You are on page 1of 295

S L A V I S T I S C H E

D R U K K E N UITGEGEVEN

E N DOOR

H E R D R U K K E N

C.

H.

V A N

S C H O O N E V E L D TE L E I D E N

HOOGLERAAR X I

THE POLITICAL A N D SOCIAL DOCTRINES
OF THE

U N I T Y OF CZECH B R E T H R E N
IN FIFTEENTH AND THE EARLY SIXTEENTH

CENTURIES

B Y

PETER

BROCK

LONDON

M O U T O N

& C O • 1957 •

' S - G R A V E N H A G E

S L A V I S T I C

P R I N T I N G S EDITED

A N D BY

R E P R I N T I N G S

C O R N E L I S

H. V A N

S C H O O N E V E L D

L E I D E N

UNIVERSITY XI

CONTENTS

I n t r o d u c t i o n : The Hussite Century I . Petr ChelCicky, Forerunner o f the U n i t y I I . T h e O l d Brethren I I I . T h e Genesis o f the Schism I V . T h e Beginnings o f the M i n o r Party V . The Schism V I . The Brethren, the C i v i l Power, and the O a t h V I I . The N e w U n i t y V I I I . T h e Decline o f the O l d Doctrines Conclusions A p p e n d i x : The O l d Doctrines i n U n i t y H i s t o r i o g r a p h y N o t e o n Sources Bibliography Index . . . . . . .

11 25 70 103 133 153 .182 206 241 274 .277 285 293 299

A B B R E V I A T I O N S

A. J .B. C. C. M. C. C. H.

— — —

A k t a Jednoty Bratrske Casopis Cesky Ceskeho Casopis Musea Historicky

INTRODUCTION

THE HUSSITE

CENTURY

The Czech R e f o r m a t i o n preceded the G e r m a n and Swiss

Reformation

by over a century. I n the history o f the Czech lands the h u n d r e d years and m o r e t h a t elapsed between the death o f H u s at Constance i n 1415 a n d the c o m p o s i t i o n by L u t h e r i n 1517 o f his ninety-five theses against the sale o f papal indulgences m a y w e l l be called the Hussite century. I n the 1520s the spread o f L u t h e r a n doctrines a n d the accession o f the H a b s b u r g dynasty marked the end o f an epoch i n the country's history. I t was this period, too, that saw the active life o f the rustic philosopher, Petr Chelöicky, and the a d o p t i o n o f his radical p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines by the m e n w h o founded the U n i t y o f Brethren. B u t , after less t h a n a century, these doctrines had already been rejected b y a later generation o f Brethren. W i t h i n a h u n d r e d years o f Hus's death they were o n the way t o being forgotten, kept alive o n l y b y a t i n y a n d e x p i r i n g g r o u p o f obscure artisans. B y the time L u t h e r and Z w i n g l i h a d appeared o n the scene the U n i t y o f Brethren had already made its peace w i t h the existing social order, j u s t as the larger and more conservative Hussite body, the official U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h , had done very m u c h earlier. The Hussite century had been, indeed, a time o f revolutionary century upheavals and o f p r o f o u n d changes i n a l l spheres o f life, religious a n d c u l t u r a l , economic, social and p o l i t i c a l . I n the fourteenth Bohemia under Charles I V was the administrative centre o f the H o l y R o m a n E m p i r e and the seat o f the i m p e r i a l c o u r t . Its university, founded i n Prague i n 1348, had made that c i t y the intellectual centre o f C e n t r a l Europe. B u t b o t h the deposition o f Charles's successor, Vâclav, f r o m the i m p e r i a l throne i n 1400 and the decree o f Kutnâ H o r a o f 1409, w h i c h , by g r a n t i n g the Czechs a c o n t r o l l i n g m a j o r i t y i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the university, led t o the m i g r a t i o n o f its G e r m a n scholars a n d the transf o r m a t i o n o f the university f r o m a p r e d o m i n a n t l y G e r m a n i n t o an almost entirely Czech i n s t i t u t i o n , signified a shift i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o s i t i o n o f the Czech lands. T h i s process o f change culminated after 1415 i n the

12

INTRODUCTION

revolution carried o u t by Hus's party, whose leaders came m a i n l y f r o m the ranks o f former students o f the University o f Prague. achieved i n the religious, p o l i t i c a l a n d c u l t u r a l spheres The changes completely

transformed the Czech lands a n d , f o r m o r e than a century, m a r k e d t h e m off f r o m the rest o f Europe. The m o r a l revolt w h i c h H u s and his followers raised against the abuses o f the medieval c h u r c h h a d sprung f r o m the theological arguments of the Englishman W y c l i f , as w e l l as f r o m a native source i n the teachings o f Hus's predecessors i n the Czech r e f o r m movement. I t was the chalice for the layman, c o m m u n i o n i n t w o kinds, approved by H u s shortly before his death at the stake, that became the standard under w h i c h every religious reformer i n the Czech lands fought o u t the battle against Rome. This above a l l , combined as i t was w i t h the veneration o f Hus's memory, united a l l wings o f the Hussite movement a n d gave i t its name of Utraquism. I n 1415 H u s h a d been supported b y a p o w e r f u l section o f the Czech nobility and gentry as w e l l as by the townsmen a n d university o f Prague. T w o years later the Hussite programme was first f o r m u l a t e d t h a t i n 1420 was given definitive f o r m i n the F o u r Articles o f Prague. These called for the free preaching o f the W o r d o f G o d , c o m m u n i o n i n t w o kinds, the confiscation o f the secular possessions o f m o n k s and priests a n d for the punishment o f p u b l i c sin. B u t the same five years that saw the attempt to formulate the basic c o m m o n principles o f the movement were marked, t o o , by its break u p i n t o several conflicting groups differing b o t h as to theology a n d social o u t l o o k . O n the extreme r i g h t were the conservative Utraquists under their leader, Jan o f P r i b r a m , whose disagreement w i t h R o m e extended to l i t t l e beyond the demand f o r c o m m u n i o n i n t w o kinds. H e and his followers rejected Wyclif's views on the sacraments a n d consistently sought recognition f r o m R o m e for their special standpoint. Occupying a central position between the t w o wings o f the movement, a n d themselves p r o b a b l y the closest i n spirit t o H u s himself, there came next the p a r t y led first by Jakoubek o f Stfibro a n d then, after his death i n 1429, by Jan Rokycana. Their programme was represented i n large measure by the F o u r Articles o f Prague. O n the left were the Taborites sprung f r o m the chiliast enthusiasts w h o , inspired by an immediate expectation o f the second c o m i n g o f Christ a n d the establishment o f the K i n g d o m o f G o d o n earth, h a d gathered i n the years immediately after Hus's death i n the south-east districts o f Bohemia, where they founded the t o w n o f T a b o r f r o m w h i c h they were to derive

they simplified the c h u r c h r i t u a l a n d d i d away w i t h clerical vestments as inconsistent w i t h the practice o f apostolic t i m e s . w h i c h regarded the c o m m u n i o n as a purely commemorative act a n d completely denied the doctrine o f the real presence. I n social matters Largely they stood f o r a far-going radicalism. The danger f r o m w i t h o u t . however. even after the disappearance i n the early 1420s o f the U t o p i a n c o m m u n i s m o f their first phase. T h e Taborites under their leader. I n 1420 they t o o k the epoch-making step o f b r e a k i n g w i t h the t r a d i t i o n o f apostolic succession b y electing their o w n bishop. was largely responsible. F o r this new p o l i c y his brother. T h i s he was clearly unprepared t o d o . b y the r e v o l u t i o n a r y U t r a q u i s t priest. the Taborites h a d their equivalent i n Prague i n the p a r t y o f the poorer t o w n s m e n led. J a n Zelivsky. f r o m a m o n g the seven C a t h o l i c sacraments they recognized o n l y baptism a n d c o m m u n i o n . Sigismund was defeated at the battle o f V i t k o v Heights a n d compelled t o w i t h d r a w . D u r i n g 1418 K i n g Vâclav. u n t i l his e x e c u t i o n i n 1422. V i t . w h o p a r t l y under the influence o f his wife Zofie h a d previously been favourably inclined t o w a r d s the new movement. a crusade was p r o c l a i m e d against the heretical Czechs. meant the opening o f the succession question. T h e Hussites were o n l y ready t o recognize Sigismund as k i n g i f he w o u l d accept the Hussite p r o g r a m m e . c o m p o s e d o f peasants a n d lesser gentry. succeeded i n t e m p o r a r i l y healing a l l the divisions a m o n g the Hussites. a small g r o u p w i t h rationalistic and even pantheistic tendencies. Jan Zi£ ka. however. the E m p e r o r Sigismund. L i k e W y c l i f they rejected p u r g a t o r y a n d maintained the d o c t r i n e o f consubstantation. These t w o disasters. therefore. R e t u r n i n g i n the a u t u m n o f the same year at the head o f a new crusade he was once again defeated by 2iika at the battle o f Vysehrad. rallied t o Prague's rescue. The I n 1421. O n the extreme left came the so-called Adamites. shortly after the riots w h i c h b r o k e o u t i n Prague under 2elivsky's leadership a n d i n w h i c h the C a t h o l i c m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l o f the N e w T o w n were murdered. n o w began t o take sterner measures against the Hussites.T H E HUSSITE C E N T U R Y 13 their name. w h o acted indeed o n l y as primus inter pares. appearance accompanied b y increasing danger o f intervention f r o m w i t h o u t . they were savagely suppressed b y the o f divisions w i t h i n the Hussite movement was T a b o r i t e leader. J a n 2izka. w h o h a d set himself u p as t h e c h a m p i o n o f the C h u r c h . Vaclav's death i n the summer o f 1419. H e was successful i n c a p t u r i n g the r o y a l castle where he was crowned k i n g i n the C a t h e d r a l o f St. a n d i n June Sigismund i n v a d e d the c o u n t r y w i t h a large a r m y a n d l a i d siege t o Prague. I n the spring o f 1420. due largely t o the m i l i t a r y genius o f 2izka. c o m b i n e d w i t h the repulse o f a second .

showed clearly that the Hussites c o u l d n o t be crushed by force. a n d the propaganda w h i c h c u l m i n a t e d i n the Hussite manifestos o f 1430 a n d 1431. The defeat o f attempted invasions o f Bohemia i n 1427 a n d again i n 1431. w i t h the d e m o r a l i z a t i o n caused b y continual warfare a n d the w a t e r i n g d o w n o f the o r i g i n a l idealism by the increasing desire for the acquisition o f wealth a n d plunder. carried the offensive beyond the boundaries o f Czech-speaking t e r r i t o r y . A t the same t i m e . when the crusaders were r o u t e d a t the battle o f Domazlice. which w o u l d n o t at the same t i m e sacrifice their h a r d . Meanwhile. b u t to carry their o w n creed b y force i n t o neighbouring lands. i n close alliance with the Taborites o f south Bohemia. a n d i n 1427 he was finally forced to leave the c o u n t r y . Z y g m u n t K o r y b u t o w i c z . differences rapidly sprang u p again a m o n g the Hussites. even w i t h i n the T a b o r i t e camp unity h a d n o t been m a i n t a i n e d . Wladyslaw Jagiello. . Despite internal dissension d u r i n g the 1420s. w h i c h had begun its sessions i n 1431. H i s obvious desire t o reconcile B o h e m i a w i t h Rome made h i m u n p o p u l a r w i t h the T a b o r i t e s . A f t e r his death i n the f o l l o w i n g year his followers took on the name o f the Orphans. therefore. W i t h the disappearance o f the danger o f invasion f r o m w i t h o u t . The expeditions i n t o G e r m a n y a n d Poland made b y an alliance o f Taborites a n d Orphans under the leadership o f Zizka's successor. I n 1423 Z i i k a h a d quarrelled o n doctrinal matters w i t h the T a b o r i t e priests and founded his o w n u n i o n o f towns i n east Bohemia. however. negotiations were started between Hussite Bohemia and the C o u n c i l o f Basel. the m o r a l e o f the Hussites began t o decline. remaining. b y the early 1430s a considerable p a r t y a m o n g the Hussites themselves were n o w anxious to find some modus vivendi w i t h R o m e a n d the rest o f E u r o p e . stiffened the Hussites' d e t e r m i n a t i o n n o t t o compromise on their faith and spelled the end o f Sigismund's chances o f acceptance as king by the Hussite m a j o r i t y i n Bohemia for more t h a n a decade. Negotiations h a d been opened w i t h the Polish k i n g . I n the summer o f 1421 the Bohemian diet meeting at Caslav f o r m a l l y accepted the F o u r Articles o f Prague a n d rejected Sigismund's c l a i m t o the t h r o n e . After D o m a i l i c e . P r o k o p H o l y . the Hussites were s t r o n g enough d u r i n g this decade n o t merely t o repel a l l attempts t o b r i n g t h e m back into the R o m a n C h u r c h . t o take possession o f the vacant throne. B u t K o r y b u t o w i c z was o n l y acknowledged as k i n g b y the more moderate Hussites. w h o agreed t o send his nephew.14 INTRODUCTION crusade i n 1421.w o n religious principles. W h i l e the successful repulsion o f foreign intervention gave t h e m sufficient strength to compel even the papal see t o consider opening u p negotiations w i t h acknowledged heretics.

agreeing there. fell w i t h m a n y other leading members o f his party. D u r i n g the fighting the Taborite leader. T h e Taborites and Orphans n o w u n i t e d t o oppose the agreement as a betrayal o f the principles o f the Hussite movement a n d . therefore.T H E HUSSITE C E N T U R Y 15 T h e Czechs were i n v i t e d t o the C o u n c i l o n a n equal f o o t i n g w i t h the other delegates t o argue their case before the assembled leaders o f the church. the moderate U t r a q u i s t nobles j o i n e d w i t h their C a t h o l i c fellow citizens t o defeat the radicals at the battle o f L i p a n y i n M a y 1434. T o this Sigismund finally consented. I n M a y o f the f o l l o w i n g year emissaries o f the C o u n c i l a n d t o recognize as their 'judge' i n matters i n representatives o f the Hussites met together at Cheb. were t h e n f o r m a l l y The way was n o w open f o r Sigismund t o r e t u r n t o Prague as K i n g o f Bohemia. dispute the Scriptures a n d the practice o f Christ and H i s apostles and o f the p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h . since i n practice little m o r e o f the o r i g i n a l Hussite p r o g r a m m e was granted t h a n the exercise o f c o m m u n i o n i n t w o k i n d s . T h o u g h the Czechs were w i l l i n g t o abandon their c l a i m t h a t the cup for the l a y m a n should be made obligatory t h r o u g h o u t Bohemia. was finally at a n end. P r o k o p H o l y . the representatives sent by the C o u n c i l soon after t o negotiate direct w i t h the B o h e m i a n diet were successful i n finding a n agreed f o r m u l a i n the shape o f the Compáctala. w h i c h had lasted exactly seventeen years. The T a b o r i t e defeat made i t easier f o r the moderate Hussites t o push f o r w a r d further negotiations w i t h the C o u n c i l as w e l l as w i t h the E m p e r o r Sigismund. w h o had never ceased t o strive for the recovery o f his hered i t a r y k i n g d o m . I n July o f the f o l l o w i n g year. recognized. by the so-called Soud chebsky. were by n o means ended . he promished t o d o his u t m o s t t o o b t a i n the church's c o n f i r m a t i o n o f the elections. The Compactata. should be elected b y the diet i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the U t r a q u i s t clergy. W i t h his entry i n t o Prague i n A u g u s t 1436 the interregnum. as w e l l as the councils and fathers o f the c h u r c h i n so far as they were based o n these. w h i c h were signed i n N o v e m b e r o f the same year. a meeting t o o k place at Jihlava between the Czechs. recognized by b o t h R o m a n Catholics a n d moderate Utraquists alike. they remained adamant i n their demand t h a t the new a r c h bishop and his t w o subordinate bishops. T h o u g h n o compromise was reached d u r i n g the visit o f the Czech delegation t o the C o u n c i l o f Basel i n the early spring o f 1433. as a result. after the election i n 1435 o f Rokycana and his t w o coadjutors. o n one h a n d . w h o were t o take charge o f c h u r c h affairs i n the c o u n t r y . and Sigismund and the delegates o f the C o u n c i l . This proved i n effect a t r i u m p h f o r conciliar d i p l o m a c y . however. Religious dissension a n d c i v i l strife. o n the other. a n d . as d r a w n u p i n 1433.

i n M o r a v i a and i n the other peripheral lands o f the B o h e m i a n C r o w n : the t w o Lusatias and Silesia . received general t h r o u g h o u t B o h e m i a . while. w h i c h m a r k e d o n l y the conclusion o f the first stage i n the Hussite r e v o l u t i o n . The Podëbrady U n i o n o f eastern counties. and here he was t o remain for the next eleven years. Neither the claims o f A l b e r t o f A u s t r i a . n o r later those o f the former's posthumous son. outside Bohemia . w i t h whose p a r t y the conservative w i n g o f the Hussite movement. t u r n e d out o f his T y n C h u r c h . a period o f reaction set i n . Rokycana. Efforts to o b t a i n the church's a p p r o v a l o f Rokycana's election as archbishop were to prove unavailing. where the Utraquists. i n p o l i t i c a l affairs. w h i c h the latter succeeded i n b u i l d i n g up. a l t h o u g h a l l efforts t o gain papal confirmation o f his office were t o fail. led by P r i b r a m . acknowledgement Sigismund's son-in-law. n o r i n t u r n had the latter reconciled themselves to the legal existence o f supporters o f c o m m u n i o n i n one k i n d alongside the U t r a q u i s t m a j o r i t y .16 INTRODUCTION by the settlement. H y n c e Ptâcek o f PirkStejn. A f t e r George o f Podëbrady's entry i n t o Prague only the Taborites still . Ladislav. a n d the more radical Hussites under Hynce Ptâôek. under the leadership o f a p o w e r f u l nobleman. after Hynce Ptâôek's death i n 1444. The 1440s saw the consolidation i n east Bohemia o f the p a r t y led by Rokycana i n the religious sphere a n d . by a y o u n g U t r a q u i s t nobleman.Catholicism still remained the d o m i n a n t faith. had by now merged. I n Prague o n l y the conservative w i n g o f the Hussite movement was granted a l i m i t e d t o l e r a t i o n . The Taborites continued i n their negative attitude t o even a temporary truce w i t h the enemies o f the chalice . this second i n t e r r e g n u m was t o last u n t i l 1452. W i t h Sigismund's r e t u r n t o Prague. a n d . Rokycana. w h o died i n October 1439. m a i n l y Catholics and conservative Utraquists. o n the other h a n d . formed a base f r o m w h i c h i n 1448 he was able t o set f o r t h t o regain Prague. fled to Hradec Krâlové i n east Bohemia. The death o f Sigismund i n December 1437 once again reopened the question o f the succession. George o f Podëbrady. i n the struggle o f U t r a q u i s t Bohemia against the Catholic w o r l d . were extremely s t r o n g . where attempts t o reintroduce o l d c h u r c h practices had aroused m u c h discontent. and the transference o f the a d m i n i stration o f the c h u r c h i n Bohemia t o legates appointed by the C o u n c i l . was once more reinstalled i n his T y n C h u r c h as the acknowledged head o f the U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h . although a general peace was established i n 1440 between the supporters o f Ladislav. The church had n o t i n fact abandoned hope o f b r i n g i n g about the complete reconversion o f the Hussites.

where they were kept u n t i l death. seek move- Podgbrady. the boy Ladislav's guardian. Ladislav. A t this period b o t h PodSbrady and Rokycana were anxious t o effect a lasting reconciliation w i t h Rome. which had decided against them i n their controversy with Rokycana's party. i n c l u d i n g their bishop. H i s brief reign had been m a r k e d b y the increasingly menacing attitude taken u p by the Catholic party towards the Utraquists. he ascended the throne n o t by virtue o f his hereditary r i g h t b u t t h r o u g h election by the Bohemian diet. w h o was at the time i n the hands o f the A u s t r i a n Estates. or t o find some other church i n the true line o f the apostolic succession: a p r o b l e m w h i c h proved insoluble and was to haunt their church t h r o u g h o u t the greater p a r t o f its existence. A n attempt i n 1452 t o establish contact w i t h the Greek O r t h o d o x C h u r c h was b r o k e n off prematurely by the fall o f Constantinople i n M a y o f the f o l l o w i n g year. however. was b r o u g h t to Prague where i n October 1453 he was crowned k i n g . PodSbrady's subsequent efforts t o effect a reconciliation w i t h the R o m a n C h u r c h were likewise c u t short by the death o f the y o u n g k i n g i n N o v e m ber 1457. were p u t i n t o prison. the Utraquists were faced w i t h a difficult d i l e m m a after the death i n 1431 o f the A r c h b i s h o p o f Prague. had been condemned by the diet held at Prague i n 1444. w h o h a d gone over t o the Hussites. even at the cost o f u n c o n d i t i o n a l submission. K o n r a d o f Vechta. A l t h o u g h . W i t h their belief i n the v a l i d i t y o f h o l y orders only i f handed d o w n as a result o f apostolic succession.T H E HUSSITE C E N T U R Y 17 remained i n open o p p o s i t i o n . Several o f the Taborite leaders. agreed t o recognize the confirmation for the Compactata and to archbishop-elect Rokycana. I n order t o be certain o f a regular supply o f priests they had either to become reconciled w i t h Rome. I n 1451 negotiations h a d been opened u p w i t h Frederick o f A u s t r i a . four years after his t r i u m p h a l entry i n t o Prague and v i r t u a l t a k i n g over o f the reins o f government i n the l a n d . T w o years later Ladislav. as well as their l i t u r g i c a l practices. a n d ordered them to c o n f o r m accordingly. o f the radical w i n g o f the Hussite ment. the other provinces o f the c r o w n continued t o support the y o u n g king's hereditary claims. I n the f o l l o w i n g year the town's defences were d i s m a n t l e d . an a t t i t u d e . Pod6brady was strong enough t o force T a b o r t o surrender w i t h o u t a struggle. and this m a r k e d the final defeat o f the Taborites and the v i r t u a l suppression. i n the name o f religious o r t h o doxy and n a t i o n a l u n i t y . papal too. M i k u l a S o f P e l h f i m . I n the summer o f 1452. t h r o u g h PodSbrady's influence. Their theological innovations. carried o n as governor o f the realm i n actual charge o f the affairs o f state d u r i n g Ladislav's m i n o r i t y .

occupied at that period by the humanist Pius I I (Aeneas Sylvius). W i t h i n a couple o f years he had compelled recognition o f his kingship t h r o u g h o u t the lands o f the Bohemian C r o w n . w h i c h was still undecided when i n 1471 George died at the age o f seventy-one. Indeed. These proceeded to elect Matthias k i n g i n place o f George. relieving his subjects o f their d u t y o f obedience. George went far t o restore inside the lands o f the Bohemian C r o w n the prestige o f the monarchy. T h o u g h these schemes never actually materialized. whose f o r m e r l y friendly relations w i t h George had gradually cooled over the years.10 INTRODUCTION w h i c h helped t o give a very radical c o l o u r i n g t o Rokycana's public utterances o f this period. the Pope went so far Comas to condemn c o m m u n i o n i n t w o kinds and to make his recognition o f George's election as k i n g c o n d i t i o n a l u p o n his renunciation o f the pactata. t h o u g h n o t regarded as such by George himself. n o r George's attempts t o p r o v e ' h i s abhorrence o f heresy b y the sterner measures taken i n the early 1460s against the g r o w i n g U n i t y o f Brethren. they witness t o the h i g h esteem i n w h i c h George was held by his fellow princes. and t o regain the position w h i c h Bohemia had occupied i n the European c o m m u n i t y o f . w h o had combined against h i m i n the League o f Zelená H o r a . were successful i n persuading the p a p a l see. the Pope finally declared George an avowed heretic and deposed h i m f r o m the throne. i n 1462. founded a b o u t the time o f his accession. i n December 1466. Three years later hostilities b r o k e o u t between George and the discontented Catholic n o b i l i t y . I n the spring o f 1468 K i n g M a t t h i a s o f H u n g a r y . as a result w a r ensued between the t w o kings. t o accept the Compactata. lent o n this occasion by K i n g M a t t h i a s C o r v i n u s o f H u n g a r y . w h i c h h a d been lost d u r i n g the l o n g years o f the interregnum. and his r e p u t a t i o n at this t i m e stood so h i g h i n Central Europe that plans were set o n f o o t t o make h i m K i n g o f the Romans and co-partner w i t h the E m p e r o r i n the government of Germany. n o w intervened i n Bohemian affairs as executor o f the p a p a l sentence o f deposition and protector o f the Catholic rebel noblemen. But neither compromise o n this occasion. George had been forced to take a secret and somewhat ambiguously worded o a t h o n the day before his c o r o n a t i o n : a n o a t h w h i c h c o u l d w e l l be considered a renunciation o f the Compactata. The only Czech t o occupy the Bohemian t h r o n e after the e x t i n c t i o n o f the Pfemyslid dynasty i n 1306. A t the end o f the f o l l o w i n g year. However. The throne once again left vacant by Ladislav's death was filled i n M a r c h 1458 by the election o f George o f Podébrady himself. i n order t o o b t a i n his c o r o n a t i o n by p r o p e r l y consecrated bishops.

