethren evidently was to remain neutral in these alien quarrels. Unfortunately, KomenskÝ employed his ever-ready pen in composing a panegyric on Charles Gustavus, the victorious Swedish king. In the following year the town of Lissa was retaken by the Polish army, pillaged, and burnt down. KomenskÝ's library and his MS. were again destroyed. The brethren, perhaps not without reason, accused KomenskÝ of having, through his injudicious writings, caused the downfall of the community of Lissa, to which the Poles had never been hostile before.

KomenskÝ, now sixty-five years old, was again homeless, and he was at first uncertain where he should seek refuge. He proceeded to Hamburg, but there received an invitation to Amsterdam from Lawrence De Geers, the son of his old patron Louis De Geers. KomenskÝ started for Amsterdam, and here spent the latest years of his life. His literary activity continued to the last. He published at Amsterdam the only complete edition of his educational works, and even wrote new "pansophic" books. Differing on this point from his father, Lawrence De Geers took great interest in these studies, and even in the writings of the "prophets," in whom KomenskÝ obstinately continued to believe. De Geers was foolish enough to invite Drabik to Amsterdam, and it was through his financial aid that KomenskÝ was enabled to publish in 1657 his Lux in Tenebris, a book in which all the prophecies of Kotter, PonatovskÁ, and Drabik were again brought before the public.

The mystic and now openly professed chiliastic views of KomenskÝ involved him during the last years of his life in numerous theological controversies. Detailed accounts of them have recently been published in Bohemian, perhaps rather because everything concerned with KomenskÝ is valued by his countrymen than because these controversies now have much interest. Among KomenskÝ's theological antagonists were Nicholas Arnold, Daniel Zwicker, and Samuel Des Marets, a professor at GrÖningen. The last-named attacked the aged bishop of the Unity with great violence, calling him "a fanatic, a visionary, and an enthusiast in folio." He also accused him of obtaining large sums from the De Geers family by means of "pansophic hope and chiliastic smoke." A polemical essay directed against Descartes also belongs to KomenskÝ's last years. These years were very melancholy, though the old man, characteristically enough, found great relief in the society of an aged French prophetess and visionist named Antoinette Bourgignon. His old comrades died off one by one. Of the bishops of the community, Gertichius died in 1667, and Figulus (KomenskÝ's son-in-law) in January 1670. In the same year, on November 15th, KomenskÝ, the last bishop of the Bohemian Brethren, ended his long and troubled life.

It would require a book larger than the whole of this volume to give even a slight account of the 142 works[109] of KomenskÝ. Such a book would hardly have much general interest. The enormous total includes prayer-books, lists of regulations for the Unity, mere school-books, sermons, works on natural history that long since have become valueless, and so on. These lists, however, which include only books that are still in existence, do not comprise the entire fruits of the literary activity of KomenskÝ. Several "pansophic" works that are enumerated in a table of contents, to which I have already referred, are no longer in existence, and were probably destroyed when the town of Lissa was burnt down.

While at Fulneck, KomenskÝ was already busy writing works on grammar as well as a Bohemian translation of the Psalms. The melancholy events of the year 1621, when he lost his wife and his home at Fulneck and began his many wanderings, inspired him to write several religious books, all bearing witness to the deep depression of the author. Such works are the Help for the Soul, The Impregnable Castle, which is the Name of the Lord, The Dismal Complaint of a Christian, The Centre of Security, and others. All these writings are in Bohemian, as also is the far better known Labyrinth, which KomenskÝ wrote at Brandeis-on-the-Adler shortly after his arrival there, and dedicated to his patron, Lord Charles of erotin. The Labyrinth of the World, perhaps one of the best allegorical narratives that has ever been written, professes the same pessimism, combined with a fervent belief in the revelations of the Christian faith, which can be found in the other works also which I have just mentioned. The Labyrinth from its first appearance obtained an immense popularity with the Bohemian people,[110] to which I have already referred. Since the Bohemians have again been able to read freely the records of their ancient literature, the Labyrinth has regained its former popularity, as is proved by the numerous recently published editions.