T h o u g h p r o v i s i o n was made f o r the eventual r e u n i t i n g o f a l l the lands o f the B o h e m i a n C r o w n . serious r i o t i n g broke o u t i n Prague i n 1483. had promised at his accession to respect the Compactata a n d t o strive t o o b t a i n papal recognition for the Utraquists' demands. K i n g K a z i m i e r z had been ready t o give George practical support against M a t t h i a s i n r e t u r n for a promise o f the c r o w n for his eldest son after George's death. The title o f K i n g o f Bohemia was granted t o b o t h contestants. Silesia. the death o f M a t t h i a s i n 1490 w i t h o u t a legitimate heir. By the T r e a t y the . he was able t o secure the heritage o f U t r a quism against attacks f r o m w i t h o u t a n d w i t h i n . n o w returned to the capital. like his predecessor. eldest son o f the Polish K i n g K a z i m i e r z I V o f the Jagieflonian dynasty. The fact that a p a r t y o f M a g y a r nobles opposed to Matthias had also offered the H u n g a r i a n c r o w n to the Jagiellons proved a further i m p o r t a n t factor influencing Kazimierz's decision to come t o George's a i d . H e was succeeded o n the t h r o n e b y the fifteen year o l d Vladislav I I . t h o u g h he lacked the b u r n i n g sense o f mission w h i c h inspired the first generation after Hus's death.THE HUSSITE C E N T U R Y 19 nations before the o u t b r e a k o f the Hussite wars. after the conclusion o f peace w i t h M a t t h i a s i n 1478 there was a marked increase i n the activities o f the Catholic p a r t y i n Bohemia. a n d the t w o Lusatias were retained by M a t t h i a s . a n d the election o f Vladislav t o the vacant H u n g a r i a n throne. while Vladislav was left w i t h only Bohemia proper. M o r a v i a . A f t e r Matthias's i n t e r v e n t i o n George h a d wisely abandoned his earlier desire to o b t a i n the throne f o r his o w n f a m i l y . Fear o f the renewal o f c i v i l war and foreign intervention led t o the conclusion i n 1485 o f the famous Treaty o f K u t n a H o r a . there was n o w great danger t h a t the peripheral lands w o u l d i n actual fact become detached f r o m the m a i n centre o f Czech culture i n Bohemia. H e once again established peace and order t h r o u g h o u t the t e r r i t o r y under his c o n t r o l a n d . A s a result o f the rising tension between the supporters o f c o m m u n i o n i n one k i n d and the protagonists o f the chalice for the l a y m a n . The C a t h o l i c U p p e r Consistory i n charge o f the interests o f the adherents o f the o l d r e l i g i o n . a n d o f the monastic orders i n particular. removed the danger o f disintegration. However. when a compromise settlement was agreed to at the Peace o f O l o m o u c . The struggle f o r the B o h e m i a n t h r o n e between M a t t h i a s a n d the Jagiellons d i d n o t end conclusively u n t i l 1478. which had been forced to flee f r o m Prague to Plzen i n 1467. T h o u g h a devout Catholic. a p e r i o d w h i c h was successively prolonged until the final suppression o f U t r a q u i s m i n 1627. by w h i c h religious peace i n the l a n d was guaranteed for a period o f t h i r t y .t w o years. T h o u g h Vladislav.

B u t the rule o f the Jagiellonian dynasty i n Bohemia was a b r u p t l y ended i n A u g u s t 1526 by the defeat and death o f the y o u n g K i n g L u d v i k at the battle o f Mohacs i n an attempt t o drive back the o n c o m i n g T u r k i s h invasion. o f some o f the most s p i r i tually alive to f o r m a separate U n i t y o f Brethren. a n d the number o f churches i n the possession o f each was to remain as at the time o f Vladislav's accession. o n the other h a n d . w h o were b o t h to continue t o have the r i g h t to receive c o m m u n i o n according t o their o w n rite. a n d by the freedom o f the c o u n t r y f r o m entanglement i n foreign w a r and f r o m invasion f r o m without. and the revolutionary p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t . a relaxation o f the efforts made by George o f PodSbrady t o curb the increasing power o f the n o b i l i t y . n o r even the spiritual deadness w h i c h gradually set i n w i t h i n the U t r a q u i s t church itself. I n the p o l i t i c a l and c u l t u r a l fields the permanent gains were less obvious. . which were supported w i t h i n the official U t r a q u i s t chuch by the so-called neo-Utraquist party. even t h o u g h the g r o w i n g U n i t y o f Brethren was n o t covered by the provisions o f the Treaty o f K u t n a H o r a . the native Bohemian Hussite k i n g was succeeded by the foreign Catholic dynasties o f Jagiello and Habsburg. under certain conditions. b r o u g h t the Hussite century t o a conclusion. t o accept h i m back again. died away seemingly w i t h o u t an echo. D u r i n g this whole period neither the c i v i l strife between moderate Utraquist and radical T a b o r i t e d u r i n g the first h a l f o f the century. n o r the secession f r o m the m a i n body. strengthened even further the d o m i n a t i o n o f the c o u n t r y by the n o b i l i t y headed by the great magnates. Vladislav's m i l d and somewhat ineffective character. Each party agreed to refrain f r o m any attempt t o persecute the o t h e r . i n the second. to his t w o k i n g d o m s o f Bohemia and H u n g a r y . signified. was able to lessen the greatness o f the religious inheritance left by the Hussite revolution. Later. The remainder o f Vladislav's l o n g reign was m a r k e d b y the absence o f open religious strife. and the fact t h a t for the former the boy k i n g was an absentee for the greater p a r t o f his reign. L u d v i k . T h e election o f a H a b s b u r g to the vacant throne i n the same year and the gradual i n f i l t r a t i o n i n t o the Czech lands d u r i n g the 1520s o f L u t h e r a n ideas. The accession i n 1516 o f Vladislav's ten-year-old son. The n a t i o n t h a t had defied its anointed m o n a r c h and carried o n its affairs for nearly t w o decades w i t h o u t a k i n g was finally induced.INTRODUCTION Compactata were reconfirmed and f u l l equality was t o be m a i n t a i n e d between R o m a n Catholics a n d Utraquists. while favourable t o the maintenance o f religious t o l e r a t i o n . w h i c h the upheavals o f the time had generated. The republicanism o f the Taborite w i n g had been suppressed.

matters directly concerning their estate. w i t h their desire t o make the Bible accessible t o their simple followers. as well as w o r k s o f pure literature i n prose and verse.T H E HUSSITE C E N T U R Y 21 Nevertheless. i n Bohemia at least. This was shown above a l l i n the c u l t u r a l sphere. Even hostile witnesses testified to the h i g h level o f literacy a m o n g b o t h Taborites and Brethren. the legislature and i n j u d i c i a l matters. w h i c h ranked at the t h i r d estate i n the B o h e m i a n diet. the native Czech elements gained c o n t r o l i n the towns t h r o u g h the e x p r o p r i a t i o n o f the largely G e r m a n patriciate. Prague. f r o m any i m p o r t a n t share i n the w o r k o f government. Towards the end o f the fifteenth century. the independence and integrity o f the Czech lands remained intact for almost the whole period u n t i l the disastrous battle o f the W h i t e M o u n t a i n i n 1620. remarkable degree. T h e destruction o f the war years. were n o w w r i t t e n i n their authors' native Czech. i f i t d i d n o t actually i n i t i a t e the n a t i o n a l movement. hymns a n d p o l i t i c a l satires. A t the same t i m e there arose a rich literature i n the vernacular. K i n g Vladislav decreed t h a t the burgesses m i g h t vote i n the diets only o n T h e struggle between burgher and noble was to be a l o n g one. b u t the seeds were already sown. a tendency appeared — as i n n e i g h b o u r i n g Poland — for the n o b i l i t y to t r y t o exclude the towns. w h i c h indeed had its origins i n the previous century and even earlier. as well as i n the c h u r c h and i n private life. N u m e r o u s i m p o r t a n t theological and moralistic w o r k s . I n 1485. central and l o c a l : i n the executive. w h i c h favoured C a t h o l i cism. The Hussite r e v o l u t i o n . w h i c h expressed itself. such as the w r i t i n g s o f H u s himself o r ChelCiky. The creation o f a strong Czech burgher class was itself a p o w e r f u l support for Czech culture a n d Czech n a t i o n a l feeling as w e l l as f o r the Hussite movement generally. The use o f Czech came to predominate i n a l l branches o f government. led t o a n a r r o w i n g o f c u l t u r a l interests. and burghers were n o w a d m i t t e d . the rudiments o f education were extended t o the masses o f the p o p u l a t i o n . and later o f the Czech Brethren. t o o . for instance. The cities — the capital. T h r o u g h the efforts o f the Taborites. chronicles and histories. i n a decline i n the intellectual level o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f Prague. for instance. gave a p o w e r f u l impetus t o the feeling o f Czech nationality. popular songs. religious fanaticism i n b o t h camps. and T a b o r i n south Bohemia i n p a r t i c u l a r — influenced events t o a to the diet. A s a result o f the Hussite r e v o l u t i o n and the wars t h a t followed. But n o t a l l was gain. especially d u r i n g the war years. I t was n o t o n l y c u l t u r e t h a t was i m b u e d w i t h the n a t i o n a l spirit. t o o . the breaking o f c u l t u r a l and economic ties w i t h the rest o f Europe.

founded o n the gospel L a w o f L o v e . became the most enthusiastic supporters o f the new religious movement. o f Chelcicky a n d . later. The social ideology o f Stitny and Hus's other predecessors. the Hussite movement at its best expressed the desire for a juster social order. b u t i n their final results certainly as far-reaching as i n other spheres o f life. as they understood them. T h e m a n y abuses w h i c h existed i n practice. despite the existence o f m a n y purely selfish motives. T h e y sought. T h e c h u r c h lost the greater p a r t o f its secular possessions and its p o l i t i c a l power. and a c u l t o f the simple m a n . and w i t h their conception o f the life o f the early c h u r c h . was weakened for over a c e n t u r y . A n extensive literature existed i n the period j u s t before the Hussite revolution. and the nobles successfully extended their estates by swallowing u p the c h u r c h lands. and especially i n South Bohemia where the conditions were p a r t i c u l a r l y ripe for change. O n the social side. indeed. They were j o i n e d by the lower strata o f the t o w n p o p u l a t i o n . ( o f H u s himself. and b y m a n y o f the n o b i l i t y . w h i c h at the beginning o f the fifteenth century was i n possession o f at least a t h i r d o f the t o t a l area o f the c o u n t r y . o f Rokycana i n his m o r e radical moments and the early Czech Brethren. They broadened the medieval concept o f freedom as a personal privilege to be acquired by r a n k or service o r money i n t o a u n i versal m o r a l principle. reflected i n v a r y i n g degree the hopes and fears o f the oppressed. the peasant. inveighing against the oppression o f the peasantry i n all its forms and postulating the theoretical equality o f a l l m e n i n the sight o f G o d . to b r i n g society i n t o line w i t h the teachings o f the New Testament.and even some o f the magnates . failed t o achieve a radical and lasting change i n the existing structure o f society. the power o f the k i n g . however. however haltingly. were denounced i n f o r t h r i g h t terms by a l o n g series o f moralists. Earlier radical p o l i t i c a l thinkers had usually been content to leave their radicalism i n the realm o f theory or to l i m i t its a p p l i c a t i o n to those w h o consciously renounced the w o r l d . / The peasantry i n m a n y places. had g r o w n up as a result o f the w r i t i n g s and preaching o f Hus's predecessors. however. o f the c o m m u n i s t i c chiliasts a n d the republican Taborites. T h e Czechs p u t theory i n t o practice. A shift i n the centre o f power was the sole outcome. and this accrued . T h e central a u t h o r i t y . The conditions i n w h i c h the peasantry lived d u r i n g the fourteenth century were certainly n o t worse than i n the centuries succeeding the Hussite r e v o l u t i o n . The Hussite r e v o l u t i o n . anxious t o oust the G e r m a n patriciate.I INTRODUCTION ] The results o f the economic and social forces at w o r k i n the Hussite revolution were as usual less clearly visible.eager t o take the o p p o r t u n i t y t o seize the wealth o f the Catholic C h u r c h .

had become adscripti glebae. w h i c h c o n t r o l l e d the University o f Prague and the educational system o f the c o u n t r y . i t is t r u e . together w i t h a l l their family. B u t the status o f the peasantry. therefore. The worsening o f the peasants' c o n d i t i o n was. on the one h a n d . Its causes. c o m m o n n o t only to the Czech lands. the class w h i c h had most t o gain f r o m the r e v o l u t i o n . which supported i t w i t h most enthusiasm and sacrificed most o n its behalf. T h e i r unfree status was n o w enshrined in the great c o m p i l a t i o n o f the laws o f the l a n d issued i n 1500 under the name o f the L a n d Ordnance (Zflzeni zemske). the l o n g war years i n particular proved a powerful stimulus to tendencies. by the end o f the century the peasants. t h o u g h this naturally was enjoyed m a i n l y by the educated classes. t o o . vast wealth and power concentrated i n the hands o f the n o b i l i t y a n d . t o hide o r i n any way w i t t i n g l y to help such a fugitive. deteriorated steadily d u r i n g the course o f the succeeding centuries. a profitable source o f income that called for little l a b o u r — w a s often at the same t i m e detrimental t o the peasants' interests. fifteenth D u r i n g the second h a l f o f the peasants' peasant century there was a gradual b u t steady loss o f the personal liberty. w h i c h had been v i r t u a l l y untouched by the Hussite movement.R e f o r m a t i o n i n the first h a l f o f the seventeenth century. cannot be a t t r i b u t e d solely t o the results o f this movement. serfs tied to the l a n d they cultivated. w h o obtained the r i g h t t o reclaim those w h o h a d migrated to the t o w n or another estate. Nevertheless. was to remain i n t a c t u n t i l the victory o f the C o u n t e r . the spread o f pisciculture — the flooding o f land by nobles and gentry i n order to create fish ponds. a dearth o f labour o w i n g to the destruction o f the war years. b u t also t o neighbouring countries l i k e Poland and Hungary. F o r the peasant this resulted i n an increase i n labour services. money dues. every was legally required t o have a l o r d . w h o i n this way came t o possess absolute power over their tenants. T h u s . A flourishing indigenous culture h a d g r o w n u p . o n the other. w h i c h were already present i n the social The b r i g h t hopes w h i c h the early T a b o r i t e chiliasts had entertained o f a radical a m e l i o r a t i o n o f the peasants' l o t were to be entirely .I T H E HUSSITE CENTURY 23 i ! m a i n l y t o the advantage o f the n o b i l i t y and the magnates. and the obligation for m i l i t a r y service. Czechs had The religious freedom o f the official U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h . I t was made an offence. The aftermath o f the Hussite wars had left. system. so far as i t affected the peasant. i n the hands o f the landowners. F r e e d o m o f movement was restricted. displaced Germans as the r u l i n g element i n the towns. The weakness o f the central government also placed the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f justice. punishable by fine o r i m p r i s o n m e n t . a n d peasants were n o w allowed t o leave their villages o n l y w i t h the permission o f their l o r d .

the outcome o f their background. indeed. as w e l l as religious and c u l t u r a l . These doctrines were. m o u l d the development I n their t u r n they were themselves to help to o f t h o u g h t a n d the pattern o f future events. first p r o p o u n d e d by Petr Chelcicky and t h e n taken over b y the Brethren o f the early U n i t y . . can be properly understood.INTRODUCTION shattered by the course w h i c h events t o o k over the next h u n d r e d years. that the history o f the p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines. I t is only. o f disillusionment after l o n g years o f sacrifice and struggle f o r an ideal w h i c h appeared to recede ever further as the years passed by. i n the l i g h t o f disappointed hopes f o r social betterment. t o a large extent. economic and social. p o l i t i c a l .

the t h i n k e r whose chief w o r k Tolstoy. a n d a g r o w i n g n u m b e r o f foreign scholars have come too t o realize his significance as a p o l i t i c a l t h i n k e r . 1 'occupies w i t h i n Christianity the same p o s i t i o n as Christianity itself w i t h i n the whole h u m a n c o m m u n i t y .' has scarcely been heard o f 1 outside the frontiers o f his native c o u n t r y . Z i z k a a n d George o f PodSbrady. N o t h i n g o f a n y v a l u e h a s s o far a p p e a r e d . Sochineniya p. a F r e n c h m a n o r an Englishman he w o u l d u n d o u b t e d l y have exercised a n i m p o r t a n t influence o n the history o f law a n d social theory i n E u r o p e . 2 6 1 . Petra Khekhitskago. V I I I . I t w a s M a s a r y k . renderings o f s e v e r a l o f h i s w o r k s h a v e a l s o been p u b l i s h e d i n these t w o F u r t h e r details a r e given i n t h e b i b l i o g r a p h y . p. in E n g l i s h .I PETR CHELCICKY. ' L . however.7 0 . b o t h f r o m the p r o f u n d i t y o f its contents a n d the wonderful force a n d beauty o f its p o p u l a r language.d a y A p a r t f r o m C z e c h the o n l y l a n g u a g e s i n w h i c h a r t i c l e s o r b o o k s o n C h e l C i c k y h a v e Free languages. Palacky a n d M a s a r y k are w e l l . p. N .k n o w n at least t o a l l historians. * ' T o l s t o y . FORERUNNER OF THE UNITY The Czech n a t i o n has contributed several outstanding figures to E u r o p e a n history. after over three centuries o f o b l i v i o n . The name o f Petr Chelcick^. See 1955. The Kingdom of God is Within You. w h o pp. closed b o o k o n account o f the barrier o f language. ' 3 F o r most historians his w o r k s are a . Cf. ' a n d a great Slav scholar has claimed t h a t J 2 ' i f Chelcicky h a d been b o r n a G e r m a n .' ' writings. 7 9 . s t r u c k b y t h e C h e l 5 i c k ^ to T o l s t o y ' s a t t e n t i o n . Czechs o f a l l schools o f t h o u g h t have at least agreed i n assigning to ChelSicky an outstanding role i n the history a n d literature o f their n a t i o n . Krug Chteniya. T h e achievements o f H u s a n d K o m e n s k y . G . 2 6 . Since his rediscovery. X X V . s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e i r ideas. a century ago by Palacky a n d Safarik. Slavistisches Jalirbuch. 6 6 . P a w l o w . Medieval J a g i c i n h i s I n t r o . first b r o u g h t A . K a m i l Krofta. t h o u g h these a r e n o t i n d e e d n u m e r o u s . p. says T o l s t o y . 1 4 T o l s t o y . M a s a r y k . indeed. 80. however. C h e l & c k y . a p p e a r e d a r e G e r m a n a n d R u s s i a n . 8 7 : ' H i s " B o h e m i a i n the F i f t e e n t h C e n t u r y . ' Cambridge c a p t i v a t e o u r interest. T o l s t o j u n d T . f o r instance. ' Wiener I I I . a r e a m o n g the few m e d i e v a l l i t e r a r y w o r k s w h i c h c a n e v e n t o . has described as 'a most remarkable p r o d u c t i o n o f human t h o u g h t . History.

cannot be understood w i t h o u t first considering the theories o f their ' s p i r i t u a l father. W h a t little is k n o w n is usually open to d o u b t . Some earlier hypotheses . or a Waldensian preacher . 2 1 8 . . his w o r k s are almost the sole source o f our knowledge o f his life. a tailor. however. consists largely o f hypotheses more o r less plausible. the U n i t y o f Brethren (Jednota bratrskd). w h i c h was i n its t u r n to m a r k a fresh stage i n The p o l i t i c a l and social 5 the nation's p o l i t i c a l a n d religious development. or independent o f any feudal l o r d and o w n i n g his o w n The supposition that he was a yeoman appears very possible.as o f all the other events o f his life . therefore. I t w o u l d have given h i m the means t o 5 P a l a c k y . p. ' Sit' viry ( M o d e r n C z e c h e d i t i o n ) . doctrines o f this body. ' O zivote a dile P e t r a C h e l c i c k e h o . The o r i g i n a l i t y and depth o f his thought. V . 13. I Scarcely any i n f o r m a t i o n has come d o w n to us about Chelcicky's life o r character. w h i c h u n f o r t u n ately contain comparatively few references to himself. B u t he may have been a member o f the squirearchy (zeman) a yeoman (svobodnik). t h a t he was a cobbler. The date o f Chel&cky's b i r t h . H e appears to have acquired his surname m a n y years later 6 f r o m the founder o f the U n i t y .PETR C H E L i l C K Y C a r r y i n g the principles o f the Hussite r e v o l u t i o n to their logical conclusion. the audacity o f his theory and the obviously outstanding character of his intellect. or even an unfree peasant (sedldk).have been discarded. make this ignorance the more tantalizing. H e was probably b o r n . signifying only the spot where he spent most o f his l i f t . B u t the social conditions o f the p e r i o d make i t probable that he was b o r n and reared at least i n the immediate neighbourhood. about 1390 i n the south Bohemian village o f Chel&ce near the s m a l l c o u n t r y t o w n o f Vodfiany.is. ChelSicky at the same t i m e p r o v i d e d the theoretical f o u n d a t i o n on w h i c h was b u i l t up a new religious c o m m u n i t y .' ChelSicky. therefore. T h e name t h o u g h does not necessarily indicate the place o f his b i r t h . a discharged soldier. since external documentary evidence does n o t exist. Peter ndrodu ceskeho. 7 N o t h i n g is k n o w n for certain o f his parents o r f a m i l y nor o f his c h i l d h o o d a n d schooling: the sources give n o i n d i c a t i o n whether he ever m a r r i e d . Even the social class t o w h i c h he belonged a n d the calling he pursued d u r i n g his life-time are matters o f debate. land. 3 1 3 . a priest. Indeed. Cheltschizki. p. * 7 S i m e k . while i t is quite impossible to gain any impression o f his personali t y apart f r o m the i n t e r n a l evidence o f his o w n w r i t i n g s .for instance. uncertain. p. Precise dates are almost entirely absent. B r o t h e r R e h o f . Dijlny V o g l .

K r o f t a . he was almost certainly at one i n most o f his opinions w i t h the masses o f his fellow pilgrims. uchenikami 46. a well-to-do squire f r o m near-by Zâhoröi. ' K h e l c h i t s k y i G u s . 37.. G o l l . G o l l . * k )(h • C h e l c i c k y . Tâbor v husitskem revolucnim places C h c l c i c k / s a r r i v a l i n P r a g u e i n the late s p r i n g o f 1420. ChelĞicky appears to have been for most o f his life a w o r k i n g farmer. f o u r years after Hus's death. . i n Bartos's view. Listy Chelöicky a Jednota 1-8. L o u n y . A m o n g thousands o f others came Chelcicky. B . Slane and Zatec . ' S t i t n y a C h e l i i c k y . 1947. even i f a n extremely plausible one. K r o f t a . C. n o positive p r o o f o f the identity o f the t w o m e n has as yet been b r o u g h t f o r w a r d . K r o f t a . 1914. p p . . 10 9 A t any rate. Bartos pp. H. S'i'vyy ibornik I I I . exact legal status. T h i s theory. S. at the same time a l l o w i n g h i m to preserve t h a t sympathy w i t h his unfree fellow peasants and passionate advocacy o f their rights w h i c h appear i n a l l his writings.w o u l d be spared f r o m the divine w r a t h . sufficient leisure t o pursue his l i t e r a r y activities. cil. 8 Since the last w a r . when only five holy cities . stoleli. U r b â n e k . pp. pp. 5 . nâboiensp p . M. lidu. cil. 6. p p . the leading contem­ porary a u t h o r i t y o n the period. then quite u n ­ k n o w n . t h a t Chelcicky made his first appearance o n the stage o f history. But C.FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 27 acquire some measure o f education.7 6 .8 9 . 13-15. Towards the end o f this year. 1-9. op. p. I I .. 7 3 . cf.. Chaloupecky. Plzefi. also. has p u t f o r w a r d another t h e o r y : t h a t o f Chelöick^'s identity w i t h a certain Petr Zâhorka. ' Ğ. sbornik historicky.. crowded t o the capital city o f Prague. and an independence o f attitude. p p . i sû boti I I . 4 8 1 . 2 0 8 . T h o u g h Bartos has expressed his belief i n the v a l i d i t y o f his theory. 6<>-69. indeed. 1947.i n o S . Vik Podibradsky. Jihofesky 1946. V o g l . Y a s t r e b o v . 4 7 2 . X L V I I I / X L I X (1949). A t that time. 8 8 6 . p. however.K r o f t a . 3. pp. ' izd.0 6 . astonishing at this t i m e i n a simple c o u n t r y ­ man. w h o was b o r n a b o u t 1379-81. masses o f peasants. op. 7 . p. especially f r o m south Bohemia. w h i c h membership o f the semi-serf peasantry w o u l d have made very difficult. whatever his origins o r his M. Lamanskago. bojovnici. I t may thus have been o n l y later i n life t h a t he adopted the labourer's status as part o f a p r o g r a m m e o f v o l u n t a r y p o v e r t y . because he was later k n o w n under the name o f Chelöicky./ appears f r o m the records after 1424.. op.8 3 . V . p. Zâhorka's name d i s . M a c c k ..K l a t o v . w h o h a d been flocking i n thousands to participate i n the religious ceremonies o n M o u n t T a b o r . 2 0 5 . pp. I t was not u n t i l 1419. w o u l d explain the latter's education. O trojim Jijin Ceskych. 4. chap. z v XV pp. C h a l o u p e c k y . 6 . H. roused by the fanatical o r a t o r y o f demagogic priest prophesying the overthrow o f the existing social order and the i m m i n e n t second c o m i n g o f Christ i n his glory. cit. Professor Bartos. Ktoz hnuti.J. as well as his independent spirit and freedom f r o m outside inter­ ference. i t must be stressed that i t remains a hypothesis.

. H r u b y .. I t h a d not. 206. K r o f t a . southwards i n t o Spain a n d also i n t o central a n d n o r t h e r n Europe. E a r l y i n the thirteenth century. I n 1184. 11 The Waldenses date back to the second h a l f o f the t w e l f t h century. a r e t u r n to the p r i m i t i v e simplicity o f the first Christians. 315. were f r o m the poorer classes. and called u p o n their fellow citizens to model their lives o n the example o f the apostles. M. since the emphasis o f his teaching was n o t o n doctrine b u t o n practice. i n a desire t o return to the pure Christianity o f the early church. op.. Palacky. ' O stycich a pomeru sekty Waldenske k nekdejSim sektam v C e c h a c h . indeed. 316. especially as persecution grew. I n the course o f t i m e the Waldenses b o t h i n France and i n I t a l y set u p their o w n ecclesiastical hierarchy w i t h the equivalent o f 1 1 G o l l . M e a n w h i l e . b u t often fierce. M o s t o f the sects' members. They were founded by a wealthy Lyons merchant. C.K r o f t a . He advocated. p. p. pp. The papal c o n d e m n a t i o n initiated a l o n g period o f intermittent. Pope Lucius I I I p u t them under the ban o f the c h u r c h . however.28 PETR C H E L C l C K Y F o r C h e l i i c k y was a true son o f the south Bohemia w h i c h played such a significant role i n the Hussite movement. they early came i n t o conflict w i t h the church. at the C o u n c i l o f Verona. peasants and small craftsmen. 6 1 . been Valdo's o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n t o break away f r o m the church. circa 1217). A t the beginning o f the 1180s a b r a n c h h a d been founded i n n o r t h I t a l y as a result o f fusion w i t h a section o f the L o m b a r d HumiliatU a g r o u p w i t h i n the C a t h o l i c c h u r c h organized o n ascetic a n d semi-monastic principles. however. . cit. persecution lasting several centuries. above a l l . the influence o f V a l d o a n d his followers h a d begun t o spread outside the frontiers o f the province. a n d soon after V a l d o and his ' P o o r M e n ' were expelled f r o m Lyons. w h i c h was widespread i n that area. Because o f their continued preaching w i t h o u t the permission o f the ecclesiastical authorities. Pierre V a l d o ( d . 4 0 . C. Ceske 1868. w h i c h drove the Waldenses to break away f r o m the C a t h o l i c c h u r c h t r a n s f o r m i n g t h e m at the same t i m e i n t o an outlawed a n d heretical sect. a n d they became k n o w n as the ' P o o r M e n o f Lyons. w h o i n the mid-1170s.6 5 . urged the virtues o f poverty. postilly. Soon a group o f l i k e m i n d e d persons gathered a r o u n d h i m . the renunciation o f property a n d the secular power being demanded for those accepted i n t o f u l l c o m m u n i t y . h a d renounced his p r o p e r t y a n d left his home to lead a life o f poverty and asceticism.' They attacked the abuses o f the time. cit. He may already have come to Prague as a convinced adherent o f at least some o f the tenets o f the Waldensian heresy. op. pp. a split occurred between the m o r e radical L o m b a r d branch a n d the French Waldenses. They were also forbidden t o take oaths or t o shed b l o o d .

" 14 Those earnest p o p u l a r preachers w h o gathered together masses of für F o r the W a l d e n s e s generally. had held similar views. the s i m i l a r i t y o f his doctrines w i t h Waldensian teachings. t h o u g h some were ready to accept the Eucharist f r o m 'good priests' o f the Catholic c h u r c h . w h i c h tended. and by H. op. 7 2 . By this time. H u n g a r y . p p . Böhmer. Realencycklopädie Theologie und Kirche. T h e r e is. T h o u g h no m e n t i o n o f any connection is made by Chelcicky i n his writings.passim. 7 9 9 . and a l t h o u g h o u r i n f o r m a t i o n is derived exclusively f r o m the records o f the sect's opponents and the exact nature o f the heresy under examination is never completely clear. H a r r i s o n T h o m s o n . however. as w i l l be seen i n the second p a r t o f this chapter. Ö. ed. ' C. p p . A d e n e y . pp. i n particular. n o c o m Valdese. 1953). p p . Encyclopaedia and Ethics. V a l d c n s k y c h v Cechách p r e d hnutím h u s i t s k y m . A . H o l i n k a . des 14. priests. w h i c h their sudden change d u r i n g the momentous year o f 1420 has tended to obscure. cit. pp. They show. by means o f lay preaching i n the vernacular tongue. see the articles b y W . Religion protestantische a n d up-to-date.8 3 4 . H. P r c g e r ' s thesis i n Über aas Verhältnis der Taboriten zu den Waldesiern C h a l o u p e c k y . 663-68. A n t i c h r i s t and completely By the fourteenth century the G e r m a n Waldenses 18 had become v i r t u a l l y independent o f their fellow sectaries i n I t a l y . 2 3 . Gönnet ( T o r r e R. The missionaries w h o b r o u g h t the sect's teaching eastwards i n t o G e r m a n y and later i n t o Poland..H u s s i t e H e r e s y i n B o h e m i a . H u g o n a n d G . w h i c h is b o t h s c h o l a r l y See also Bibliografía I V U i c c . to make a more clear-cut break w i t h the official church. 13 the sect was confined to the foreign i m m i g r a n t s . Goll-Krofta. too. only part o f the larger question o f the relationship o f the Taborites a n d o f the whole Hussite movement t o this most i m p o r t a n t o f the medieval sects. the l a n d o f Chelöikcy's birth. and deacons. ' P r e . . F .4 2 . A t numerous adherents a m o n g the Czech p o p u l a t i o n .. too. H. i n the area f r o m w h i c h the Taborites sprang. 1933. esp. indeed. B u t the Taborites too d u r i n g their first p e r i o d . they leave no d o u b t o f its comparative strength i n the c o u n t r y . 277 ff. The Waldenses spread their doctrines. " C f . is striking. regarding R o m e as the seat o f rejecting its services. and Bohemia belonged to the L o m b a r d branch.1 0 2 . circa 1415-19. Sektáfství v Cecháchpred revohici husitskou. pp. t h o u g h later i t w o n The p r o b l e m o f Chelcicky's relationship t o the Waldenses is. X I I . A . T h r o u g h o u t the fourteenth century the i n q u i s i t i o n was active i n its attempts t o r o o t o u t this heresy f r o m B o h e m i a . ' K déjinám 369-82.FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 29 bishops. t h o u g h they continued i n friendly relations w i t h each o t h e r . first the existence o f Waldenses i n the Czech lands is authenticated. that the m a i n centre o f its activities was i n south Bohemia. prehensive s u r v e y o f the W a l d e n s e s d u r i n g the M i d d l e A g e s . possibly under Cathar influences.. ' E. " X X .

znamenajte. a u t h o r o f a n o n . I I . and the menace o f the approaching a n t i Hussite crusade commanded b y the E m p e r o r Sigismund w i t h the support o f the rest o f Christendom. Jakoubek o f S t r i b r o ] et q u o m o d o i a m res sit versa i n oppositam q u a l i t a t e m . J a n o f P r i b r a m . such as the rejection o f oaths and the death penalty and a l l other forms o f violence. p. V . 609. J a s t r e b o v a . . ' C. . J a n o f Jiöin.6 5 . H.2 3 . indeed all property rights. 610. p r i n t s a v e r y e a r l y H u s s i t e s o n g . T a b o r i t i s m (vnikajici Tabor). 8 2 7 . I l l . plenus Krofta. However sentiments w h i c h are n o t u s u a l l y f o u n d B a r t o S . p p . 1 4 2 . 140. cit. 6 7 ) .. p p . when many o f the more fanatical extremists a m o n g the priesthood proclaimed the second c o m i n g o f Christ. pp. p. G ö l l . Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschickte T h e s e r e m a r k s were a d d r e s s e d to the p r o m i n e n t T a b o r i t e priest. w h i c h v i v i d l y expresses the W a l d e n s i a n i n later p r o d u c t i o n s . 1 6 W a l d e n s i a n s o c i a l tenets. and sovereignty was t o rest w i t h the c o m m o n people. d e s c r i b e d a s ' t r a c t a t u l u s . ' N o n n e prius predicastis contra occisionem [protest15 ed the moderate Prague master. The inauguration o f his k i n g d o m . 1 2 1 .' B u t this first p e r i o d o f ' p r i m i t i v e as Pekaf has aptly called i t . C. Typically Waldensian doctrines. are t o be f o u n d among their articles o f faith. Dues a n d l a b o u r services. 6 0 . 1 3 6 . were t o be abolished. der Böhmischen Brüder. Husitstvi a cizina. d e n i e s t h a t the W a l d e n s i a n s e x e r c i s e d a n y H e maintains that who significant influence o n the beginnings o f t h e T a b o r i t e m o v e m e n t . w h i c h was t o occur between 10-14 February 1420. s u c h a s the rejection o f the o a t h a n d the death penalty.. S e e H o l i n k a husitskeho I I . perfidia et m e n d o s i t a t e et t y r a n n i d e a s a e c u l o s i m i l i n o n a u d i t a ' ( q u o t e d b y ' N . a s came through Nicholas of Dresden. suffering.3 8 . ' .4 6 . pp. . Martinü. de bellis et effusione s a n g u i n i s et o c c i s i o n e o m n i u m malorum in mundo. 90-120. gospel of passive Reformation in Böhmen were 'die F o r t s e t z u n g d e r böhmischen W a l d e s i e r . Nejedty. The failure t o realize the chiliasts' prophesies by peaceful means. S t u d i e o P e t r a C h e l c i c k e m a j e h o d o b e . well as a c o m m o n disbelief i n p u r g a t o r y . after a few brief months o f enthusiasm.. ' T h e humble disciples o f the peaceful and communistic sectaries were n o w transformed i n t o the armed ' w a r r i o r s Jahrhunderts.30 PETR CHELÖICKY o f adherents a m o n g the peasants and small craftsmen o f south Bohemia d u r i n g the f o u r years after Hus's death likewise rejected all violence and advocated a state o f apostolic poverty w i t h all things held i n c o m m o n . led o n t o the t h i r d period i n the evolution o f the Taborite movement. w h i c h was t o last a thousand years. i n w h i c h every C h r i s t i a n m a n and w o m a n was t o be regarded as a beloved brother or sister. 1909. was to be accompanied by the e x t i r p a t i o n o f the wicked a n d the division o f their goods among the righteous. S e e ibid. p p . gave way towards the end o f 1419 to a p o w e r f u l movement o f mass hysteria. p. 8 2 6 . 114. 1 5 2 .e x t a n t treatise w h i c h h i s o p p o n e n t . w h i c h m a r k e d a w i t h d r a w a l f r o m the social radicalism o f the chiliasts and their predecessors and a rejection o f the earlier non-violence. h a d reached s u c h conclusions independently. op. und die husitische e s p e c i a l l y a s regards t h e i r s o c i a l d o c t r i n e s . Die Dgjiny Poslüchajte. t h a t the T a b o r i t e s Waldesier zpevu.

108. op. 2 9 0 . w h i c h g a v e its n a m e to the m o v e m e n t . J a k o u b e k ' s c h a p l a i n a t the B e t h l e h e m C h a p e l . 3 7 4 .was to be a t e r r o r to the rest o f Catholic Europe for centuries to come. p p . ) P r i n c e t o n .9 8 . p p . 131.6 9 . says t h a t h e w a s ' u n l e a r n e d i n L a t i n . Fontes 376-79.. ' he detected the devil's h a n d i n spite o f t h e i r a d v o c a c y o f v o l u n t a r y p o v e r t y . '* into C z e c h . C h e l i i c k y expressed i n s t r o n g t e r m s h i s disagreement w i t h ' o u r b r o t h e r s . I . " 1907. J . A m o n g Theologie der Böhmischen Brüder t'ruhzeit. in 1946. Dijiny trske. M a r t i n o f Volynä. Since i t is probable that he had no more t h a n a smattering o f L a t i n . ' the c h i l i a s t preachers o f 1420. H e y m a n n . z Bfezove kronika iilka husitska. 7. 1420 n e a r the s m a l l s o u t h B o h e m i a n t o w n o f Üsti. w a s f o u n d e d i n the first q u a r t e r o f pp. pp. pp. p. ' a n d this t r a d i t i o n h a s u s u a l l y b e e n accepted by m o d e r n s c h o l a r s a s i n line w i t h t h e i n t e r n a l e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n h i s writings. 1 6 9 . I n O boji duchovnim. N . to read many o f the w o r k s o f the leading theologians i n translations made for h i m by his friends. kfest'anstvi v Ceskoslovensku. 4 0 4 . 382. h a s m e a n t t h a t few c o p i e s h a v e s u r v i v e d . 19 " P e k a f . Smetänka.j 1 FORERUNNER OF THE UNITY 31 o f G o d . U n d e r ZiZka's leadership. ' defending their religion b y the sword.6 1 . 3 1 4 .a n d e s p e c i a l l y w i t h the g r o w t h o f the reform m o v e m e n t . 27. p. B u t cf.. and above a l l he was able t o make use o f one o r other o f the existing vernacular translations o f the Bible i n t o his native Czech. and the C h a l o u p e c k y . 6. P e s c h k e . any systematic way. 2 0 0 . i n w h o s e d o c t r i n e s .. ' c l o t h e d i n the p r o p h e t s a n d the O l d T e s t a m e n t . 4 0 0 ff. . ' 17 Little is k n o w n o f Chelcicky's stay i n Prague. 14. H o c h . 2 ) . 'Vavfince Bohemicarum. I. pp. viry (ed. the m i n o r gentry came t o play an increasingly i m p o r t a n t role i n the movement's direction u n t i l finally a l l traces o f its social r e v o l u t i o n a r y beginnings had disappeared. " c o m p l e t i o n o f the present b o o k .and especially that o f their leader.0 4 . 1955. whose name . 4 5 4 ff. J. p p . B a r t o s ' s h y p o t h e s i s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . liika Kerum a jeho cit. John Revolution. Die I . V . the doors o f the U n i v e r s i t y w o u l d therefore have been closed t o h i m . 16 Among the many thousands w h o were attracted by this religious and social renaissance only Chelöicky and the small group w h i c h he was to gather a r o u n d h i m d u r i n g the c o m i n g years were to remain faithful to the p r i n ciples o f those early 'Taborites before T a b o r .' Hussite bozt bojovnici. however. and o w i n g t o the exigencies o f w a r conditions. Jan 2 i z k a . T o w a r d s the e n d o f the f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y the w h o l e B i b l e h a d b e e n t r a n s l a t e d independently since the different s e c t i o n s w e r e c o m p l e t e d by v a r i o u s p e o p l e w o r k i n g D u r i n g the e a r l y y e a r s o f the next c e n t u r y . op. 36. p. . t h o u g h the w o r k h a d n o t b e e n c a r r i e d t h r o u g h o f e a c h other.1 2 . Dfjiny literatury in ihrer o t h e r s . S. doba.a large n u m b e r o f C z e c h B i b l e s w e r e p r o d u c e d i n revised f o r m . 1 7 0 . 1 8 H e was able. t r a n s l a t e d o r c o p i e d m a n y m a n u s c r i p t s f o r C h e l c i c k y . 5 9 . K r o f t a . T h e o r i g i n a l i n s p i r a t i o n for the task h a d been d e r i v e d i n p a r t f r o m M a t e j o f J a n o v ' s e m p h a s i s o n the p r i m a c y o f s c r i p t u r e .. cit. See J a k u b e c . 118. pp. a s w e l l as the c o n s t a n t u s e to w h i c h they were put. Ktoijsü 6 6 . Hrejsa I I . 28. a n d H u s h i m s e l f h a d a h a n d i n l a t e r r e v i s i o n . see e s p e c i a l l y F r e d e r i c k G . pp. "Husite a V ä l k a . ' Ceskä mysl. w h i c h was T h e a n o n y m o u s i n t r o d u c t i o n to h i s Sit' See also written i n 1521. w h i c h u n f o r t u n a t e l y w a s o n l y a v a i l a b l e to m e after T ä b o r . H. ( F o r 2 i i k a . t h o u g h the d e s t r u c t i o n o f the w a r y e a r s .