The Labyrinth of the World, written in KomenskÝ's youth, is, from a literary point of view, undoubtedly his greatest achievement. Rarely perhaps has the vanity of all worldly matters, the hopelessness of men's struggles, the inevitable disappointment which is the result of even the most successful ambition, been more clearly expounded than in this small and unknown work. Were we not constantly reminded that we are reading the book of a devout Christian and member of the Unity, we should fancy that we were reading the work of a forerunner of Schopenhauer. KomenskÝ's Labyrinth, in fact, reeks with pessimism, though his admirable religious faith and piety enabled him to give a supernatural and consolatory ending to his book. Happiness, unattainable here, is to be found elsewhere.

The little book is well worth being translated into English, and I hope some day to attempt that task.[111] It will here only be possible to give an outline of the tale and a few quotations. KomenskÝ tells us of the adventures of a young man who, "when arrived at that age when the human mind begins to understand the difference between good and evil, sees how various are men's stations and ranks, their vocations, and the works and undertakings which occupy them." He then meditates as to "what group of men he should join, and with what subjects he should occupy his life." The youth then starts on his wanderings, having accepted "Impudence" and "Falsehood" as his guides. They conduct him to the summit of a high tower. He now beholds a city which appeared to him "beautiful, splendid, and broad, with countless streets, squares, houses, smaller and larger buildings, all swarming with people." The six principal streets, his companions tell him, are inhabited respectively by married people, tradesmen, scholars, priests, rulers, and soldiers. To the west of the city he is shown the "Castle of Fortune." In the middle of the city is a vast square, in the centre of which is the residence of the "Queen of Wisdom." The pilgrim is then shown two gates: the first, that of life, through which all must pass; the second, that of separation. Before entering this gate, all must draw lots and accept a career in the world in accordance with the lot they have drawn. They arrive at the gates of separation, and then the pilgrim, or rather KomenskÝ, tells us: "We went downward by a dark winding staircase, and before the door there was a wide hall full of young people, and on the right side there sat a fierce-looking old man, holding in his hand a large copper jar. And I saw that all those who came from the gate of life stepped up to him, and each one put his hand into the jar and drew from it a scrap of paper on which something was written. Then each of them went down one of the streets, some running and shouting from joy, while others crept along slowly, looked around them, groaned and lamented.

"I also then came nearer, looked at some of the scraps of paper, and noticed that one contained the word 'Rule!' another 'Serve!' another 'Command!' another 'Write!' another 'Plough!' another 'Learn!' another 'Dig!' another 'Judge!' yet another 'Fight!' and so forth. Impudence said to me: 'Here vocations and work are distributed, and according to this distribution every one has to fulfil his task in the world. He who distributes the lots is called Fate, and from him in this fashion every one who enters the world must receive his instructions.'

"Then Falsehood nudged me at my other side, thus giving me notice that I also should stretch out my hand. I begged not to be obliged to take any one lot directly without first examining it, nor to intrust myself to blind fortune. But I was told that without the permission of the Lord Regent Fate this could not be. Then stepping up to him, I modestly brought forward my request, saying that I had arrived with the intention of seeing everything for myself, and only then choosing what pleased me." "He answered: 'My son, you see that others do not this, but what is given or offered them they take. However, as you desire this, it is well!' Then he wrote on a scrap of paper, 'Speculare,' that is to say, 'Look round you or inquire,' gave it to me and left me."

The pilgrim and his two companions now enter the city, and proceed first to the street of the married people. Here KomenskÝ gives us what, for one who was married three times, and is not known to have been unhappy in marriage, seems an intensely gloomy and pessimistic view of married life. He dilates on the uncertainty of choice in marriage, on the trouble caused by children, on the disappointment felt by the childless, on all that is unlovely in love. The pilgrim then proceeds to the street of the tradesmen, and the many troubles, anxieties, and disappointments to which commerce is exposed are eloquently described. KomenskÝ, in the later editions of the Labyrinth, here inserted a curious passage referring to his own sea-voyage, from which I can only quote a few lines. "The wind," he writes, "had meanwhile increased so rapidly that we were tossed about in a manner that horrified our hearts; the sea rolled round us in every direction with such gigantic waves that our course was, as it were, up high hills and down deep valleys, once upward and then again downward; sometimes we were shot upwards to such heights that it seemed as if we were to reach the moon, then again we descended as into a precipice.... This continued day and night, and any one can imagine what anguish and fear we felt. Then I said to myself, 'Surely these men (the sailors) must be more pious than all other men, they who never for an hour are sure of their lives;' but looking at them, I observed that they were all without exception eating gluttonously, as in a tavern, drinking, playing, laughing, talking in an obscene manner, in fact, committing every sort of evil deed and licentiousness."

The pilgrim next visits the scholars or learned men. KomenskÝ, here quite in his element, passes judgment on many savants of his time, and gives his opinion on astronomy, history, natural history, poetry, and philosophy as they appeared to him in the writings of his contemporaries. His erudition, judged, of course, by the standard of his time, does not appear profound, but he sometimes, in few words, describes epigrammatically currents of thought that had importance in his day.

The chapters which deal with the priesthood are closely connected with those that tell us of the pilgrim's visit to the men of learning. As KomenskÝ had, when describing the former, laid stress on the many follies of philosophers and the vanity of human learning, he now deals severely with the professed teachers of religious truth, noting their obstinacy, their want of erudition, their constant reciprocal animosities.

The pilgrim and his companions now proceed to the street of the rulers. Here, in accordance with the pessimistic note which characterises the book, we are told that all earthly authority is evil, but that if it did not exist, the condition of the world would be yet worse. We here find interesting allusions to contemporary events, the sudden appearance and downfall of King Frederick of Bohemia and the executions at Prague in 1621. KomenskÝ lays stress on the uncertainty of royal power. He writes: "Then the royal throne (that of Ferdinand of Austria is meant) suddenly shook, broke into bits, and fell to the ground. Then I heard noise among the people, and looking round, I saw that they were leading in another prince and seating him on the throne, while they joyously exclaimed that things would now be different from what they were. They flatter the new prince and all who can strengthen the throne for him to sit on. I, thinking it right to act for the advantage of the general welfare, also contributed a nail or two to strengthen the throne; for this some praised me, while others looked at me with disapproval. But meanwhile the other prince recovered himself, and he and his men attacked us with cudgels, thrashing the whole crowd till they fled, and many even lost their necks." KomenskÝ here alludes to some service which he had rendered to the government of King Frederick, of which nothing is otherwise known. He no doubt sympathised with that government and was on terms of acquaintance with administrators of the Utraquist Consistory of Prague. One of the administrators, Cyrillus, who assisted the president, Dicastus, at the coronation of King Frederick, was the father of KomenskÝ's second wife, whom he married about the time when he wrote the Labyrinth.

After the rulers, the pilgrim visits the soldiers. KomenskÝ here gives a very lifelike description of the brutal ways of the soldiery at the time of the Thirty Years' War. His battle-picture is also striking. "Then suddenly," he writes, "the drums beat, the trumpet resounds, noisy cries arise. Then, behold, all rise up, seize daggers, cutlasses, bayonets, or whatever they have, and strike unmercifully at one another till blood spirts out. They hack and hew at one another worse than the most savage animals. Then in every direction the cries increased; one could hear the tramping of horses, the clashing of armour, the clattering of swords, the growl of the artillery, the whistle of shots and bullets round our ears, the sound of trumpets, the crash of drums, the cries of those who urged on the soldiers, the shouting of the victors, the shrieking of the wounded and dying; an awful leaden hailstorm could be seen, fearful fiery thunder and lightning could be heard; now this, now that man's arm, head, leg, flew away; there one fell over another; everything swam in blood! 'Almighty God!' said I, 'what is happening? Must the whole world perish?'"

The pilgrim now tells his companions that he has everywhere found but vanity. They answer him by informing him that those who have laboured hard eventually find their way to the castle of Fortune, where happiness, honour, and pleasure await them. The pilgrim is now conducted to this castle, but here also finds nothing that attracts him. He reflects on the many cares that are the consequence of riches, the misery that ever threatens libertines, gamblers, and gluttons, the vanity of glory and of ancient lineage. The pilgrim's guides, uncertain what to do with him, now lead him to the castle of the goddess of Worldly Wisdom. They bring him before the goddess and thus accuse him: "Most serene queen of the world," they say, "most brilliant ray of God's light, magnificent Wisdom! The young man whom we bring before you has had the fortune to receive from Fate (the regent of your Majesty) the permission to view all the ranks and conditions in this kingdom of the world.... But he always complains to us of everything; everything displeases him; he is always striving for something that is unattainable. Therefore we cannot satisfy his wild cravings nor understand them, and we bring him before your serene grace, and leave it to your prudence to decide what is to be done with him."