w i t h the p r o c l a m a t i o n by Pope M a r t i n V o n 1 M a r c h o f a crusade against Hussite Bohemia. occurred d u r i n g this p e r i o d : his t w o recorded interviews w i t h the leading U t r a q u i s t theologian. 899. the independence o f m i n d o f this y o u n g c o u n t r y m a n standing o u t alone against the universally accepted o p i n i o n even o n his o w n side. whether his personal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n war was consistent w i t h f o l l o w i n g i n Christ's footsteps. tract De op. p p . 2 1 22 F o r J a k o u b e k . . w h i c h h a d threatened n o t o n l y Prague b u t the a n n i h i l a t i o n o f the whole Hussite movement. W h a t sanction have y o u i n the Scriptures for warfare a m o n g Christians? asked ChelCicky at the outset.32 PETR C H E L C l C K Y A characteristic incident. p p . U r b a n e k . pp. cit. Jakoubek o f S t f i b r o (circa 1370-1429). 2 9 7 . p p . ' R e p l i k a p r o t i R o k y c a n o v i . 1898. speaking u p against the revered leader o f the whole Hussite movement at this supreme m o m e n t o f crisis. 20 The first occurred i n the spring o f 1420 i n Jakoubek's r o o m at the Bethlehem Chapel at a t i m e when. a n d the w a r situation h a d removed i t f r o m the sphere o f pure theory i n t o the field o f current politics. see H o c h . 898. The second interview t o o k place after Zizka's victory at the battle o f Vysehrad (1 November 1420) had removed the menace.1 0 5 . seeBartoS'sessayinSv£/cia/cac/rj. Jakoubek excused those w h o h a d done the k i l l i n g . since otherwise the whole estate o f k n i g h t h o o d (stav rytirsky) w o u l d stand c o n d e m n e d . The p r o b l e m . Jakoubek was forced t o a d m i t t h a t he h a d only the injunctions o f ' t h e saints o f o l d ' f o r his interpretation. 3 9 5 . op. 2 9 6 . " justification o f C h r i s t i a n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n w a r f a r e i n h i s M S . 3 9 4 . as w i l l be seen later. These meetings testify to the contacts w h i c h Chelcicky h a d w i t h the leading m e n o f the day. C h e l c i c k y . must be acknowledged. 8 2 . was being widely discussed o n all sides and f r o m all angles. .. however. H o w y o u r master w o u l d have flown o u t against anyone w h o dared eat p o r k o n a F r i d a y [adds ChelSicky w i t h typically b i t i n g i r o n y ] a n d yet n o w he cannot make the shedding o f men's b l o o d a matter o f conscience. cit. B u t " . as well as his m o r a l courage. writes ChelSicky going o n to describe their second meeting: A f t e r m a n y people h a d been k i l l e d o n b o t h sides. 2 1 The subject o f discussion o n b o t h occasions centred o n the b u r n i n g question whether a C h r i s t i a n was ever justified i n resorting t o force. saying that [he] c o u l d n o t tax their consciences w i t h such things. B u t he d i d n o t hesitate t o accuse Chelcicky o f heresy f o r his o p p o s i t i o n to the war effort. this m a n whose o w n conscience has been filched f r o m h i m by those saints o f o l d . Whatever o u r estimate o f the practical value o f such a p o i n t o f view. as w e l l as t o the respect w h i c h he must have enjoyed among them. Later. F o r h i s c o n d i t i o n a l bellis.. ' Listy filologicke. the crusading armies were converging o n Prague.

concerned w i t h p o l i t i c a l questions o n l y i n c i d e n t a l l y . p. especially the N e w Testament. H. therefore. 4 1 . J o h n W y c l i f . /. ' P e t r K h e l c h i t s k y . adding a new note w i t h his wholly negative attitude to the role o f the state w i t h i n a C h r i s t i a n society. " " B e t t s . o f exaltation o f the h u m b l e a n d meek against the p r o u d a n d rulers o f the w o r l d .3 8 . a n d C h a l o u p e c k ^ . too. a m o n g others. 5 1 . He pointed t o the early C h r i s t i a n church. 3 3 . l i k e his master M i l i S o f KromSriz (d. 1947. two m e n . Selski c o n t r a s t to the W a l d e n s i a n e l e m e n t . and East European otdzka v husitstvi. 24 K o n r a d Waldhauser (c. S.FORERUNNER OF THE UNITY 33 Soon after the relief o f Prague ChelCicky left the capital t o r e t u r n t o his native south Bohemia. p. The influences shaping his opinions h a d already played their p a r t i n the creation o f his social a n d religious philosophy. as a m o d e l for his contemporaries to f o l l o w . o f the peasant {dobry ndS sedldcek) was connected i n the t h o u g h t o f Hus's predecessors w i t h the a t t e m p t to renew the practice o f C h r i s t i a n m o r a l principles. D e c . 1350-1394).p a r t l y o w i n g to outside influences . whose pages spoke directly t o Chel&cky as a clear revelation o f the w i l l o f G o d to m a n . and their p o l i t i c a l t h i n k i n g is. pp. indeed. ' Slavonic Review. T h i s h a d been the o n l y period w h i c h he is k n o w n to have spent away f r o m the n e i g h b o u r h o o d o f his b i r t h . 1326-1369). B u t other influences. A b o v e a l l there was the Bible. They were p r i m a r i l y moral reformers. h a v e 25 these disagreements d o n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e spoilt the friendly r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the stressed the influence o f the n a t i v e B o h e m i a n r e l i g i o u s r e f o r m e r s o n C h e l i i c k y i n F o r M a t e j ' s influence i n f o r m i n g C h e l c i c k y ' s v i e w s o n the u n c h r i s t i a n c h a r a c t e r o f . o f fellow-feeling f o r the oppressed. M a t e j o f Janov (c. 1909. F u n d a m e n t a l l y Chelcicky remained a T a b o r i t e o f the ' p r i m i t i v e ' period. ' Vestnik Evropy. neither systematic n o r p a r t i c u l a r l y profound. H e was by n o w at least t h i r t y : a m a n whose o u t l o o k o n life h a d already become f o r m e d . p. h a d proclaimed the m o r a l superiority o f the simple peasant. T h e cult o f the l i t t l e m a n .' he wrote i n words reminiscent o f Chelcicky's later advocacy o f country life. B a r t o S . ChelCicky's social teachings d o n o t . w i t h its c o m m u n i t y o f goods and rule by love alone. 23 A succession o f writers a n d preachers h a d already established a t r a d i t i o n o f m o r a l protest against social injustice. 1374). ' S o m e P o l i t i c a l I d e a s o f the E a r l y C z e c h R e f o r m e r s . " K u l b a k i n . o f a more intellectual character left their m a r k o n his w r i t i n g s : H u s a n d his predecessors i n Bohemia a n d the E n g l i s h m a n . appear so unexpected a n d novel i f the social ideas w h i c h h a d developed i n Bohemia over the previous fifty years . strongly i m b u e d w i t h the spirit o f the Waldensian heresy.are taken i n t o a c c o u n t . ' M o r e deceit a n d disbelief arises f r o m the towns t h a n the village. N o v . 1952. carried o n this t r a d i t i o n . 2 0 .. inveighing against those lords w h o oppressed their tenants.

f o r instance. p p . see B a r t o s . defended the peasants' rights and stressed . O f pp. H e was later to w r i t e o f W y c l i f : N o n e o f the first doctors d i d so zealously speak o r w r i t e against the poison p o u r e d i n t o the H o l y C h u r c h . ' a cizina. 157. ze Stfíbm H u s ' s p r e d e c e s s o r s S t i t n y w a s the o n l y o n e w h o w r o t e m a i n l y i n C z e c h . 119.3 5 . p p . a very extensive literature o f protest against social abuses had sprung u p . such as. 5 4 .3 0 . 1922. o u t o f w h i c h the greatest A n t i c h r i s t has been b o r n w i t h a l l the loathsomeness w i t h w h i c h he has oppressed Jesus C h r i s t and His L a w . i t was W y c l i f perhaps w h o proved the strongest direct influence.. too. therefore. however. cit.like Stitny . ' C. 120. op. filologické. O n the eve o f the Hussite r e v o l u t i o n . B e t t s . op. 4 9 . 1331-c. especially against the right o f reversion (pdumri) a l l o w i n g the l o r d o f the m a n o r to c l a i m the property o f those a m o n g his peasants w h o m i g h t die w i t h o u t leaving a n heir legally entitled t o inherit. A r c h b i s h o p o f Prague (1350-1400).. while at the same time eschewing any h i n t o f incitement to rebellion. " " C h e l c i c k y . pp. 1 2 7 . dominio?* among " H e certainly knew at least three o f his w o r k s f r o m a n d Triaiogus as w e l l as his De civili Czech translations: the Dialogus I t was.6 0 . cit. see C h a l o u p e c k y . 27 Chelcicky sometimes quotes f r o m W y c l i f under the somewhat ambiguous name o f Mistr Protiva. pfeklad Viklefova dialoga the t w o m e n . constantly reminded his fellownoblemen that the o n l y justification o f their privileged p o s i t i o n lay i n their o b l i g a t i o n to serve thereby the rest o f the c o m m u n i t y . cit.Later Tomás o f Stitny (c. a n d o f the n u m e r o u s F o r a n interesting d i s c u s s i o n o f S t i t n y ' s influence o n C h e l f i i c k y .. H u s . 5 0 . e s p e c i a l l y i n h i s p a r a l l e l s i n the life a n d w r i t i n g s o f 1914. a n d h i s Husitstvi views o n s o c i a l q u e s t i o n s . H i s m a x i m 'the l o r d is made i n order to serve the people (Pan pro lid obecny ustavenY was capable o f revolutionary consequences. remarkably m o d e r n i n spirit i n spite o f its medieval f r a m e w o r k . especially i n the social field. ' C h e l c i c k y a R o k y c a n a . a direct male descendant l i v i n g o n the h o l d i n g . emphasizing at least the theoretical equality o f m a n .the obligations o f lords towards their tenants. 26 jest the Even theologically a n d p o l i t i c a l l y o r t h o d o x Jan o f Jenstejn. p.8 1 . 37. Misira Jakoubka and Bohemia. .. t o o k effective practical steps o n his archiépiscopal estates against the grosser forms o f social oppression. 7 3 . f r o m W y c l i f ' s insistance o n the Bible as the Listy the state. 2 0 . indeed. i n spite o f disagreement o n many points. op. pp. F o r Chelôicky. 2 6 4 . Wyclif H r u b y . W y c l i f has r o u t e d the hosts o f A n t i c h r i s t as well as those doctors w h o i n t r o d u c e d c u n n i n g rules i n the place o f the L a w o f Christ. M. M. I n this he pleases me above a l l o t h e r s . 7 6 . 1401). pp. while adhering i n principle to the medieval theory o f class relationships. O d l o z i l i k . p r o b a b l y e x e r c i s e d i n d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h the m e d i u m o f the latter's friends f r o m t h e r a d i c a l H u s s i t e p r i e s t h o o d . ' S t i t n y a C h e l c i c k y .

C. p. I t m e r e l y set h i m s e l f a g a i n s t the c o r r u p t i o n o f the C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h . as h a d previously been thought. p p . p. though h i s exact w o r d s w o u l d s e e m to refer to a n e a r l i e r u n r e c o r d e d s y n o d a b o u t l or details o f the d i s c u s s i o n s at the T a b o r i t e s y n o d s o f 1422 a n d 1424 c o n c e r n i n g 1946. o f W y c l i f o r o f the Waldenses and the early Taborites. 118. 1 0 1 .FORERUNNER OF THE UNITY 35 only f o u n t o f i n s p i r a t i o n for real Christians and his call t o a life modelled on the example o f Christ and his apostles that Chel5icky. I t w a s K r o f t a . op. t r c b o v . was to derive the m o t i v a t i o n for his whole p o l i t i c a l and social superstructure. cit. cit. see Ktoz jsu bozi bojovrtici. K r o f t a .. p. /. 8 8 . c o n s i d e r s t h a t it m a y o f 1422. cit. 890. 29 M o s t o f Chelcicky's ideas can. f r o m P o p e M a r t i n V ' s bull o f 1418 that H u s a l s o t r a n s l a t e d Wyclir. b u t later H u s ' s bitter o p p o n e n t . pp. C h e l c i c k y of p r o b a b l y r e t u r n e d f r o m h i s v i s i t to P r a g u e w i t h t r a n s l a t i o n s o f t h e t h r e e w o r k s p a r t i c i p a t i o n . ' M i s t r P r o t i v a u C h e l c i c k e h o . Usty. 3 7 7 . w i t h the c o n t e m p o r a r y priest. follow. Urbanek. I . p p . ** F o r the s i m i l a r s t a n d p o i n t o f the e a r l y T a b o r i t e s . the of Antichrist.. the details o f w h i c h a r e k n o w n . 30 Chelcicky's exact movements after leaving Prague are n o t easy t o H e appears t o have resided f o r a short time at Pisek. " C h a l o u p e c k y . U r b a n e k . 31 B u t he was soon t o settle i n his native village o f Chelcice.. a t first a n e n t h u s i a s t for c h u r c h r e f o r m a n d the first p r e a c h e r at the B e t h l e h e m C h a p e l . op. Dijiny <•/•• cit. t o o . name 1915 ( q u o t e d i n J a k u b e c . 38. 2 0 9 . o Petre Khelchitskom i ego vremeni. Selskd otdzka v husitstvi. p p . be f o u n d i n the teachings o f Hus and the earlier B o h e m i a n reformers. * Listy filologicke.2 0 . BartoS. J a k u b e c . P r o t i v a . " K r o f t a .4 2 . therefore. see H o c h . defending his v i e w p o i n t o n the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f war w i t h Christianity against his former comrades. B u t w i t h his r e t u r n home Chelcicky was t o devote himself to their elaboration. X X X V I I I . cit. Etyudy pp. . t o d r a w i n g f r o m t h e m the consequences f r o m w h i c h almost a l l his predecessors and contemporaries h a d shrunk.y 3 . 2 1 . t h a t C h e l c i c k y t o o k ^ j ' . F r . quotes a h y p o t h e s i s o f S e d l a C e k .. w h o first Protiva w e r e i n fact p r o v e d definitely t h a t the p a s s a g e s c i t e d b y C h e l c i c k y a s f r o m Mistr taken from W y c l i f ' s w o r k s a n d were not connected. M i l a n S v o b o d a ) . Dije prdchenskeho the c o n d i t i o n s o f a j u s t w a r . 4 9 4 . " r u t . H. I . pp. a name devoid of any bad connotation.. p p . cit. p p . 1900. 891. p p . 5 0 0 ) w a s l a t e r a b l e to e x p l a i n w h y C h e l c i c k y used this s e e m i n g l y o p p r o b r i o u s signified one w h o opponent (protivnik) for the m a s t e r he s o m u c h r e v e r e d despite d i s a g r e e m e n t o n c e r t a i n t o p i c s . p p . where he appears t o have remained f o r the rest o f his life. 1 0 0 . Rysanek.. O trojim selskeho stavu.2 1 . 4 9 9 . 4 9 3 . 39.. M. 9 1 0 . w h i c h m a y a l l h a v e b e e n m a d e w i t h at least J a k o u b e k ' s is the o n l y m a j o r t r a n s l a t i o n to I t is k n o w n . op.X X X I V .8 1 . p p . 9 0 9 . esp. H o l i n k a . ' C. op.o. 2 1 2 . X X I I I . op. possibly m a k i n g short journeys f r o m time t o t i m e t o nearby Vodfiany or to the more distant Pisek or even T a b o r .. 6 3 . lidu. 34 H e began t o (ed. t u \ c been i n the convocatio U. b u t the C z e c h v e r s i o n o f the Dialogus survive. pp. 7. W y c l i f m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . 1 7 . 8 . Here he t o o k p a r t i n a conference o f T a b o r i t e theologians. 5 . a largish t o w n n o t far f r o m T a b o r . ' K n e z J a n P r o t i v a z N o v e V s i a C h e l c i c k e h o ' M i s t r P r o t i v a ' . like all his contemporaries i n the Hussite movement.

4 7 2 . Vojtech. S. pp.K r o f t a . were to be o f epoch-making significance f o r Czech history. 2 . cit. t h i n k s C h e l i i c k y ( a l i a s Z d h o r k a ) h a d h i s o w n c a s t l e a n d that h i s v i e w s o n the u s e o f force were a t first merely o f a t h e o r e t i c a l n a t u r e . 1947. 7. Y a s t r e b o v . 'Ndbozenske p o m e r . H. p.the internal evidence o f his o w n w r i t i n g s is almost o u r o n l y g u i d e . that he never attempted to break away f r o m the official U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h by f o r m i n g his o w n separate organization. t h a t h i s p e r m a n e n t p l a c e o f residence w a s Vodriany. ' C. 9 0 0 . p p . 1926. have s u r v i v e d the w a r y e a r s i n a n o p e n village. O boji duchovnim. Cedlova. 3 4 F o r a c r i t i c a l s u r v e y o f the findings o f p r e v i o u s s c h o l a r s h i p o n t h e subject. op. cit. t o o .a n d R o k y c a n a himself were a l l . D u r i n g these years he was to produce a series o f books w h i c h . cit. Peter Payne . t h o u g h the genesis o f these socalled 'Chelcicky B r e t h r e n ' is obscure.36 PETR C H E L C l C K Y gather a r o u n d h i m a g r o u p o f disciples. U r b a n e k . n o t least b y the inspiration they gave for the f o u n d a t i o n o f the U n i t y o f Brethren. Later Jakoubek o f S t f i b r o .as w i t h the events o f his life . was i n effect a pamphlet directed against his T a b o r i t e friends. G o l l . p. V I I I . to value Chelcicky's opinions h i g h l y enough to cultivate his acquaintance. f o r once again . pp. a n d the T a b o r i t e left-wing leaders such as M a r t i n e k H u s k a . p. 6 3 . Jagi6. gives some h i n t o f the respect w h i c h the village philosopher enjoyed a m o n g the leading men o f the Hussite movement.. T h e range o f his friendships d u r i n g this p e r i o d . ' K h e l c h i t s k y i G u s . 1 2 . p. I n t r o . influential d u r i n g his o w n life-time. I n no instance d o we k n o w the precise dates o f their composit i o n . 33 The chronology o f ChelSicky's w o r k s has baffled the most assiduous scholars. i n spite o f disagreement o n i m p o r t a n t matters. w h o stayed a year w i t h h i m after his expulsion f r o m Prague i n 1437 .the wandering L o l l a r d scholar. 3 3 B a r t o s ... ' pp. A n y h o w Bartos". a n d the failure o f the c h u r c h authorities t o supply a successor o w i n g to the general dearth o f clergy. 4 7 1 . U r b a n e k . Some o f t h e m even visited h i m o r recommended their friends to seek his advice o n weighty theological p r o b l e m s .. pp. H e h a d already come i n t o contact w i t h Master Jan H u s himself d u r i n g the latter's sojourn i n south Bohemia i n 1413. op. J. C. tit. spiritual fight against the powers o f darkness w h i c h takes the place o f material warfare f o r the C h r i s t i a n .. M i k u l a s o f P e l h r i m (Biskupec). however. I n many cases expert o p i n i o n differs widely i n its judgements. see nazory Petra ChelCickeho a bratra Rehofe i jejich vzajemny 1932. M. I t may have been the execution i n his absence o f the village priest. w h o o t h e r w i s e f o u n d it i n e x p l i c a b l e h o w C h e l S i c k y c o u l d P e r h a p s h e t o o k refuge there i n emergencies. however. 34 H i s first o r i g i n a l w o r k ..7 8 . 150. p r o b a b l y attending his sermons given at K o z i Hradec. I t is at least certain. Vaclav K o r a n d a the elder. w h i c h motivated his future activities. the was p r o b a b l y w r i t t e n i n the first h a l f o f 1421. who h a d deserted their former standpoint o f kraje.0 6 . 3 . 9 1 0 ff.L o q u i s . . op. op.

FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 37 non-resistance t o evil t o take u p the sword i n defence o f religion. p. M. X X I V . a n d . w h o first e s t a b l i s h e d C h e l c i c k y ' s a u t h o r s h i p . Krofta. X X I I I . 37 T h e predominance o f social problems i n Chelöicky's t h i n k i n g can be seen f r o m the m a i n themes o f his first three w o r k s . 35 Even the short tract. H o l i n k a t h i n k s t h e t r a c t w a s w r i t t e n s o o n after A u g u s t 1 4 : 4 . 155. O trojim Hdu. 106. P e k a f . op. " O boji duchovnim.X I I . K r o f t a ) . cit. B u t the religious basis o f his philosophy is everywhere apparent.. w h i c h appeared t o h i m t o o radical i n its t o t a l denial o f the real presence i n the sacraments. H o l i n k a ) . U r b â n e k . Ğ.. I t is w r i t t e n i n the f o r m o f a reply t o a T a b o r i t e priest. op. he c o u l d scarcely escape participation i n the controversy w h i c h centred a r o u n d t h e Eucharist. 1 0 9 ) ... 1 0 4 . p l a c e d t h e Hdu. p r o b a b l y M a r k o l d o f Z b r a slavice. p r o b a b l y w r i t t e n before O boji duchovnim. p. w i t h those ' b r o t h e r priests [as he calls them] w i t h w h o m [he] h a d f o r l o n g enjoyed friendship and u n i t y o n m a n y matters o f f a i t h . 1 7 1 . p. 9 1 0 . t h o u g h as a l a y m a n he avoided entanglement i n theological disputes. p p . p. ' O trojim Udu ( e d . 1 4 2 . 2 7 . B a r t o S . o n t h e o t h e r h a n d . ( O trojim date o f its c o m p o s i t i o n b e t w e e n O boji duchovnim Holinka p . I t is significant f o r Chelöicky's intellectual development that almost a l l the ideas w h i c h he was later t o develop i n greater detail appear here i n embryo. 9 5 . I X . a n d O trojim Udu. ' Ğ. 2 8 . was t o lead t o his complete estrangement from the p a r t y f r o m w h i c h he h a d o r i g i n a l l y issued. is usually assigned t o 1424. ' 3 8 T h e i r disagreement o n the r i g h t use o f force was n o w matched by p r o f o u n d theological differences. D e n y i n g the Catholic doctrine o f transubstantiation t o w h i c h b o t h H u s and the Prague Masters still adhered. refuting the current medieval conception o f the d i v i s i o n o f a C h r i s t i a n society i n t o three estates. Etyudy. U r b â n e k . w h o dates the t r a c t slightly e a r l i e r t h a n " Y a s t r e b o v . cit.. cit. p p . w h o was t o fall at the battle o f L i p a n y (1434). O cirkvi svate. " C h c l c i c k y . u h i l e Urbânek a n d K r o f t a a s s i g n it t o the f o l l o w i n g y e a r . ' K pocâtkûm 1914. p p . 105. p p . O boji duchovnim ( c J . p p . cit. w h o first p u b l i s h e d the t r a c t i n 1940. 4 2 6 . op. a n d thus came t o occupy a centre p o s i t i o n a m o n g the con­ flicting views o n this subject w h i c h existed w i t h i n the Hussite movement. I I . 1 7 0 . l i n k s it u p w i t h the debates a t P i s e k . O n the o t h e r h a n d op. Biskupcovi. »ccond hypothesis. contains i n a few thousand words the essence o f his protest against the state as a n unchristian i n s t i t u t i o n . w h i c h was p r o b a b l y 36 written d u r i n g the next few years.0 7 . l ' c t r a C h c l i i c k e h o . p p . His second major w o r k . Chelöicky accepted W y c l i f ' s theory c f remanence. p u t s even f o r w a r d t w o p o s s i b i l i t i e s : either that it f o r m s p a r t o f a l a r g e r w o r k o f u n k n o w n date n o longer extant o r t h a t it represents a v e r y e a r l y l i t e r a r y w o r k . S e e a l s o M a c e k . believes t h a t it w a s Without committing himself H o l i n k a inclines towards the . H i s disagreement w i t h the prevailing o p i n i o n a m o n g the T a b o r i t e theologians. 151.2 5 . Replika proti a J i i r c v i c d to B i s k u p e c c i r c a 1 4 2 2 . 9 1 6 . 3 0 4 .