The queen receives the pilgrim graciously and invites him to remain at her court. Shortly afterwards Solomon appears at the queen's court with the intention of wedding her. He is accompanied by a large crowd of courtiers, among whom are Socrates, Plato, Epictetus, Seneca, many Christians and Jews. In their presence the queen receives numerous deputations, all bringing petitions, beggars, philosophers, who are represented by Theophrastus and Aristotle, judges, lawyers, and others. At last the queen receives a deputation of women. They state that it would be fair that they and men should alternately have dominion. Some even say that they alone should rule, as their bodies are more agile and their minds quicker than those of men. As men for so many years have ruled women, it is, they say, time that women should take superior rank. A few years ago, they add, a noble example of this was given in the kingdom of England under the reign of Queen Elizabeth, for she decreed that all men should give their right hand to women, a worthy custom that still endured.

Solomon, who had hitherto listened attentively to the petitions and to the queen's answers, now suddenly exclaims, "Vanity of vanities, and everything is vanity." He then tears away the mask which the queen wore, and she appears as a hideous hag. Yet shortly afterwards Solomon is, by means of flattery, again won over to her side and conducted to the street of married people, where he is unable to resist the female attractions that offer themselves to him. Fearful calamities are the consequence of Solomon's weakness, and the pilgrim despairingly exclaims, "Oh, that I had never been born, never passed through the gate of life! for after having surveyed all the vanities of the world, nothing but darkness and horror are my part. O God, God! If thou art a God, have mercy on wretched me!" The pilgrim, whom his companions have meanwhile abandoned, now hears a voice from on high which exclaims, "Return whence thou camest into the house of thy heart, and then close the doors." The voice is that of Christ, who appears to the pilgrim and instructs him in true religion; the teaching, needless to say, is strictly in accordance with the doctrine of the Unity. The pilgrim is then received into heaven, and the last chapter consists in a prayer to Christ, ending with the Latin words, Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonÆ voluntatis.

It is impossible to render justice to the Labyrinth in a few pages, and no book lends itself less to quotation. KomenskÝ, who is generally diffuse and addicted to repetition, has here given us an enormous amount of thought and experience in a very small volume.

The great educational works of KomenskÝ, on which his principal claim to posthumous fame is founded, but which do not perhaps require lengthy mention in a work that deals mainly with literature, were principally written during the author's first prolonged stay at Lissa. Though the order in which KomenskÝ's educational works were written cannot always be ascertained with certainty, there is little doubt that one of the earliest was the Informatorium Školy MaterskÉ (= instruction for mother-schools).[112] It first appeared in Bohemian in 1628. The little book deals with the earliest instruction which a child receives from its mother. It soon obtained great popularity, and was speedily translated into German, Latin, and English. Anticipating Rousseau, KomenskÝ lays great stress on the duty of mothers to nurse their children. The Instruction for Mother-Schools is still much read in Bohemia, and some of the regulations contained in it have been adopted for the modern "Kindergarten." Many other educational works of KomenskÝ appeared in rapid succession during his stay at Lissa. The most valuable of them is the Didactica Magna, which, like the Informatorium, was originally written and first published in Bohemian. KomenskÝ here establishes four degrees of education: the mother-school, the vernacular school, the Latin school or gymnasium, and the academy or university. The earliest education in Germany and Austria is, except in the case of the Kindergarten, still left to the mother's own discretion; but it is interesting to note that the three other divisions of educational establishments suggested by KomenskÝ are almost exactly in accordance with the present system of education in these countries.

It is beyond the purpose of this book to give a detailed account of KomenskÝ's educational theories. I must refer those who are interested in the subject to Mr. Keatinge's excellent introduction to his recently published English version of the Didactica Magna, which I have already mentioned. The writer here gives us a concise but very clear sketch of these theories.