M. B a r t o s . such as H u s himself o r Wyclif. G o l l . Biskupec appears t o have considered that ChelSicky' obtained these under false pretences a n d an acrimonious correspondence. c//. more years i n his little village. pp.' the T a b o r i t e bishop asked ChelSicky what he t h o u g h t o f their doctrines o n this subject. led up to the c o m p o s i t i o n o f ChelSicky's lengthy refutation o f the T a b o r i t e p o s i t i o n i n his Replika accuses the bishop o f the dire heresy o f the 'Picards. using a few c h u r c h fathers and several o f his most revered predecessors. op. Rather later a second equally amicable interview t o o k place at Pisek. Petr Jagic.6 0 . tit.3 1 . W h i l e H u s a n d the other theologians o f all parties wrote as scholastics.K r o f t a . I t appeared at the time as i f they were b o t h i n agreement. cit. h e l d r a t i o n a l i s t i c v i e w s c o n c e r n i n g the s a c r a m e n t s .. o f w h i c h the first stages are n o proti Biskupcovi. op. the break w i t h T a b o r was n o w c o m p l e t e . K r o f t a . f o r o n o b t a i n i n g some o f their books he began to retract his previously favourable o p i n i o n . p l a c e it i n the first h a l f o f the 1420s. filling o u t their w o r k s w i t h copious quotations f r o m past and present c h u r c h authorities. 1 3 . even t a k i n g whole passages f r o m the master. w h i l e Y a s t r e b o v dates its to 1431/32. T h e w o r k contains a h o m i l y for each Sunday o f the year. pp. op. 1914. U r b a n e k . however. l l . real presence. tit. C h e l c i c k y .chap. - d o c t r i n e s . 175-96. 9 2 0 . T h e m i d d l e years o f the thirties saw the c o m p o s i t i o n o f his lengthy Postilla.2 9 . Chelcicky relies m a i n l y o n the Bible and the weight o f his o w n t h o u g h t a n d argument. Y a s t r e b o v . The distinctive b e g i n n i n g to a b o u t 1428 a n d the a c t u a l c o m p o s i t i o n of C h e l c i c k y ' s Replika ' P i c a r d s ' ( s o m e t i m e s k n o w n a s A d a m i t e s o r Mikuldsenci). B u t i t seems that ChelCicky had n o t at first understood the f u l l significance o f the Taborite doctrine. a kaciri. B i s k u p e c . and there may also have been other meetings. / • 40 Once again Chelcicky disappears f r o m view. d e n y i n g altogether the . W i t h H u s as his m o d e l . no attempt being made at systematic treatment o f any theme. 194. pp. T h e first half. Chelcicky preserves his independence b o t h as to f o r m and content. summoned Chelcicky to a meeting i n order to sound his o p i n i o n o n the eucharistic controversy. t h o u g h almost a l l his social ** 4 0 F o r B i s k u p e c . to illustrate some o f his points. 1 5 5 . see B a r t o s ' s essay i n Svetci Chelcicky.' T h o u g h no a t t e m p t was made to persecute h i m for his divergent views. and his t w o m a i n w o r k s a n d a n u m b e r o f lesser ones are the results o f this retirement f r o m the w o r l d . O n c e a g a i n the d a t i n g o f the c o n t r o v e r s y is u n c e r t a i n . C. p. ' S i t t i n g o n the dyke by the fish-pond.38 PETR C H E L & C K Y Sometime d u r i n g the twenties the T a b o r i t e leader.. G o l l . i n w h i c h he longer extant. 2 6 . op. 39 visiting Vodnany w i t h another Taborite priest called Lukas.1 7 . H e l i v e d o n some t h i r t y B u t scarcely any personal details have come d o w n f r o m this period. C.. among other T h e s e c o n d h a l f o f the 1420s w o u l d a p p e a r the m o s t p r o b a b l e s u p p o s i t i o n . and U r b a n e k p p . p . pp. proved most f r u i t f u l i n literary productions. 4 1 2 ..

G o l f s a s s i g n m e n t of it to the i n t e r r e g n u m d u r i n g the e a r l y U .2 4 ) i n the late 1430s h a s n o t J general acceptance. See C e d l o v a . op. t o give i t the ' s p i r i t u a l ' meaning so beloved o f medieval t h o u g h t . 148. cit. 6 5 . 1914. Sit' viry is a p r o d u c t o f the early The theme o f the first a n d longer h a l f o f the b o o k is an elabo- ration. .. pp. 149. cit. The thirties b r o u g h t peace . 7 9 .. S a f a f i k .3 5 . op. F o r e c h o e s o f M. ••: Lxiike.. v tr.. Stitny in Sit' viry. Perhaps at the same t i m e as he was w r i t i n g Sit' ' ¡^4 H r u b y . G o l l . 29. see C h a l o u p e c k y . ' C. op. ' the C h r i s t i a n church and c o m m u n i t y .4 3 . Slf forties. p. that has over been penned. 1-11) as his text.4 9 . attitude t o p o l i t i c a l a n d social questions h a d remained unchanged t h r o u g h O n l y the radicalism o f his y o u t h became somewhat The protest is more s u b d u e d . p p .. This may be seen f r o m a c o m parison o f the tone i n w h i c h O trojim lidu is w r i t t e n w i t h that o f his masterpiece.. cit. V5>>. U r b a n e k ... 9 5 3 . U r b a n e k . „irci 1 4 4 0 .at the price o f the destruction o f the the attempt at Chelcicky's compromise between the moderate U t r a q u i s t s a n d R o m e . a n d thereby a l l the heathen customs o f the pagan w o r l d have f o u n d acceptance a m o n g o u t w a r d l y C h r i s t i a n nations. still h o l d s (op. military power o f the Taborites a n d the Compactata. 6 9 . A l l are f o u n d w a n t i n g when weighed in the scales o f pure Christianity. cit. e s . w h i c h deals m a i n l y w i t h the same theme o f the 42 relationship o f Christianity to the state. a C h e l c i c k y . B a r t o s . resignation is more strongly emphasized. p. pp. pp. 1 2 2 . 80.g. op. ' 1922. peace and war. pp. op.. the m o n k s a n d friars and priests a n d learned theologians. . M. S e e C e d l o v a . '' Y a s t r c b o v . pp. o f his often repeated thesis that the association o f church a n d state meant the fall o f C h r i s t i a n i t y . . 3 0 . t h a t the state a n d a l l its works can have no place i n a t r u l y C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y . op. the v i r t u e o f softened i n expression.w h o have forced their way i n . cit. 3 0 .. K r o f t a .6 6 . i f . the townsmen. cit. pp. I n the second p a r t Chelcicky surveys the various classes w h i c h represent the r u l i n g elements o f contemporary society: the n o b i l i t y . a systematization. T a k i n g the story o f the miraculous d r a u g h t o f fishes ( L u k e . as well as o f the abuses o f c o n t e m p o r a r y society. ' C h e l c i c k y a R o c k y c a n a . Chelcicky goes o n to interpret i t i n his o w n way. I -niicr writers. Most viry Chelcicky first w i t h i n the y e a r s Listy und Untersu- authorities date this w o r k 37. founded o n the W o r d o f C h r i s t . S c h u l z . e.. Quellen II. 9 4 6 . J i r e c e k . cit. cit. w h i l e B a r t o s ' s d a t i n g (op. W i t h i n this loose f r a m e w o r k he proceeds to erect one o f the most p o w e r f u l indictments o f the state as an institution. . H i s p h i l o s o p h ical anarchism here reaches fullest expression.. p. pp. V . 7 2 . 7 0 . 4 8 . p. F o r 'the net o f true f a i t h .FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 39 41 and political doctrines are touched o n a n d often developed at some l e n g t h . is rent wide open by the t w o great whales . 43 prave viry.. 6 6 ) . e r r o n e o u s l y a s s i g n e d this w o r k to the o\ the 1450s.the E m p e r o r o r state power a n d the Pope .

135. tit. to be less pleased w i t h the influence o f Chelcicky's social and p o l i t i c a l doctrines o n his o w n disciples.5 8 . w r i t t e n i n the early forties to refute T a b o r i t e eucharistic doctrines. p. 126. R o k y c a n a . 47 B u t at an unspecified date i n the fifties the founder o f the U n i t y . . op. pp. 122. lead t o a complete rupture. p p . 4 6 5 . a n d h a d f o u n d refuge i n the areas held by the U t r a q u i s t n o b i l i t y . however. pp. 4 5 essay i n Svttci " Y a s t r e b o v . places it c i r c a 1433/34. C h e l i i c k y c o m p o s e d h i s Replika proti Rokycanovi his Postilla. Brother Rehof. 2 2 2 .2 2 3 a n d K r o f t a . as w i t h Biskupec. visited the ageing ChelSicky i n his h o m e o n the advice o f the former's uncle. Anyhow has their w h i c h he renewed contact i n the fifties. op. S e e also H r e j s a . pp.. M i i l l e r . see J a k u b e c . Listy. I n 1437 Rokycana had h a d to leave Prague o w i n g t o the increasing tide o f reaction w h i c h set i n w i t h the r e t u r n o f K i n g Sigismund to the capital.. tit. a n d B a r t o J h a v e also suggested the m i d d l e 1430s. 35.7 4 . i f n o t earlier. date. n o r dispatched.. 9 7 9 . 8 8 4 ff. at least o f those dealing w i t h theological questions. Jan Rokycana. op.5 0 0 . O f C h e l c i c k y ' s m a j o r w o r k s the Replika proti Rokycanovi T h e o p i n i o n s o f the experts dilTcr widely.40 PETR C H E L i l C K Y came i n t o i n t o personal contact w i t h the Hussite archbishop-elect.. 6 7 . pp. i n d e e d . 3 1 1 . tit. U r b a n e k . 9 3 8 . puts it a s late as after R o k y c a n a ' s r e t u r n to P r a g u e i n 1448. cit.. the relations between the t w o men remained friendly. B u t i t should be observed that Chelcicky always considered himself a l o y a l son o f the U t r a q u i s t church. " F o r full b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l details c o n c e r n i n g C h e l i i c k y ' s m i n o r w o r k s . op. i& de existentia eucharistiae.3 9 . when Rokycana was to show the respect i n w h i c h he held Chelcicky's opinions b y recommending his o w n disciples t o h i m . before the c o m p o s i t i o n o f h i s Postilla. 2 4 3 . 6 8 . before a n y p e r s o n a l meeting. tit. . cit. c l a i m s t h a t at the s a m e t i m e .. 127. B a r t o S . I t seems m o s t p r o b a b l e that at least the c o n t a c t between the t w o m e n began d u r i n g R o k y c a n a ' s a b s e n c e f r o m Prague.. 120. is a m o n g the h a r d e s t to G o l l .C e d l o v a . Indeed Rokycana a l ready had such a h i g h o p i n i o n o f Chel&cky's w r i t i n g s . pp. 119. O n l y one fragment o f their correspondence survived i n the f o r m o f Chelcicky's Replika proti appears neither to have completed Rokycanovi. shows that disagreement d i d n o t . 1 9 6 . he b o r r o w e d whole passages f r o m the Replika proti H e was later. T h e personal meetings between the t w o men a n d an extended correspondence can p r o b a b l y be assigned t o the eleven years o f R o k y cana's semi-exile. o n the o t h e r h a n d . op. p p .4 6 . while Rokycana was able o n occasion t o play the radical when this d i d n o t conflict w i t h the exigencies o f practical politics. see B a r t o S ' s a kacifi. tit. op. 7 2 . t h a t i n his Tractatus corporis Christi in sacramento Biskupcovi. tit. op. 44 I n spite o f their disagreements o n such widely removed subjects as the functions o f the state a n d the l i t u r g y o f the c h u r c h . op. pp. t h a t is. t h a n pp.. a n d as a result 4 4 B a r t o S . Y a s t r e bov. F o r R o k y c a n a generally. U r b a n e k . 46 D u r i n g the last years o f his life ChelSicky appears t o have w r i t t e n no works o f major i m p o r t a n c e .

3 3 . cit. J. 978. cit. pp. 9 8 0 . 1 3 0 . op. presents t w o interesting problems. the future Jednota bratrskd. w h o . whether " " U r b a n e k . op. despite a certain naivety and c r u d i t y o f f o r m . I t was his h u m b l e status. op. cit. 13?. filologicke. 1946.FORERUNNER OF THE UNITY 41 o f these visits and o f their reading o f his w o r k s . were clouded b y disputes concerning the conditions under w h i c h the sacraments m i g h t be administered. F o r estimated dates o f h i s d e a t h . w h i c h broke o u t w i t h the V i l e m o v Brethren. r a n g i n g f r o m the later 1440s to the e a r l y 1460s. one o f a number o f small groups similar t o his o w n w i t h w h o m C h e l & c k y had l o n g been i n friendly contact. decided v i r t u a l l y i n Chelcicky's f a v o u r . B u t i t is very improbable t h a t he lived t o see the f o u n d a t i o n i n 1467 o f their new church t o be k n o w n i n history as the U n i t y o f B r e t h r e n . 9 7 9 . ignorance o f the theological systems o f the past w h i c h enabled h i m t o draw direct f r o m the Bible unencumbered w i t h the philosophical and other preconceptions o f his contemporaries. I t was Chel&cky's lack o f book-learning I t was his comparative that allowed h i m t o free himself f r o m the shackles o f scholasticism and t h i n k t h r o u g h to new a n d d a r i n g solutions. The last years o f his life. the new religious c o m m u nity. 48 The exact date o f ChelSicky's death is n o t k n o w n . became one o f the factors to influence the future course o f events i n the Czech lands. pp. p. I l l . T h i s . h o w was i t t h a t a l a y m a n .. pp. however. t h o u g h he may still have been alive when the first step was taken w i t h the settlement o f the Brethren at K u n v a l d some ten years earlier. 6. 1922. 9 8 2 . i s s t r o n g l y c o n t e s t e d b y . and w h i c h endowed h i m w i t h his courageous independence o f thought. apart f r o m the general meagreness o f the biographical material w h i c h obstinately eludes a l l attempts at further clarification. h o w e v e r . is r i g h t l y considered one o f the glories o f Czech literature? T h e answer lies indeed i n these seemingly unfavourable circumstances. p. S. H„ 1 he objection based o n the difficulty o f fitting i n w i t h t h i s theory the c o n t a c t s w h i c h a r c k n o w n to have existed between C h e l c i c k y a n d B r o t h e r R e h o f .even i f i t is uncertain i f he actually sprang f r o m peasant stock . 119. ' Listy L ' r b a n e k .was at least a w o r k i n g farmer f o r most o f his life. the philosopher i n retirement. op. 49 Chel5icky's life. still c o n s i d e r s c i r c a 1450 a s the m o s t p r o b a b l e . T h e late 1450s w o u l d s e e m the m o s t likely s u p p o sition. should have evolved so startingly original a social philosophy and have expressed these ideas i n a literary style w h i c h . cit. B u t BartoS. c a n be c o u n t e r e d B a r t o S ' s earlier assertion. Thus Chelcicky. w h o was appealed to as a r b i t r a t o r . ' C h e l c i c k y a R o k y c a n a . 979. by sec U r b a n e k . was t o take over ready-made a l l Petr's political and social theories as w e l l as most o f his theological doctrines.. that these c o n t a c t s t o o k p l a c e before 1448. a n d the new relationship o f the o l d m a n w i t h the former's disciples perhaps helped t o lighten his last years. H r e j s a .. apparently w i t h little f o r m a l education.. pp. Rokycana. First. 9 0 5 .

belongs to the t r a n s i t i o n a l p e r i o d between the M i d d l e A g e s a n d m o d e r n times. and i n theological matters Chelcicky's opinions were more o r t h o dox. i n w h i c h he preached a complete w i t h drawal f r o m a l l contact w i t h the state machine o n the p a r t o f a l l true Christians. p. 6. one o f the ironies o f history that the greatest medieval exponent o f the gospel o f C h r i s t i a n 4 0 F o u s t k a . I t is. finally. despite the medieval f r a m e w o r k . T h e crux o f the matter lies i n the fact that Chelcicky lived i n fifteenth-century U t r a q u i s t Bohemia and i n those parts d o m i n a t e d by the armed m i g h t o f T a b o r . his self-trained intellect w h i c h gave a l l his writings their w o n d e r f u l freshness and directness o f expression. . A t least they d i d n o t differ greatly f r o m those held by many eminent Utraquist theologians. then. their f o r t h r i g h t honesty o f t h o u g h t . p u t f o r w a r d i n short opinions w h i c h i n any age m i g h t be regarded as subversive o f the p o l i t i c a l a n d social order? H o w can one explain i n these circumstances Chelcicky's u n t r o u b l e d existence i n his south Bohemian village at a time when a l l over Europe persons expressing even the slightest v a r i a t i o n f r o m the accepted pattern o f t h o u g h t i n matters b o t h p o l i t i c a l a n d theological suffered savage persecution. their almost m o d e r n o u t l o o k . w h i c h gave h i m that insight i n t o social questions w h i c h no theory c o u l d provide. and Chelcicky himself followed the medieval practice o f speaking o f 'the c h u r c h ' when often i n actual fact the whole C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y i n its social as well as its strictly religious relationships was meant. The conthe temporary treatment o f the Waldenses i n western Europe or o f Lollards i n England is instructive. I n the century all problems f o u n d expression p r i m a r i l y i n theological terms. m i g h t escape that attention w h i c h similar views w o u l d attract i n more m o d e r n times. 50 B u t the second question is b o t h more i m p o r t a n t a n d i n some ways more difficult t o answer. p r o v ided they were n o t i n possession o f enough material strength t o make the attempt unwise? fifteenth T h e answer is t w o f o l d a n d lies b o t h i n the mental climate o f his age and the geographical circumstances o f his b i r t h . I t was. l i k e the w h o l e H u s s i t e m o v e m e n t . Politicke nazory Petra Chelckkeho. I n such an age the p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines p u t f o r w a r d . therefore. T h e religious element was uppermost i n every sphere o f l i f e . o n so m a n y o f the most v i t a l o f o u r contemporary p r o b l e m s . H o w was i t .FETR CHELCICKY inherited or v o l u n t a r i l y assumed. a n d i n comparison w i t h the m a j o r i t y o f his Taborite neighbours he was almost reactionary. points out that C h e l c i c k y . that Chelcicky was able to produce over a period o f some f o r t y years w o r k after w o r k i n w h i c h he proclaimed i n no uncertain terms the t o t a l i n c o m p a t a b i l i t y o f the existing state system w i t h the demands o f religion. however radical.

w h o refers to h i m i n h i s ' S o u s t a v a u c e n i C h e l c i c k e h o n a z a k l a d e p r a m e n u . a n d i t 6 1 51 T h e r e is n o m e n t i o n i n c o n t e m p o r a r y a c c o u n t s o f C h e l i i c k y ' s e v e r c o m i n g i n t o (1924). A l l his thoughts were clothed i n a religious f o r m .between the O l d Testament. were indeed t o d r a w d o w n o n their heads the fires o f persecution. p. f a n a t i c a l l y C a t h o l i c A n t o n i n L e n z . owed his i m m u n i t y f r o m persec u t i o n . however absorbing t o the expert i n t h a t field.. however. 2 9 . by a professed o p p o n e n t o f C h e l c i c k ^ ' s d o c t r i n e s . h o w e v e r . his conception o f the Bible as c o n t a i n i n g all things needful f o r s a l v a t i o n . 230) a n d at the e n d o f the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y b y historickelio krouiku. ' Sbornik peasant.as. G o l l . i n a frequently q u o t e d passage f r o m h i s Odpis proti odtrzencom h o w C h e l c i c k y w a s s u m m o n e d to the s y n o d o f clergy h e l d at K u t n a H o r a i n J u l y 1 4 4 3 . B r o t h e r Lukds". ' Vybrane spisy drobne. U t r a q u i s t s . o f philosophical anarchism. H i s disciples o f the U n i t y . to the successful outcome o f a violent r e v o l u t i o n . 28v. p. fols. 1582 ( q u o t e d i n D e n i s . ' P e t r C h e l c i c k y a j e h o s p i s y . a c c o r d i n g to L u k a S himself. w e r e o n l y h e a r s a y . 2 1 0 . c a n n o t be given c r e d e n c e . Fin de the Petra I . H i s genius lies rather i n his original approach to those p o l i t i c a l a n d social problems c o m m o n t o most civilized societies. by the accident o f b i r t h and contrary to his o w n inclinations. as we have seen. a d i s t i n c t i o n . for instance. h o w e v e r . See G o l l .' w a y c a u s i n g the d e a t h o f a T a b o r i t e priest a n d b r i n g i n g d o w n p e r s e c u t i o n o n o t h e r T a b o r i t e s . 16. the Waldenses h a d done earlier . to the protecting presence o f the terrible ' w a r r i o r s o f G o d ' and the p o w e r f u l organization o f the official U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h . viry. cit. V o g l .K r o f t a . p. B u t i t is n o t his theology. 7 0 .' a n d the ' s p i r i t u a l ' N e w Testament. he i n h e r i t e d the practical attempt t o f o l l o w Christ's example i n everything. that provides the most interesting m a t e r i a l f o r the h i s t o r i a n and gives h i m his value for the w o r l d today. a n d h o w out o f fear he w i s h e d to b u r n Luka§ a d d s that he w a s often ' o v e r l o n g a n g r y a n d revengeful. H e made. however. op. r e l a t e s moderate in this conflict w i t h the a u t h o r i t i e s o n a c c o u n t o f h i s writings.FORERUNNER OF THE UNITY 43 pacifism. I I . w h i c h w a s attended b y T a b o r i t e p r i e s t s a s w e l l a s b y c o n s e r v a t i v e a n d all his books. cit.. w h i c h m i g h t so easily have swept away their master a n d all his w o r k s . a n d . a n d f r o m H u s and his predecessors a n d the Waldenses. II T h e uncertainty w h i c h envelops the details o f CheHSicky's life is c o m pensated for. p u t t i n g theory i n t o practice under different circumstances. p. T h e s e stories.' as 'this mendacious . T h e s u b v e r s i v e n a t u r e o f C h e l c i c k y ' s s o c i a l d o c t r i n e s w a s stressed i n the s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y by the J e s u i t V a c l a v S t u r m i n h i s Srovnani i'Independence Boheme. b y the richness and abundance o f his w r i t i n g s . op. ' m a t e r i a l a n d concerned w i t h gross matters. as well as f r o m W y c l i f himself. T h e y w e r e first r e p o r t e d eighty y e a r s after the events d e s c r i b e d . The source o f ChelCicky's whole philosophy lay i n a r e t u r n t o the spirit o f p r i m i t i v e Christianity. i n o r d e r to a n s w e r for h i s o p i n i o n s . H e t o o k over f r o m Wyclif.

. o f Christ] Chel&cky. A r c h b i s h o p o f A r m a g h (d. 1935. p p . ' T h e B o h e m i a n s at the C o u n c i l o f B a s e l . 7 6 . Sektdfstvi seu Testamento Veteri Iudaico p. d i d n o t entirely reject the a u t h o r i t y o f later c h u r c h fathers.' There is no need f o r any a d d i t i o n a l ' h u m a n laws lidske). I I . see B a r t o s .' is no less sufficient today t h a n i t was at the b e g i n n i n g . ' p. w r i t i n g (1324): ' N o n omnia. 5 4 They were to act as a d d i t i o n a l c o n f i r m a t i o n o f established truths. 106. I acknowledge [he writes] a l l the holy doctors. C f . 'Re£ z a k l a d u z a k o n u l i d s k y c h . 1 7 1 . 32. to see i f i t accords w i t h H i s example and teachings. those o f today too. i n his law o f l o v e . o f c o u r s e . c a p . according This was the rock o n w h i c h the early church had been b u i l t . ' R e p l i k a p r o t i R o k y c a n o v i . Essays. 1433. 2 6 6 . q u i n i m o q u o r u n d a m est ipsis o b s e r v a t i o i n t e r d i c t a . 75. 2 6 4 . to Chelcicky. 1 5 . lay. 52 T h e example o f Christ a n d his apostles was to be the touchstone o f all h u m a n conduct. Its whole existence f o r the first three centuries had been one l o n g attempt to regulate every activity.is. V . i n his De salvatoris " pauperie . quoted i n P r e v i t e . ' F o r every doctrine [he writes] needs to be tested b y Christ's words and life. i n accordance w i t h this law. 'since this law [i. J a c o b . quae in fuerunt. F o r the influence o f M a r s i l i u s o n the H u s s i t e m o v e m e n t . " M " . 1360). whatever may be its historical shortcomings.O r t o n . 3 4 5 . provided they d i d n o t conflict w i t h the gospels or preach a n y t h i n g n o t found there. ' M a r s i l i u s o f P a d u a . The idealized picture o f the p r i m i t i v e church w h i c h Chelcicky draws . C h e l c i c k y I t is. Hustitstvi 4 3 5/7' viry. I n o p p o s i t i o n to the m a i n s t r e a m o f H u s s i t e thought. pp. p p . never to alter or extend the already perfect revelation. ' p. 107. Peschke. 1 7 9 . o f all earlier and laier teachings.i n line w i t h earlier writers such as W y c l i f o r Richard F i t z r a l p h . cit. the secret o f his power.. however. M a r s i l i u s o f P a d u a . p. 1 5 9 . 1 4 6 . ' Proceedings thus returns to the M a r s i l i a n p o s i t i o n o n t h i s p o i n t . p. pp.44 PETR C H E L C I C K Y was only the latter w h i c h demanded unqualified obedience. c h a p .. and I f o l l o w t h e m t h a n k f u l l y and regard t h e m as r i g h t when they give real understanding and enlightenment here or p r o c l a i m faithfully some hidden truth. a way o f t h i n k i n g t o w h i c h the Utraquists also gave expression i n the famous Agreement o f Cheb o f August 1432 and d u r i n g the debates at the C o u n c i l o f Basel.e. of the British Academy. pt. ' Menfl v Cechdch. so far as they can p o i n t o u t to me t h r o u g h their learning the p a t h o f true understanding i n those matters w h i c h G o d has shown me i n H i s L a w (zdkon). 56 55 The kernel o f Christ's teaching. Lege Chel£icky. e x t r e m e l y u n l i k e l y a cizina. i n effect a spisy. 6 3 . H o l i n k a .1 7 . personal o r public. 10). about a h u n d r e d y e a r s e a r l i e r i n h i s Defensor populo consulta vel custodiri praecepta observare tenentur C h r i s t i fideles. ut q u a e c e r e m o n i a r u m s u b p o e n a p e r d i t i o n i s a e t e r n a e ' ( D i e t . ' 53 (zdkony he proclaimed w i t h M a t e j o f Janov. I ." Prague Sit' viry. ' R e p l i k a . that C h e l c i c k y w a s directly a c q u a i n t e d w i t h M a r s i l i u s ' s writings. I X . 178. pads op.

however. w h o i n their t u r n . See a l s o H o l i n k a . w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k o f the existing social order. remained f a i t h f u l to C h r i s t i a n principles after their betrayal b y Sylvester. 58 57 accep- and the Supplementum t o his Trialogus. at.. 3 9 3 . B a r t o s . p. consists m a i n l y o f an attack o n c h u r c h endowT h e D o n a t i o n itself o n w h i c h R o m e based m u c h o f its case i n its struggle w i t h the i m p e r i a l power was i n fact an eighth-century forgery. T h e conception o f historical e v o l u t i o n . however. " pp. t o make o f this U t o p i a a reality. Trialogus. I n the version w h i c h Chelöicky used. L a u r e n t i u s d e V a l l a . p p . e n s u e d o n the D o n a t i o n . ' p p . believed t h a t the c h u r c h ' s s u d d e n a n d t o t a l c o r r u p t i o n T h e first p e r s o n to d i s c o v e r t h a t t h e latter w a s n o t a u t h e n t i c credita et ementita (1440). p p . 1 7 . Sektärstvi v Cechdch. Pierre V a l d o was made a contemporary o f Pope Sylvester. 30.' ment. J. 1 8 1 . and n o t at a l l a retrograde conservatism w i t h its face t o the past. 4 3 . 4 0 7 . the perfection o f the c h u r c h before the D o n a t i o n was matched n o w by its t o t a l depravity henceforth. ' R e p l i k a . C f . De civili dominio. o n the o t h e r h a n d . w h i c h Chelöicky certainly read i n Czech t r a n s l a t i o n . 1947. 108. 61. a n d h i s findings b e c a m e k n o w n i n B o h e m i a w a s the I t a l i a n h u m a n i s t .1 9 . for the g r o w t h o f this legend a m o n g the W a l d e n s e s . l i n k e d u p w i t h the legend o f Constantine's D o n a t i o n w h i c h allegedly gave the Pope t e m p o r a l power i n I t a l y . Opponents o f the church's t e m p o r a l claims. e.. i n h i s De falso declamatio . to lidu. p.5 6 . T h e pure faith was n o w kept alive o n l y b y the h a n d f u l w h o remained w i t h V a l d o and their successors. i n Chelöicky's o p i n i o n . I t is a p o l i t i c a l U t o p i a placed o n a historic background. De Christo et suo adversario pp..FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 45 representation o f the conditions w h i c h . 4 7 . Ibid. 4 8 . Constantine's acceptance o f the persecuted religion h a d meant the fall o f C h r i s t i a n i t y . 826.3 7 . 6 2 . F o r Chelöicky. o f progress. Constantini donatione c h u r c h ' s o p p o n e n t s . H. c o n s i d e r s t h a t C h e l i i c k y ' i n h e r i t e d t h i s p a r t i c u l a r f o r m o f the p. 5 9 . Not a l l the O trojim legend f r o m the W a l d e n s e s . 59 W h a t then was the r o o t cause o f this fall? H o w should contemporary 4 7 W y c l i f . 3 5 . This was a familiar theme a m o n g the medieval sectaries a n d . 2 9 . w o u l d exist i f a t r u l y C h r i s t i a n society were to replace the feudal order o f his day. W y c l i f h a d supported this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : 'Silvester [he had w r i t t e n ] peccavit donacionem tando. believed t h a t w i t h the acceptance o f w o r l d l y wealth and power o n the p a r t o f the c h u r c h its apostolic p u r i t y was c o r r u p t e d : the poison was injected i n t o G o d ' s C h u r c h . H o l i n k a i n h i s I n t r o . his c o m p a n i o n i n their h i d i n g f r o m persecution a m o n g the forests a n d caves. S. 5 8 W y c l i f . was alien to his mental o u t l o o k . Antichristo. i t provides an oft-repeated m o t i f r u n n i n g t h r o u g h a l l Chelöicky's w r i t i n g s . op. t h i n k s h e p i c k e d i t u p f r o m the s t o r i e s o n t h i s t h e m e w h i c h w e r e c i r c u l a t i n g a t the t i m e i n c i r c l e s quite u n i n f l u e n c e d b y the W a l d e n s e s . w h o . 4 5 5 . 394.g. II. T h e early Brethren were t o attempt. as the angel proclaimed according t o legend. t o o k it o v e r f r o m the C a t h a r s . W y c l i f . a c c o r d i n g to Böhmer. pp.

Thus c i v i l a u t h o r i t y is as far removed f r o m Christ's t r u t h inscribed i n H i s gospel as is C h r i s tian faith f r o m the necessity o f using such a u t h o r i t y . 'the emperor w i t h his pagan a u t h o r i t y . O trojim lidu. c o u l d h o l d any state office: princes a n d rulers on becoming convinced o f the true f a i t h must resign their a u t h o r i t y . Chelcicky considers that Sylvester should have made C o n stantine renounce his t e m p o r a l power before receiving h i m i n t o the church. a n d i t h a d existed for over three h u n d r e d years w i t h o u t its members p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n temporal power. solely an instrument o f oppression. the t e m p o r a l order o f force a n d Christ's way o f love. 56. as f o r the m o d e r n anarchists. .46 PETR C H E L C I C K Y society be ordered i f i t was to accord w i t h Christian principles? ChelCicky's answer was clear: the state organism must be t o t a l l y rejected and Christ's L a w o f Love p u t i n t o its place. like a monstrous whale caught up i n a fisherman's net. . The conception o f a welfare state w o u l d have been w h o l l y foreign to h i m . 163. his pagan offices and laws a n d statutes' h a d . N o real C h r i s t i a n then o r i n later ages. middle o f the twenties: These t w o divisions. o f legalized robbery. 0 bratrske a o chudych lidech. . Spis o puvodu Jednoty . ' N o one may stray f r o m the way o f C h r i s t a n d f o l l o w the emperor w i t h his s w o r d . F a i t h supported solely by spiritual power stands firm w i t h o u t the power o f a u t h o r i t y . pp. S//' viry. . 4 8 . Those i n power are not led by faith n o r does faith need t h e m . W i t h C o n stantine's acceptance o f C h r i s t i a n i t y . S e e S o k o l ' s notes to P f e l o u c s k y . f o r this way is n o t changed j u s t because Caesar has become a C h r i s t i a n . are far removed f r o m each other. p. thus c o n d e m n i n g i n effect the foundations o n w h i c h rested the t w i n pillars h o l d i n g up contemporary feudal society: the c h u r c h a n d the state. and walled t o w n s . Christians o f those times had held n o offices. . t o w a r d s the end o f the fifteenth c e n t u r y . 4 0 . " . p. Instead o f accepting wealth a n d power for himself. while the fullness and c o m p l e t i o n o f faith lies i n God's wisdom a n d the strength o f the H o l y Spirit. 2 1 .3 5 . A n action done because o f the compulsion o f a u t h o r i t y is quite different f r o m one done t h r o u g h love and f r o m the good w i l l arising o u t o f the words o f t r u t h . castles. ' 61 A l l government w o u l d seem to be f o r Chelcicky. which only brings fear a n d can o n l y attain what i t wishes under the threat of compulsion.. F o r the fullness o f a u t h o r i t y lies i n the accumulation o f wealth and vast gatherings o f armed men. 156. h a d i n fact completely w i t h d r a w n f r o m the official business o f the state. t o r n a gaping rent i n the fabric o f the p r i m i t i v e f a i t h . however. therefore. 57. 60 Chelcicky was already w r i t i n g i n the The early church h a d been perfect i n principle a n d i n practice. 6 9 . 113.

i m p l i e d a recognition o f the place o f the ruler i n a Christian society.' Mercy and state a u t h o r i t y were self-contradictory terms.1 3 . The only way t o convert such people.FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 47 D o m i n a t i o n and cruelty lay at the roots o f the state organism. 1 0 7 . Paul wrote these words. i t w i l l at once perish o f itself. m i g h t be f o u n d i n the words o f St. I I . i n Chelcicky's o p i n i o n . lidu. since none w i l l fear i t .as. ' w h i c h consists i n l o v i n g G o d and one's neighbour. t h a t the existing social system c o u l d be purgued o f its defects. 64 Cheléicky gave an equally negative answer to those w h o urged. Therefore. Romans X I I I . never f r o m c o m p u l s i o n . . t o o . Chelcicky differentiated first between submission to pagan rulers i n H e then went on to matters proper t o them a n d the. 5 6 . the reason f o r such prayers is ' t o gain-the good w i l l o f heathen and cruel princes and soften their anger against us.1 5 . 1-7. Chelcicky sweeps aside all attempts to j u s t i f y such p a r t i c i p a t i o n . however. Such conversion must come as a result o f free-will. like W y c l i f . I n reply. he a d m i t ted. 2 1 2 . T h e only outcome o f the use o f force w o u l d be t h a t the C h r i s t i a n ruler himself w o u l d inevitably fall i n t o s i n . t h a t the state c o u l d be guided by love i n its exercise o f a u t h o r i t y .' 62 Warfare between Christians. O n the contrary. o f w h i c h ChelSicky approved f o l l o w i n g 1 T i m o t h y . he called the clergy . a u t h o r i t y is far removed f r o m love. Power c o u l d only be wielded. viry. 4 4 . ' A u t h o r i t y cannot exist w i t h o u t cruelty [he says]. Paul. the m a i n a u t h o r i t y quoted by 'Ceasar's priests' . 4 5 . since i t is b y means o f terrible punishments t h a t the state compels evildoers t o some measure o f justice i n o u t w a r d matters. 1-3. p p . ' b y che worst o f m e n w h o are w i t h o u t any f a i t h o r virtue. lidu. p. 102. w h i c h were. prove the absurdity o f his opponents' arguments by a consideration o f the historical circumstances i n w h i c h St. p. I f i t ceases t o be cruel. 66. pp. is an inseparable concomitant o f the p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f Christians i n the s t a t e . f o r h i m .to j u s t i f y C h r i s t i a n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state. O trojim . is t h r o u g h 'the w o r k i n g s o f the law o f G o d .. anwered Chelcicky.' and to prevail u p o n G o d to prevent t h e m f r o m b r i n g i n g m u c h misery u p o n their peoples t h r o u g h w a r . p. ChelCicky replies sternly. Sit' viry. . 65 A more p o w e r f u l argument against his position. w h o l l y untenable reading w h i c h w o u l d j u s t i f y Christians becoming rulers themselves. a member O trojim Sit' Ibid. Some urged t h a t m u c h benefit w o u l d accrue i f Christians ruled f o r the purpose o f r e f o r m i n g bad Christians or those outside the faith. 6 3 Others argued t h a t prayers for those i n a u t h o r i t y . were inseparable parts o f its make-up. . as f o r instance Tomás o f Stitny h a d done.

0 5 .' If. pp. 2 7 . and a belief i n the approaching end o f the w o r l d shared b y m a n y contemporaries. This seeming paradox. the true Christians. d r a w s a n interesting c o m p a r i s o n between C h e l S i c k y ' s views o n the state a n d those p r o p o u n d e d by M a r x . 66 For Chel&cky's was the T o l s t o y a n gospel o f non-resistance t o evil. Chelcicky was q u i c k to p o i n t out. however. 2 0 8 . may also p a r t l y be explained by the m e l l o w i n g o f his views w i t h the passing o f the years. 68 I n the meantime the remnant. relativist .to b o r r o w a phrase usually used i n con- *• Ibid. The lack o f consistency. 61) signify a p p r o v a l o f h i s office. indeed. for t h o u g h 'rulers sin b y acting unjustly. n o t the revolutionary's creed. led ChelSicky t o disbelieve i n the possibility o f ever dispensing w i t h the coercion necessary to save h u m a n society f r o m the chaos. p. A pessimism as to the nature o f m a n c o m m o n to m a n y medieval thinkers.3 0 . Ibid.. 'the foolish people w h o neither k n o w G o d n o r are under his yoke. however. which a recent w r i t e r 6 9 has detected i n the v a r y i n g stringency w i t h w h i c h ChelSicky regarded Christian p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n government. A r m e d rebellion was never justified even under the greatest p r o v o c a t i o n . cit. represents . ' 67 H e advocat- ed for the C h r i s t i a n obedience to the c i v i l authorities as a matter o f conscience and n o t merely o u t o f fear o f the consequences o f disobedience. F o u s t k a . too. 3 5 . Orthodox medieval p o l i t i c a l theorists had granted that the i n s t i t u t i o n o f the state was a result o f s i n : w i t h o u t the F a l l c i v i l government w o u l d lose its justification.48 PETR C H E L C I C K Y o f an outcast sect l i v i n g under the rule o f the pagan Romans. S i m i l a r l y C h r i s t ' s attitude t o w a r d s the c e n t u r i o n i n L u k e V I I d i d n o t i n C h e l c i c k ^ ' s o p i n i o n (O trojim lidu. Sit' viry. 2 0 2 . was a logical development o f his first principles. op. w h i c h w o u l d ensue i f man's passions were given free sway.5 5 . Paul's call for submission was i n part a protective measure to w a r d off f r o m the little flock any suspicion that they were p l o t t i n g against the state. must h o l d t o their principles. Chelcicky. 1 2 4 . the non-Christians and the false Christians a l l t r u l y followed i n Christ's footsteps i t w o u l d w i t h e r a w a y . p. 5 3 . [subjects] also c o m m i t a sin i n seeking vengeance o n such l o r d s . •' ** Sit' viry. p. pp. was ready t o assent t o the existence o f the state: but.. ChelCicky. 2 0 9 . 60. p p . B u t i f persecution d i d come i n spite o f everything. slightly m o d i f y i n g the accepted view. St. then there was n o t h i n g for the C h r i s t i a n to do b u t to suffer w i t h o u t retaliation.. A t the same time as he condemned the whole existing social order he preached t h r o u g h o u t his life its c o n d i t i o n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n . 145. he restricted its v a l i d i t y to the c o m m u n i t y o f the non-Christians a n d the false Christians.

. see B e t t s .' But i n cases where the authorities ' F o r a m a n opposcompel some w r o n g a c t i o n . op. Sit' I . op. T h e fact t h a t s o o u t s t a n d i n g a m e d i e v a l i s t a s P r e v i t e . 1 5 2 . p. 7 0 73 a n d their o u t l o o k f o u n d lidu. V o g l . however. since we can find i n the scriptures similar examples a m o n g righteous m e n ..r e a c h i n g E r a s t i a n i s m o f a n e a r l i e r m e d i e v a l r a d i c a l . 6 1 . i n those things . 148.3 1 .5 4 . 1 4 7 . W y c l i f had championed the obligation o f the state to disendow the c h u r c h . 2 1 8 . 7 3 V o g l . p p . They should.O r t o n . p p . i n view o f its excessive wealth. 159. render the dues and services w h i c h rulers require o f their subjects. 7 1 N e v e r t h e l e s s . w h i l e m a r r i a g e u n d e r s t a n d a b l y w a s p e r m i t t e d at least to a l l l a y p e r s o n s . m a k e the c o m m e n t that M a r s i l i u s w a s 'the m o s t r a d i c a l o f the t h e o r i s t s o n C h u r c h a n d State i n the M i d d l e A g e s . H i s ideals were t o be p u t i n t o practice only by a m i n o r i t y . P r e v i t e . however. p p .O r t o n could. 160.' spection (ppatrne). was to be strictly l i m i t e d to 'the 'The saints [writes ChelCicky o f the true Christians] should be obedient to the higher powers. urged such intervention t o c o n t r o l and oversee the private m o r a l o f the state's c i t i z e n s . cit. The Hussites. 215. especially. things w h i c h be Caesar's. w h i c h are not con71 trary t o G o d . 4 3 . Postilla. the a s c e t i c e l e m e n t is m a r k e d C h e l c i c k y . the r i g h t and d u t y o f the c i v i l authorities under certain conditions t o intervene i n c h u r c h affairs was generally acknowledged. the C h r i s t i a n subject is b o u n d to disobey. . is right. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state w a s f o r b i d d e n to a l l . i n contrast to his more radical social progamme. 214. A n y h o w the e a r l y B r e t h r e n . p p . 1 2 8 .3 0 . op. cit. a l s o the f a r .. Sit' viry. that C h e l c i c k y ' s c o n d e m n a t i o n o f c i v i l a u t h o r i t y is o f a s i m i l a r n a t u r e to h i s a d v o c a c y o f c e l i b a c y for C h r i s t i a n s l i v i n g w i t h o u t s i n . a t t e m p t i n g to put his t e a c h ings i n t o p r a c t i c e . p p . 135. 2 5 . passively suffering the penalties for his disobedience.FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 49 nection w i t h the history o f socialism . pp. ' 7 2 Closely l i n k e d w i t h Chel5icky"'s rejection o f c i v i l a u t h o r i t y was his demand for the complete separation o f c h u r c h and state. c h u r c h a n d state. I c a n n o t agree w i t h V o g l ' s a s s e r t i o n . 166. w i t h o u t a n y reference to C h e l i i c k y ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n to m e d i e v a l s o c i a l r a d i c a l i s m . ' s h o w s the extent to w h i c h the C z e c h ' s w r i t i n g s h a v e been neglected by the h i s t o r i a n s o f W e s t e r n E u r o p e . 2 3 . cit. p. O trojim 5 9 . T h r o u g h o u t the M i d d l e Ages. op. i f need be by force.. . . A r e v o l u t i o n a r y suggestion i n the fifteenth century i t was destined t o gain increasing s u p p o r t in recent times. 5 6 . ing the state i n such perverse wickedness commits n o sin n o r is he i n fear o f d a m n a t i o n .2 0 . C f . pp. w h e n he e m p h a s i z e s the difference between C h e l c i c k y ' s i d e a l o f a C h r i s t i a n i t y v a l i d for all m e n a n d the m e d i e v a l m o n a s t i c c o n c e p t i o n o f the flight f r o m the w o r l d o f the c h o s e n few. 5. c i t e s passages f r o m H u s ' s t r a c t o n s i m o n y . a d v o c a t i n g the F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f the H u s s i t e attitude t o w a r d s the r e l a t i o n s between state's d u t y to depose a b a d b i s h o p a n d p r e a c h i n g s u b m i s s i o n to the state i n p u r e l y c h u r c h affairs. h o w e v e r . in all C h e l c i c k y ' s writings.the stage o f U t o p i a n anarchism. 72 viry. d i d n o t u n d e r s t a n d h i m in t h i s w a y . 2 1 . 140. 4 5 .4 9 . 144. 60. therefore. cit. b u t w i t h c i r c u m that is to say. 147. M a r s i l i u s o f P a d u a . 7 0 Obedience to the authorities.