One of the best known, probably formerly the best known, work of KomenskÝ is also of an educational character. I am referring to the celebrated Janua Linquarum Reserata, which was first published in 1631. The book was an attempt—somewhat anticipating Ollendorf's method—of facilitating the study of Latin, and in the enlarged editions that of other languages as well.[113] The book immediately obtained an enormous success, and was constantly republished even up to the beginning of the present century. Philology and the science of languages generally have made such gigantic progress since KomenskÝ's time that the modern reader has the impression that the book was immensely overrated. KomenskÝ's peculiar system of introducing as many different words as possible, and of avoiding as far as possible the repetition of a word that had already been used, give the book an appearance of artificiality and constraint. The real leading idea of KomenskÝ's Janua is an attempt simultaneously to teach a language and to enlarge as far as possible the extent of the pupil's ideas. I have elsewhere translated a portion of the curious chapter De Statu Regio. I shall here quote the first introductory chapter, which gives some idea of KomenskÝ's method. It is written in the form of a dialogue between the reader and the author. The latter begins thus:—"Welcome, friendly reader! If you ask me what it is to be learned, receive this answer: It means to know the differences between things, and to be able to name and designate all things by their right names."

The pupil answers, "Nothing more than this?"

"No, certainly nothing beyond this. He who has learned the nomenclature of all things of Nature and Art has laid the foundation of all erudition."

"But that must surely be very difficult."

"It certainly is so if you attempt it unwillingly, and if you allow your prejudiced imagination to frighten you. Besides, if there is any difficulty, it will be at the beginning. Do not the shapes and characters of letters also appear to children who first see them singular, wonderful, and monstrous? But when they have taken some trouble and pains, they understand that they (the letters) are but a play and a recreation. The same applies to all things; they appear superficially more difficult than they are. But if you not only begin a work but also persevere, there is nothing that will not yield and submit itself to your intellect Who wishes to do so can understand everything.[114] Therefore, whoever you are, I order you to hope; I forbid you to despair. See this small work (the Janua). Here—I say this without boasting—I shall place the whole world before your eyes and show you the Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, and German languages[115] as in a summary or handbook. Therefore strive to obtain instruction. Open this book, peruse it, and learn it by heart Having done so, you will, with the help of God, find that you understand all arts and letters."

Many other educational works of KomenskÝ could be enumerated; such are The Violet Bed of Christian Youth, The Garden of Letters and of Wisdom, &c. KomenskÝ worked with particular energy at these works when he, about the year 1632, hoped, as already mentioned, to be able to return to Bohemia and reorganise the schools there. A similar motive induced him to write the curious work entitled HaggÆus Redivivus, which, in spite of its Latin title, was written in Bohemian, and which has quite recently been published for the first time. In this book KomenskÝ endeavoured to instruct the brethren as to the manner in which they should reorganise their ecclesiastical institution after their return to Bohemia, for which KomenskÝ still hoped.

KomenskÝ, probably soon after his arrival at Lissa, began his philosophical, or rather "pansophic" studies; for philosophy was to him still the handmaiden of theology, then already a rather belated standpoint. It has already been mentioned that at Lissa he composed a general plan and a table of contents of his future pansophic works, to which he gave the name of Synopsis Operis Consultatorii.[116] Some of these works, such as the Panegersia and Panaugia, were afterwards published at Amsterdam; others were destroyed by the fire at Lissa. The first complete philosophical work of KomenskÝ, the Physica, was published during his stay at Lissa. The work has now no interest, and is, indeed, a token of KomenskÝ's superficiality and credulity as regards matters of natural history. Statements concerning this subject are by KomenskÝ constantly proved by texts from the Bible in a manner irritating to the modern reader.

One of the early "pansophic" works also is the Via Lucis, written principally during KomenskÝ's stay in London. The pansophic plans, such as the foundation of a universal language and a universal academy, the mystic use of the word light, occur in this as in all the pansophic works. A short account of the Via Lucis will be my only attempt to elucidate the mysteries of "pansophy." Arid and unattractive as the subject must necessarily appear to the modern intellect, no account that altogether ignored "pansophy" could claim to give a truthful representation of KomenskÝ.