. cit. as inconsistent with f o l l o w i n g Christ's example: feelings w h i c h were t o find expression i n the t h i r d o f the Prague A r t i c l e s . 'Whoever is n o t sincerely b r o u g h t t o the Christian faith t h r o u g h preaching o f the gospel. relying for their safety o n the example o f a pure life and never calling i n the aid o f the secular a r m .50 PETR C H E L C I C K Y its clearest expression i n the f o u r t h o f the famous Prague Articles ( 1 4 2 0 ) . p. d e m n a t i o n o f these t e m p o r a l p o s s e s s i o n s a n d o f the c i v i l a u t h o r i t y e n j o y e d b y t h e c h u r c h a n d the w o r l d l i n e s s o f the m o n a s t i c o r d e r s is to be f o u n d . T h i s point was F o r the s t a n d p o i n t o f the e a r l y T a b o r i t e s . w i l l never be b r o u g h t by force [he says] j u s t as no one w i l l 7 1 ' Q u o d o m n i a p e c c a t a m o r t a l i a et specialiter p u b l i c a alieque d e o r d i n a c i o n e s lcgi dei R. too.' reprobant d o m i n u m a p o s t o l i c u m m i t t e n t e m b e l l a t o r e s c o n t r a S a r r a c e n o s et c r u c e m d a n t e m vel p r e d i c a n t e m c o n t r a q u o s c u n q u e 7 8 ' Q u o d d o m i n i u m s e c u l a r e s u p e r d i v i c i i s et b o n i s t e m p o r a l i b u s . one o f its sternest opponents. op. i n its condemnation o f the c h u r c h lands. 247 ff. V . T h e r e were a n u m b e r o f s u b s e q u e n t v e r s i o n s . 393). T h e k i n d o f compulsory virtue w h i c h the Prague Articles envisaged was worse than useless.a n d all the more priests . Sit viry. 7 5 C f . . earlier De civili dominio R. conversion o f heretics a n d unbelievers to the true f a i t h . 4 0 . the W a l d e n s i a n p o s i t i o n ( q u o t e d by G o l l .K r o f t a . q u a C h r i s t u s vixit c u m suis apostolis. B. r e d u c a t u r ' (F. defended at the C o u n c i l o f B a s e l (1433) b y the T a b o r i t e b i s h o p . 76 Chelcicky. a r e devoted to detailed a t t a c k s o n the t e m p o r a l p o s s e s s i o n s o f the clergy. s e e and m u c h o f his Vigorous con- p p . M i k u l a s o f P e l h f i m . B.. q u o d c o n t r a p r e - c e p t u m C h r i s t i c l e r u s o c c u p a t i n p r e i u d i c i u m s u i officii et d a m p n u m b r a c h i i s e c u l a r i s . 6 4 . i n his closely i n his attacks o n simony. p p . Christians . a d q u o s spectat. arranged i n v a r y i n g o r d e r . 3 6 ) : ' D a m p n a n t et paganos. w h i c h was indeed largely inspired by the writings o f Wyclif.. defended at B a s e l b y P e t e r P a y n e . p.s h o u l d never resort to force i n such matters. ab ipso auferatur et ipse c l e r u s a d r e g u l a m e v a n g e l i c a m et v i t a m a p o s t o l i c a m . as well a s o n the v e r y existence o f the m e n d i c a n t o r d e r s . the whole idea o f the use o f force i n s p i r i t u a l matters was to find ChelSicky saw clearly that the power o f the c h u r c h o f his day was inextricably b o u n d up w i t h the state. 3 9 4 ) . i n its attack o n the temporal wealth o f the clergy a n d o f the mendicant orders i n p a r t i c u l a r . 75 74 Likewise few contested. and o f the secular d o m i n i o n w h i c h went w i t h possession. T h i s article o n the p u n i s h m e n t o f p u b l i c s i n w a s c o n t r a r i e i n q u o l i b e t s t a t u rite et r a c i o n a b i l i t e r per eos. V a v f i n e c o f B f e z o v i n h i s C h r o n i c l e gives the text o f the A r t i c l e s as they were d r a w n u p a n d sent ' a d e x e r c i t u m ' i n 1420. at least i n theory. H e was at one w i t h the whole Hussite movement. T h o u g h i n a 'pagan' state the ruler was justified i n m a i n t a i n i n g p u b l i c order. T h e w h o l e o f W y c l i f ' s Dialogus. followed H u s very Priests. however. V .. should o n l y concern themselves w i t h preaching the gospel. p r o h i b e a n t u r et d e s t r u a n t u r ' (F. opinion. Ktoi jsii boii bojovnici. 277 ff. p. t o o . i n a l m o s t a l l C h e l c i c k y ' s w o r k s . see esp. the Tightness o f the forcible I n Cheliicky. B u t i n his consideration o f the r e l a t i o n ship o f c h u r c h a n d state he was to go a step further.

p p . K r o f t a . 9 7 . 156. See a l s o Ktoi jsu boii bojovnici. The T a b o r i t e chiliasts 80 h a d . cit. has given rise t o discussion as to h o w far elements o f republicanism or o f m o n a r c h ism can be detected i n his w o r k s . 163. op. U r b a n e k . wishing by this sword to conceive Christ's spirit.FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 51 77 ever learn the Czech language properly b y means o f the G e r m a n . M . cit. 4 5 8 .. p p . ' During much of Chelcicky's lifetime Bohemia remained w i t h o u t a k i n g .g. and at least the m o r e radical Taborites certainly favoured this state o f affairs. b u t inseparable f r o m the exercise o f k i n g l y power. 4 9 . 7 8 ' R e p l i k a p r o t i R o k y c a n o v i . 9 0 . p. viry. Sit' p. A n d when as n o w [i. Q u o t e d by U r b a n e k . for kingship should be handed over t o the p e o p l e . cit. however. 61. ' He compares elsewhere those w h o use 'the s w o r d o f the temporal power o n d r u n k a r d s and thieves and other sinners.. op. 9 3 6 . Historians have seen i n h i m b o t h a 79 defender o f monarchical institutions (e. Listy. op. (rozum) H i s very reason should be against i t . a n d whoever d i d n o t w o r k w i l l n o w enjoy the fruits o f others' l a b o u r . '» 8 0 8 1 P e k a f . p. I I . ' K i n g s h i p is needed [he writes i n his unpublished tract. H i s conscience also w o u l d recoil f r o m d o i n g m a n y things condemned by G o d . U r b a n e k and V o g l ) and an embryo C r o m w e l l (e. 82 U r b a n e k . 118. and that is sufficient for a l l branches o f l i f e .. i n whose o w n interest he shows such a policy to lie.e. op. p. d u r i n g the interregnum f r o m 1439] order is absent. I t seems quite clear. O Svatostech] . t h a t Chelcicky considered the k i n g l y office a necessary evil for the 'pagan' world. 1 8 8 . is r i g h t i n p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t Chelcicky's ' r e p u b l i c a n i s m ' is largely a theocratic ideal. The C h r i s t i a n has the L a w o f L o v e inscribed i n the gospels as his guide. 1 6 5 . 60. t o subdue the populace so that everyone should be content w i t h w h a t they have and n o t reach after others' goods. Postilla.. be u s u r p i n g a p o s i t i o n w h i c h i n a C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y r i g h t f u l l y belongs to Christ alone. pp. i n the first place.' t o 'a company o f priests gathered r o u n d an o l d w o m a n demanding t h a t she should give b i r t h . 2 7 . Lenz and N a v r a t i l ) . then the wicked w i l l want t o reign over the honest.. ' 81 B u t Chelcicky is equally emphatic that no C h r i s t i a n c o u l d himself become k i n g .. ' 7 8 Chelcicky's c o n d i t i o n a l approval o f the maintenance o f p u b l i c order b y the ruler. V o g l . 2 1 8 . 104. w h i c h his doctrine o f non-resistance t o evil prevents h i m f r o m any attempt to realize i n the field o f practical 77 O trojim lidu. p p . indeed. and r u l i n g i t according to entirely c o n t r a r y principles o f conduct. H e w o u l d .9 5 . however. p p . preached ' t h a t i t is not proper to have kings even b y election. S e e a l s o Sit' 108-10. cit. pp. ' p.g. 9 8 4 . viry. 2 6 2 . a n d whoever h a d something w i l l have n o t h i n g . Pekaf.

p p . op.52 PETR C H E L C I C K Y politics. op. C h e l c i c k ^ . t o prevent greater scandal f r o m arising on account o f those n o t yet ripe enough to accept the f u l l Christian doctrine o f v o l u n t a r y suffering appeali n g i n their disputes t o the pagan courts (1 Cor. ChelSicky claimed. V . (nejpotupnejsi) 87 These were o n l y t e m p o r a r y measures. o w i n g t o the attempts w h i c h had been made by St. . F o r the H o l y C h u r c h is spiritual and needs o n l y spiritual officials f o r its e d i f i c a t i o n . 4 7 . that Christ the K i n g has replaced all earthly rulers. V I . 1-8). o f Chelcicky's unqualified condemnation o f the whole j u d i c i a l system as well as all the other branches o f government. 83 I t is i n the private lives o f the small C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y w i t h i n a w h o l l y 'pagan' society. showed in his o p i n i o n that the passage i n question c o u l d n o t be taken to 8 5 U r b a n e k . . . 9 8 4 . when measured by the precepts o f the gospel. p p . and the fact that i t was the most l o w l y members o f the c o m m u n i t y w h o were t o act as arbitrators. 36. g r a n t i n g that Christians should completely ignore the j u d i c i a l machine. n o r d i d he a p p o i n t constables (bifici) a n d hangmen so that its members m i g h t hang one another o r t o r t u r e each other on the rack o n account o f t e m p o r a l things. op. C h e l & c k y r a n i n t o difficulties i n his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the C h r i s t i a n to every s p h e r e o f life a n d h a d a m u c h w i d e r a p p l i c a t i o n t h a n a t present. cit. 40.. f o l l o w i n g W y c l i f a n d H u s here. on what principles should they settle any disputes w h i c h m i g h t arise w i t h i n their o w n c o m m u n i t y ? D u r i n g the very first years o f the early church. defines k spaseni). F o u s t k a . a m o n g them] magistrates (rychtdri) o r aldermen (konsele). therefore. F o u s t k a . 3 5 . i n their hearts. G o l l . cit. There can be no d o u b t .K r o f t a .' 8 4 8 i 8 8 t h e H o l y C h u r c h as c o n s i s t i n g o f ' t h e c o m m u n i t y o f the elect (zbor vyvolenych T h i s definition c o v e r e d . p. op. 8 3 . p. 81 A m o n g Christians [he writes] secular courts are a disgrace and a s i n . pp. 79.. 36. They permitted the establishment o f courts w i t h i n their o w n c o m m u n i t y . p. 10. to participate i n them neither as litigants n o r i n any executive capacity.e. may indeed have been taken over f r o m Waldensian d o c t r i n e . Such conduct should be left to the pagan and the w o r l d l y . This obligation o f all true Christians to boycott the organs o f justice. O cirkvi svote. 88 But.. ChelCicky explained.. i n order that the H o l y C h u r c h should appear before t h e m l i t i g a t i n g about the goods o f this w o r l d . . O trojim lidu. cit. p. as F o u s t k a points out. C f . the imperfection o f m a n y o f the new c o n verts f r o m Judaism a n d paganism had led the apostles t o ameliorate the stringency o f the ban u p o n all forms o f l i t i g a t i o n . Paul t o reconcile the g r o w i n g Christian c o m m u n i t y w i t h the R o m a n s t a t e . 85 G o d never set u p [i. however. Here. M a t t h e w . 82. cit.

o f course. ' Zeitschrift p. pp. ving our own p u r i t y . N e u m a n n . 180.. " Müller. ' 8 8 ' N o h a r m should be done h i m .FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 53 justify the contemporary j u d i c i a l system.. J . J. I I . the only one indeed consistent w i t h the L a w o f Love. The C h r i s t i a n m e t h o d was that o f a r b i t r a t i o n and o f restitution f o r damage done. h e r e a s d o c t r i n e o n C h e l c i c k y a n d the e a r l y für Brüdergeschichte. was incompatible. p. 3 5 . H. p p . Sektafstvi sekty ve stoleti XIVa v Cechäch. Bartoä. 2 1 . and no Christian c o u l d apply t h e m . 51.. P e k a f . when church membership became almost obligatory f o r the tenants settled o n the estates o f noblemen belonging to the U n i t y . especially the death penalty. 2 0 6 ) . s a y s o f the s e r m o n s N i c h o l a s p r e a c h e d i n P r a g u e i n the s u m m e r o f 1415 to a n a u d i e n c e o f p r i e s t s a n d s t u d e n t s : . p p . H r e s j a . The proper method o f dealing w i t h shortcomings w i t h i n the C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y . op. a current o f o p i n i o n w h i c h has its parallel. 8 9 A l l forms then o f punishment based o n violence were w r o n g . 1 7 8 . 6 8 . 2 0 6 . ibid. was quite different. I n this manner evil shall be curbed. n o t only w i t h any f o r m o f state organization b u t . W h i l e Chelcicky was more sweeping i n his c o n d e m n a t i o n t h a n almost a l l his contemporaries. einen wesentlich anderen C h a r a k t e r als die gemeinden böhmischen u n d mährischen u n d w a r e n a u c h viel w e n i g e r widerstandsfähig i n Z e i t e n der Verfolgung "> Ceski o d e r w e n n sie i n d e n B e s i t z e i n e r k a t o l i s c h e n H e r r s c h a f t XV. 1 8 2 . 14. 80. and love and peace shall reign a m o n g the brethren. himself strongly impregnated w i t h Waldensian teachings. 1915. a n d i n his t u r n i n fluencing the Taborites. S. S e d l a k . 1 0 2 .. gelangten. 39. 1914.' G o l l .. the very conception o f an all-embracing state c h u r c h . p. i n Russian history. b u t let h i m be cast o u t . p p . as-the Polish b r a n c h o f the U n i t y o f Brethren were to discover over a century later. 1947. 5 9 . 122. Sit' *• viry. 127. cit. i t excluded. e l s e w h e r e denies the influence o f W a l d e n s i a n Taborites. thereby preserSuch an attitude. H o l i n k a .' I f a l l other sanctions failed and the erring brother c o n t i n u e d i n his evil ways. t o o . p. applied t o the whole c o m m u n i t y . o f punishment by e x h o r t a t i o n and b y rebuke. Geschichte auf dem A t the C o u n c i l o f Basel i n 1433 der Böhmischen Brüder. Müller. he was t o be expelled f r o m their company. ' B u t i f the g u i l t y person cannot recompense his brother i n any other way. 163. 9 2 .. p p . ' M a g i s t e r N i k o l a u s v o n D r e s d e n . such as k i l l i n g h i m i n his sins. 13. 2 3 . 6 9 : ' D i e s e p o l n i s c h e n BrüderLande trugen. he m u s t h u m b l y d o penance [Chelöicky went on] and w i t h this his f a u l t shall be forgiven h i m a n d a sincere reconciliation take place. p p .K r o f t a . I I I .3 1 . 2 5 1 . cit. while injury f r o m outside must be suffered i n a spirit o f h u m i l i t y and love. 90 A d v a n c e d theologians l i k e Peter Payne and Nicholas o f Dresden. 55. was indeed widespread amongst the m o r e radical sections o f the Hussite movement. Hlidka. f o r instance. protest against the more b r u t a l penal sanctions. condemned the use o f the death penalty as d i d 91 such p o p u l a r leaders as Jan 2 e l i v s k y . op. 7 5 . Once again we are dealing here w i t h a Waldensian tenet o f l o n g s t a n d i n g . 625 ( q u o t e d by P e k a f .

Chelfiicky' a n d the C z e c h B r e t h r e n .. speeches at the C o u n c i l a r e r e p r i n t e d i n Orationes. p p . C f .1 2 3 . l i k e w i s e argues C h e l i i c k y i n h i s ' R e p l i k a p r o t i R o k y c a n o v i ' . however. See also B a r t o s . p. pp. p. w h i c h is v e r y s i m i l a r to that o f B i s k u p e c . F o r the T a b o r i t e s ' p r a c t i c a l efforts i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . 392.5 3 . op. O n l y G o d h a s the p o w e r t o g i v e a n d take life. his successor Jakoubek o f Stfibro. . a s w e l l a s the latter's t w o rejoinders a r e given i n M a n s i . w h e r e the late M i d d l e A g e s are d e s c r i b e d as 'the s p e c i a l p e r i o d judicial cruelty. p p .54 PETR C H E L C 1 C K Y Biskupec. op. 34. and the conservative P r i b r a m . n o r any other h u m a n law was to be the touchstone o f C h r i s t i a n action i n this matter: 'sed lex specialiter evangelica et praxis ecclesie p r i m i t i v e i n punicione reorum est attendenda. was largely responsible for this widespread movement t o r e f o r m legal practice. when death or the a m p u t a t i o n o f . cit. w i t h o u t t a k i n g these s e r m o n s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . pp. op. 94 Reaction against the I n q u i s i t i o n ' s methods a n d against 95 the universal custom o f executing convicted heretics was also a p o w e r f u l factor i n the attack against capital p u n i s h m e n t . The words o f Christ. Judges were to act as fathers rather t h a n as tyrants. 1947. A s u c c e s s i o n o f a r t i c l e s o n the s u b j e c t issued by b o t h the P r a g u e m a s t e r s a n d the T a b o r i t e clergy i n 1419. cit. 1955 of see Orationes. 1 2 5 . B a r t o s ) . 3 5 . op. 2 3 . p r o v i d e d i t was carried out by the p r o p e r l y constituted a u t h o r i t i e s . X X X . t o k i l l w i t h l o v e i n o n e ' s h e a r t . I I . Neither O l d Testament practice o n w h i c h his opponent largely based his arguments. Husiistvi • 2 a cizina. 7 5 ) . pp. e. Sacrorum conciliorum collectio (ed. 3 5 7 . p. 'The doctors and servants o f the H o l y C h u r c h [he writes] have said that we ' N o o n e c a n r e a c h the t r u t h a b o u t the beginnings o f the T a b o r i t e m o v e m e n t ..' " B a r t o s . 8 6 .. forbade the execution o f the death penalty o n sinners. p. thereby helping t h e m along to hell o n account o f their crimes.g. p. 2 0 3 . H. nova et amplissima Orationes (ed. limbs were frequent for m i n o r offences a n d theft was always punished by the death penalty. 8 1 . H u s himself. B o t h B i s k u p e c ' s w h i l e o n l y h i s r e p l y to h i s o p p o n e n t . C f . /. edition). cit. n o n gaudebo i n talibus occisionibus nec faciliter a d m o r t e m alicuius consenciam. 5 4 . 1422.8 9 . op. see J a c o b . J . their m u r d e r i n a state o f sin w i t h o u t repentance. 5. d u r i n g his defence o f the punishment o f public sin. a n d 1424 expressly a l l o w e d c a p i t a l p u n i s h m e n t for i n c o r r i g i b l e c r i m i n a l s . writes ChelCicky. M a n s i ) . the W a l d e n s i a n s t a n d p o i n t : ' s i c u t n o s n o n p o s s e vivificare.. a n d it is i m p o s s i b l e . 'Fateor [he says i n explanation] ex q u o n o n possum restituere vitam occiso.' 92 The m o r e moderate Hussites. Y a s t r e b o v . s i c n e c debere o c c i d e r e ' ( q u o t e d i n N e u m a n n . and even the O l d Testament d i d n o t a l l o w the Jews to p u n i s h theft w i t h death. G i l l e s C h a r l i e r .. F o r the C z e c h s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the C o u n c i l .. 138. " C h a l o u p e c k y . 17. X X I X . ** H r e j s a . cit. The Waning of the Middle Ages ( L o n d o n . 53. p.' The r e f o r m o f the c r i m i n a l was t o be the aim o f punishment. X X X . p. 9 0 . cit. S. 93 T h e severity o f the prevailing penal laws.9 2 . a s s o m e d o c t o r s h a v e a r g u e d . justified the use o f capital punishment i n certain cases. ' N i c h o l a s w a s burnt at M e i s s e n i n 1416. H u i z i n g a . also attacked the use o f the death penalty i n no uncertain terms.