The writer begins his book by naming, in his mystical manner, the three "books" (that is to say, three systems of educating humanity) which God has established; they are instruction by means of the world, by means of man, and by means of universal "light" (or enlightenment). Education by means of the world has failed, as worldly wisdom, atheism, and epicureanism, introduced by Satan, have crazed men's minds. Instruction from man by means of laws and punishment, and the endeavours of philosophers and founders of sects, has also resulted in failure; all attempts to amend humanity by human means have had no result, for they were isolated and relied on violent means. There remains a third "school," the only successful one, which instructs by means of the "universal light." This light, or rather enlightenment, consists in the complete collection of God's revelations to man by means of Scripture, which through God's power will become intelligible to all. There is no doubt that this "universal light" will one day appear to the whole world. KomenskÝ quotes the Revelation of St. John in support of this statement. He then proceeds to define this light, which is "a brightness that flows on things, discloses and discovers them, and through the influence of which spectators realise shapes, positions, movements, the distances of things, and their reciprocal relations." Light is threefold—eternal, exterior, and interior light. Besides the eternal divine light, there is the exterior light proceeding from the sun and the stars.[117] The interior light illuminates the mind, will, and heart of man. The interior light passes through seven gradations, the last of which, immediately preceding the end of the world and to be expected shortly, is "panharmony." The state of "panharmony" will be shortly attained, and we must prepare for it. This should be done mainly by the foundation of a universal academy, a universal language, and universal schools. When all this has been done, the whole world will be "one race, one people, one house, one school of God. The heathens will be converted. The Jews will perceive that they are still in darkness. All lands will become subject to God and Christ. In accordance with the Revelations and the Acts of the Apostles, Satan will be taken prisoner and shown in triumph. The whole world will have peace; (there will be) one truth, one heart, one path. Thus will Christ's prophecy of 'one shepherd, one flock' be fulfilled. This will be the true Golden Age. It will be the Sabbath of the Church, the seventh period of the world, preceding the octave that will resound in happy eternity."[118]

The last years of KomenskÝ were principally occupied in collecting, and sometimes re-writing, his works. The enormous collection of educational books was during KomenskÝ's stay at Amsterdam republished in Latin in a gigantic folio volume under the name of Opera Didactica. The collection included books such as the Didactica Magna, the Janua, and the Schola Materni Gremii (information for mother-schools) that had long before been published in the Bohemian language.[119]

Other late pansophic works of KomenskÝ were the Lux in Tenebris, consisting mainly of a collection of prophecies which have already been mentioned, and the Unum Necessarium, dedicated to Prince Rupert, and published in 1668.

The writers of the Unity are, during the last century, so infinitely superior to all others, that little space remains to mention theologians who belonged to other communities. The early writers of the Utraquist Church were mentioned in the last chapter, and I have in this chapter again referred to Archbishop Rokycan. The numerous later polemical writings of the Utraquists are infinitely inferior to the best works of the members of the Unity, which of course are the only ones to which I have made reference.

Of Roman Catholic theologians in Bohemia also scant mention at this period is required. In most countries the salutary deliberations of the Council of Trent, which so entirely reorganised and reformed the Catholic Church, were followed by the appearance of numerous brilliant Catholic theologians, who, both in their sermons and their writings, energetically defended the dogmas of their Church. Such was not the case in Bohemia. It was the sword, not the pen, that was destined to reconquer that country for the Church of Rome. Of Catholic writers we may mention Paul idek, a Jew by birth; Henry Institoris, who was intrusted by Pope Alexander VI. with the task of recovering Bohemia for the Church of Rome, and wrote polemical works against Chelcicky and the brethren; and the barefooted monk, John of Vodnan, a voluminous writer, who has already been mentioned as an antagonist of Chelcicky. The works of Vodnan are an extraordinary tissue of absurdities written with an almost inconceivable degree of self-confidence. He maintains theories such as that of the immaculate conception of the Virgin (then by no means a dogma of the Roman Church), by arguments and in a tone that are equally unworthy of the dignity of the subject. His books teem with the most absurdly superstitious anecdotes. The Pope, he tells us, is always accompanied by two special angels, one who advises him on all occasions, and one who informs him of all occurrences. A more dignified defender of the Church of Rome was the Jesuit Wenceslas Sturm (born 1533, died 1601), who has left a considerable number of theological works, mostly of a polemical character.