f o r m e r l y i n the archiépiscopal l i b r a r y i n P r a g u e a n d n o w a p p a r e n t l y lost. p. it is i n t e r e s t i n g a s a n . 6 7 . claimed t h a t i n Hussite Bohemia a priest f o u n d sinning w i t h a w o m a n w o u l d be castrated. 132. pp. 1 6 9 . the t r a c t is p r o b a b l y n o t a c t u a l l y C h e l c i c k y ' s w o r k . 1 8 1 .. d e p o r t a t i o n f r o m towns. I . ' 9 7 In a d d i t i o n . n o t punishment but the r e f o r m o f the c r i m i n a l was the proper a i m o f penal m e t h o d . q u o t i n g Orationes.. 99 B u t ChelCicky condemned as u n c h r i s t i a n a l l 'cruel punishments . i n v i e w o f its r a t h e r p o s i t i v e attitude to the r o l e o f the state a n d the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e . a n d the legal codes o f a l l countries were for l o n g to retain almost every variation o f barbarity. 1 3 1 . confiscation o f estates. U l r i c h o f Z n o j m o .' 96 I n other words. r a t h e r strange a r g u m e n t t h a t t h r o u g h the e x e c u t i o n o f c r i m i n a l s G o d is d e p r i v e d o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f testing the r i g h t e o u s t h r o u g h the f o r m e r ' s 9 9 Y a s t r e b o v . 1 3 2 . I t is e n t i t l e d Pro krâdei nenie hodné clovëka na smrt vydati. 131 . M. E v e n t h o u g h . whose theoretical cond e m n a t i o n at their synods d u r i n g the early twenties o f the death penalty and other forms o f physical punishments. 2 8 2 .8 7 . p p . speaking at the C o u n c i l o f Basel. Here he was m o r e radical t h a n the Taborites themselves. P e k a f . C a p i t a l punishment. see Sit' viry. k o v a n d P a t e r a . B u t Chelcicky held a testimony n o t merely against the death penalty for any k i n d o f crime. b u t against a l l the cruel punishments o f his day. was hedged r o u n d w i t h such numerous l i m i t a t i o n s that they largely deprived their protest o f any practical effect.7 5 . attribute to Chelëicky a s h o r t M S .8 3 . Postilla..' H e should. 3 1 . 2 0 6 . 'The executioner w h o kills is as m u c h a wrong-doer as the c r i m i n a l w h o is k i l l e d . p p . p. therefore. 9 9 100 d e a t h p e n a l y p u t f o r w a r d b y C a r l i e r at B a s l e . 1 8 1 . F o r C h e l c i c k y ' s a n s w e r t o the a r g u m e n t s i n defense o f the <?. C h e l c i c k y ' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y a d d s t h e of evildoings. 1 4 1 . op. to h a r d l a b o u r u n d e r penal c a s e s is r e g a r d e d a s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the L a w o f G o d . be reckoned as one o f the earliest a n d most u n c o m p r o m i s i n g advocates o f m o d e r n penal reform. cit. Chelcicky confirms his argument by reference to the parable o f wheat a n d the tares. L i k e Nicholas o f Dresden. cit. Sit' vlry. t r a c t . . e x a m p l e o f c o n t e m p o r a r y o p i n i o n o n the subject. ' O novë nalezeném r u k o p i s e spisù P e t r a Chel£ického. Postilla. was t o t a l l y i n c o m patible w i t h Christ's i n j u n c t i o n t o love one's enemies. I I . i n s t e a d .' C p. b l i n d i n g . " " 1 0 0 Postilla.7 2 . p p . op. above a l l . p. p p . for instance. 98 The O r p h a n leader. I I . . cit. t o r t u r e . cutting-off o f hands. a n d deals specifically w i t h the i n c o m m e n s u r a b i l i t y o f d e a t h a s a p e n a l t y for theft i n w o r d s w h i c h often b r i n g C h e l c i c k y to m i n d . J a c o b . as well as o f k i l l i n g i n war. t h a t i n c o r r i g i b l e thieves s h o u l d be c o n d e m n e d c o n d i t i o n s for a s l o n g as m i g h t be n e c e s s a r y for r e p a i r i n g the i n j u r y done. p. op. i t was o n l y sins against the material well-being o f the state a n d n o t the more serious offences against the L a w o f Christ that were punished by the authorities. 107.. Annen1882.FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 55 should never lose hope i n any m a n so l o n g as the patience o f G o d may lead h i m to repentance. T h e u s e o f the d e a t h p e n a l t y i n s u c h T h e w r i t e r o f the t r a c t p r o p o s e s .

I I . J o n e s . pp. T h e o p p o n e n t s of a m o n g the W a l d e n s e s t o w a r d s the e n d o f t h e f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y . cit. h o w e v e r . 2 1 1 . The denunciations o f o a t h t a k i n g scattered about his w r i t i n g s are a l l couched i n very general terms. H o l i n k a . a n d abstention f r o m oaths was later to be a feature o f many o f the radical R e f o r m a t i o n sects.7 2 . Chelcicky based his arguments. 4 5 . above all the Waldenses. 101 103 had Sit' viry. although this alone m i g h t have entailed abstention f r o m participation i n the state. t o o . 127. I n t r o .. Chelöicky's testimony against a l l wars. 6 7 . op. pp. 9 4 . 135. p. op. pp. P c k a f . 102 A b o u t this t i m e . as has been seen.f. cit. cites the c a s e o f the p e a s a n t s o n the R o z m b e r k estates n e a r Jindfichüv German-speaking Waldensian H r a d e c i n s o u t h B o h e m i a . H o l i n k a . p.. 22. 2 3 . A c c o r d i n g to P r e g e r a certain watering-down m o f t h e i r t e s t i m o n y a g a i n s t o a t h s s e e m s to h a v e t a k e n p l a c e pp. even by those far removed f r o m Chelöicky's anarchism. ' K h e l c h i t s k y i G u s . 86. I I . 4 8 8 . defensive as well as offensive. 2 3 . Y a s t r e b o v .. indeed. 163. B u t this h a d n o t always been the case. o n far wider grounds. We have already seen that at the very beginning o f the T a b o r i t e movement m a n y o f its leaders h a d rejected a l l violence. cit. J a n o f Jiöin.56 PETR C H E L C l C K Y T h o u g h closely connected w i t h his rejection o f the whole administrative and j u d i c i a l system. B. V . 44. J a g i c . pp. op. w h o i n 1340 rose i n revolt against their l o r d a s a r e s u l t o f . Preger. as a clear i n j u n c t i o n n o t t o swear under any circumstances. 32. cit. Chelöicky's testimony against oaths. 2 5 1 ) . w h i c h is n o w lost. Y a s t r e b o v . 1 0 3 H o l i n k a . and this practice is rarely singled o u t f o r special condemnation. 181.. 177.. so that i t is difficult to say for certain whether chiliasm moved over f r o m a non-violent i n t o a violent phase o r whether b o t h elements h a d n o t existed w i t h i n the movement f r o m the b e g i n n i n g . pp. pp. B u t . T h e words o f Christ. however. appeared to h i m . Etyudy. a n d B i s k u p e c h i m s e l f ( H r e j s a . N e u m a n n . op. P e k a f . 5 9 ..H r e j s a . pp. o n the other hand. 1915. cit. op. Z. 143. that Chelcicky devoted a separate w o r k t o the subject. op.. Previously some mediaeval sects. violence i n c l u d e d at first even s u c h later m i l i t a n t s a s J a n Z e l i v s k y .. ' p. Studies 260.. cit. was shared by scarcely anyone outside the n a r r o w circle o f his Brethren. cit. 3 6 6 . 9 9 . M a t t h e w .9 6 . 182. 9 1 . pp. pp. X X X I V . 9 9 . cit. 163. the question whether a Christian was ever justified i n t a k i n g u p arms was being w a r m l y debated among a l l sections o f the Hussite movement. 9 8 . 1 4 1 . Müller. op. as well as by the Waldenses. op. . in Mystical Religion. 33-37. d i d n o t h o l d the key p o s i t i o n that i t was later to occupy i n the arguments o f his disciples o f the M i n o r Party i n the controversy w i t h i n the U n i t y at the end o f the century. . I t is possible. B u t H u s a n d the c o n s e r v a t i v e P r a g u e m a s t e r s expressly a l l o w e d o a t h s . Cathars a n d other medieval sects.. op. 101 I f his objection to oaths f o u n d ready consent i n Bohemia a m o n g m a n y o f his contemporaries. cit. The t a k i n g o f oaths h a d indeed been denounced by the more radical sections o f the Hussite movement. 2 3 . pp. 9 2 . 4 6 . 142. t h o u g h as early as 1417 the idea o f r e f o r m had already become l i n k e d i n the p o p u l a r i m a g i n a t i o n w i t h the use o f force.

is that o f patient suffering. cit.3 1 . t h e y w e r e s a v a g e l y s u p p r e s s e d b y Z i i k a i n 1421. After putting up a movefierce C l o s e l y a k i n to the f r e e .. they said. 3 9 7 . cit. op.1 0 ) a n d the e a r l y B r e t h r e n w e r e Macek. A c c o r d i n g to Preger. the o n l y course o f action free f r o m grave dangers. was n o t entirely new i n the fifteenth century. 162. B. p. h o w e v e r . cit. at least t o w a r d s B o t h C h e l i i c k y ( O boj i duchovnim.w a r d o c t r i n e s were a s c r i b e d to t h e m . w h o were at t h a t date c a r r y i n g on a controversy as to the conditions o f a j u s t w a r . See F. T h e masters returned an affirmative answer t o their first q u e s t i o n : ' a n d o m i n i seculares tenentur gladio m a t e r i a l i defenderé legis veritatem?' The priests' second query r a n as f o l l o w s : 'si d o m i n i seculares ad t a n t u m sint desides.2 0 . denied that under certain c i r c u m B u t i t is n o t c l e a r to w h a t degree these op. P e k a f . l i k e t h e T a b o r i t e s . their opponents to h a v e p r a c t i s e d n u d i s m a n d free love. w r i t i n g s o m e eighty y e a r s later. a n d the p p . at least i n t h e o r y . sectaries w e r e i n fact i m b u e d w i t h W a l d e n s i a n d o c t r i n e s . o t h e r e v i d e n c e definitely i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e y p u t u p a r m e d r e s i s t a n c e . 104 Neither the Catholic c h u r c h nor even the later Taborites allowed their priests to participate as T h o u g h this question. A j u s t w a r . r e p r e s e n t e d the r a d i c a l s e c t i o n o f the T a b o r i t e ment. Y a s t r e b o v . p. combatants i n b a t t l e . the threat o f invasion i n 1419-20 that gave i t its v i t a l importance.' the e n d . P f e l o u i s k y w a s . T u m a P f e l o u c s k y . p p . c a r e f u l to d i s a s s o c i a t e themselves f r o m t h e m o n t h e o l o g i c a l a n d m o r a l issues.FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 57 condemned a l l warfare. 1 0 1 appellants n o r a r b i t r a t o r s . they believed w i t h W y c l i f . belongs p r o p e r l y to the c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s : f o r the o r d i n a r y C h r i s t i a n the best way o f resisting evil. however. a n communitates corporaliter perimendo?' fideles subiecte possent et debeant earn gladio defenderé m a t e r i a l i . G o l l . 5 1 7 . their bad e c o n o m i c a n d social conditions. 135. t o give their o p i n i o n i n this matter. T h e n t w o priests. 142. J o n e s .' licita autorisacio et recta Neither O n l y under the most extreme p r o v o c a t i o n were the people justified i n themselves u n d e r t a k i n g the defence o f God's t r u t h . pp. O p p o s i t i o n t o w a r f a r e .. 3 2 1 . cit.L o q u i s . p. 13. 3 6 5 . s i n c e they h a d s h o r t l y before been h e l d by m a n y o f the c h i l i a s t s . intentio.K r o f t a . cit. therefore. p. op. op. writes o f t h o s e w h o w e r e b u r n t at K l o k o t y n e a r T á b o r i n A p r i l 1421. m a y a l s o h a v e been o n e o f the d o c t r i n e s o f the A d a m i t e s o r ' P i c a r d s ' w h o . therefore. and i t was they w h o m Nicholas o f Dresden and the early Taborites had followed i n this matter. op. 8 . . The r i g h t to wage wars.. w i t h t h e i r l e a d e r M a r t i n H o u s k a . 4 7 . that the r e a s o n for their p e r s e c u t i o n w a s ' b e c a u s e they s p o k e o u t against warfare. q u o d n o l u n t veritatem gladio accepto defenderé. 14. cit.. 101.. needed three p r i o r c o n d i t i o n s : 'iusta vendicacio. 7 0 . the i n v a s i o n o f 1420 c a u s e d the W a l d e n s e s i n a n d a r o u n d B o h e m i a . V . a n d t h i s m a y e x p l a i n w h y a n t i . Mikulás and "Vaclav. R. O n the o t h e r h a n d . pp.. I I . appealed to the t w o most eminent Prague masters. 1 3 2 . to t h r o w o v e r their o b j e c t i o n to defensive w a r s . adversantes videlicet Here the masters hedged their assent r o u n d w i t h the most stringent conditions. w h i c h w o u l d s e e m to d i s p r o v e a n y pacifist tendencies o n t h e i r p a r t .. believes the A d a m i t e s w e r e i d e n t i c a l w i t h the left-wing c h i l i a s t s w i t h i n the T a b o r i t e c a m p . p p .t h i n k i n g B r e t h r e n o f the F r e e S p i r i t t h e y a r e s a i d by r e s i s t a n c e . op. i t was.3 5 . 3 6 . Jakoubek o f S t f i b r o and K f i s t ' a n o f Prachatice.

9 6 .7 0 . 9 2 . G o l l identifies t h e two priests. . 156. as w e l l a s other dues. Everywhere m u r d e r . 5 5 .. has been enclosed w i t h walls a n d surrounded w i t h moats. n o w to the o t h e r . . n o w to one side. i n the home a n d i n the fields and i n the forest a n d o n the m o u n tains. . 3 0 7 . Untersuchungen. M. d o w n t r o d d e n . rapine. selskeho now c o n c e r n i n g the failure o f the H u s s i t e m o v e m e n t to realize the e a r l y h o p e s e n t e r t a i n e d b y the peasantry o f a betterment o f their s o c i a l p o s i t i o n ( q u o t e d by K r o f t a . and been eyewitnesses of. even four times. tit.6 0 .1 0 2 . See also BartoS. its material devastation and the accompanying m o r a l deterioration. and want have flourished and multitudes have perished. only confirmed h i m i n his o p i n i o n . J a n o f P r i b r a m . but a n o t h e r priest c a l l e d V e n e k . op. op. Quellen I I . the w o r d s o f the c o n s e r v a t i v e U t r a q u i s t . .6 7 . . . . a tizina. still less d i d they contest the possibility o f a j u s t w a r . oppressed. see Y a s t r e b o v . h o w e v e r . I I . . We have seen h i m debating the p o i n t w i t h Jakoubek o f S t f i b r o d u r i n g the most critical months o f 1420 w i t h the crusading armies at the gates o f Prague. tit. i L e n g t h y extracts f r o m five s u c h und tit. . Whoever w o u l d enter o r leave the t o w n is imprisoned and r o b b e d a n d k i l l e d . pp. . F o r otherwise 106 1 0 5 S e v e r a l o t h e r t r a c t s o n the s a m e subject. 1 6 2 . all grant the l e g i t i m a c y o f C h r i s t i a n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n w a r u n d e r c e r t a i n conditions. . op. documents. The l a b o u r i n g people is stripped o f everything. F o r the s t r o n g influence of W y c l i f ' s De tivili a n d sees in V a c l a v n o t K o r a n d a . Every t o w n i n the land has girded itself to battle. 9 8 ) : ' T h o s e p e a s a n t s w h o u s e d quietly to p a y o n e y e a r ' s rent (jeden a l o n e either at h o m e o r i n the forests o r i n holes i n the e a r t h . f o u n d e r o f T a b o r . . plundered and ransacked and driven away. I n the towns and castles every man must be ready f o r battle. a p p e a r s f r o m his w o r k s to h a v e been w e l l a c q u a i n t e d w i t h this early H u s s i t e literature o n the w a r issue. when f o r reasons o f f a i t h one side has risen u p against the other i n its w r a t h a n d savageness. B a r t o s . The fire they have l i t they have been unable to quench.9 5 . W h a t this side has proclaimed as t r u t h .58 PETR C H E L & C K Y stances the people c o u l d take u p arms w i t h o u t the intervention o f the civil authorities. p. p p . w r i t t e n d u r i n g the first m o n t h s o f w a r from s t a n d p o i n t s r a n g i n g f r o m fiery p a t r i o t i s m to a c o n d i t i o n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f n o n resistance. Dejiny stavu. * C f . Nowhere can they hide one f r o m another. a r e given i n G o l l .' Yea! urok) h a v e to pay s u c h r e n t s five o r six t i m e s o v e r . 1914. Y a s t r e b o v . w r i t t e n i n 1429. 1 0 5 But ChelSicky remained f i r m i n his o p i n i o n that participation i n warfare was quite incompatible w i t h the Christian way o f life. M a c e k . p u t s it f o r w a r d to J a n u a r y o r F e b r u a r y 1420. a s w e l l a s the M a s t e r s ' d e c i s i o n i n full.. p p . Husitstvi dominio 1 0 o n the P r a g u e M a s t e r s a n d later the T a b o r i t e s i n their f o r m u l a t i o n o f the c o n d i t i o n s o f a j u s t w a r . . Some even must pay their dues t o castle o r t o w n thrice over.. F o r the sake o f the future [he was to write] we should n o t pass over those things which we have n o w been suffering. p. See also P e k a f . O n every side there is o n l y w a n t and fear. . f o r over fifteen years. . The sixteen years o f war that were to follow.. . C h e l c i c k y . . the other has condemned as error. i n d e e d . C. . as B i s k u p e c a n d K o r a n d a the e l d e r a n d dates the d e c i s i o n i n N o v e m b e r 1419. N o r c a n they be left E v e r y t h i n g is F o r a d i s c u s s i o n h o w far the m a t e r i a l c o n d i t i o n s a n d s o c i a l s t a t u s of the p e a s a n t deteriorated d u r i n g the H u s s i t e p e r i o d . beaten. . tit.. so that many are driven by w a n t a n d hunger t o leave their l a n d . pp. see . . C. 4 7 . robbed. . Mikulds" a n d V d c l a v . p p . p. N o w h e r e may one find rest a n d peace. op.

' R e c s v a t e h o P a v l a A n t i c h r i s t o r the B e a s t w i t h the r u l e r s o f c h u r c h a n d state. had accepted the possibility o f a j u s t war carried no weight w i t h Chelcicky. 3 8 6 .. n o t m a t e r i a l . 1 0 7 W h a t then was the basis o n w h i c h ChelCicky's pacifism rested. C h e l c i c k y u s u a l l y identified viry. the new L a w o f L o v e forbade his disciples to take h u m a n life under any circumstances. destroy villages a n d homes. 1 9 7 . A n d w h a t is n o t taken f r o m t h e m by the castle i n dues is eaten u p by the armies . ' Past Present. as distinct f r o m the e m o t i o n a l protest w h i c h the cruelties and destruction o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y religious conflict aroused i n him? W a r originated i n his o p i n i o n w i t h A n t i c h r i s t . 1 0 7 and no. pp. cit. . ' C. 100 Wars waged by persons c l a i m i n g to be Christians were more to be condemned even than unjust wars a m o n g Jews The fact that leading c h u r c h authorities over the previous thousand years. F o r warfare w o u l d inevitably c o r r u p t even the p r o t a gonists o f a righteous cause. * Mensi I I . 7 6 . that pray u p o n the l a n d .5 4 . 5/7' viry. 130. ' G o d cannot say: ' T h o u shalt n o t k i l l . 108 108 ' q Seime a o b r a z e j e j i m . ' p. 4 0 . C f . w h e r e he gives e x t r a c t s f r o m a fuller M S . i g n o r a n t o f the Christian way o f life. v e r s i o n o f the Post ilia. or p a g a n s . B u t even Maccabeus was for h i m 'that m i g h t y m u r d e rer. I . he agreed. a higher standard o f conduct t h a n the one c o m m o n a m o n g his contemporary fellow Christians w i t h their constant internecine strife. 1 9 6 . p p . 1 2 8 . 1907. b u r n .. 7. The Christian's weapons were spiritual. ' since the Beast commands men to k i l l . pp.' 108 The O l d Testament. F o r the c r u e l t i e s inflicted o n the p e a s a n t r y b y b o t h a r m i e s . . 7 7 . w h i c h he d i s c o v ered at N u r e m b e r g . permitted the Jews to fight their enemies. t o o . M i i l l e r . even t h e n I w o u l d not believe h i m . Sit' spisy. ' MenSlspisy. 166.warfare was also n a t u r a l a m o n g pagans. p p . A l l men were n o w brothers. hang. o s t a r e m i l o v e k u . ' S t a r y r u k o p i s d v o u s p i s u P e t r a C h e l c i c k c h o . R . when compared t o the injunctions o f Christ.FORERUNNER OF THE UNITY 59 they w o u l d be driven f r o m house a n d fields. . and . pp. ' I n t r y i n g to convince Christians that warfare was someR . B e t t s . and his a i m was to redeem souls and n o t t o destroy bodies and souls. Peter] himself should suddenly appear f r o m Heaven [he writes] and begin t o advocate the s w o r d and to gather together an a r m y i n order to defend the t r u t h and establish G o d ' s order (zdkon bozi vysvoboditi) b y w o r l d l y m i g h t . p p . that the Jews indeed had been f o r b i d d e n by G o d t o fight a m o n g themselves. 4 1 . W i t h the c o m i n g o f Christ. 6 4 . 7. C. This s t r i k i n g passage brings o u t clearly the social b a c k g r o u n d o n w h i c h Chelcicky composed his s t i r r i n g denunciations o f the scourge o f w a r . see Y a s t r e b o v . p p . O boji duchovnim. execute. o f his apostles and the early church. op. however. 18. ' I f [St. 5 0 . 167. p.' He pointed o u t . 5 1 . 8. H. 1 2 2 . 5 2 . and this was proved by the example o f C h r i s t himself. as well as the most eminent o f his contemporaries. ' S o c i a l a n d C o n s t i t u t i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t i n the H u s s i t e P e r i o d . ' R e p l i k a p r o t i R o k y c a n o v i .

See a l s o H o c h . by the specious arguments o f the doctors o f the church.. a n d G o d ' R e p l i k a . a p p e a r to h a v e b e e n m o r e absolute i n their c o n d e m n a t i o n o f b o t h w a r a n d c a p i t a l p u n i s h m e n t t h a n t h e i r master. he says.1 7 . See a l s o H o c h . Once again ChelCicky showed his remarkable independence of 113 judgement. t o o . Y a s t r e b o v . 2 1 5 . 'Sicut anima est d i g n i o r corpore [he wrote] i t a debet fidelis p u g n a m preponere anime et exclusa eius sufficiencia per invasionem d i a b o l i ad p u g n a m abstraccionis t e m p o r a l i u m inclinare. I I I . are 'a terrible b l a s p h e m y .8 8 . tunc . this o n l y applied to l a y m e n : 'clerici autem debent aliam v i a m securiorem eligere.' T h o u g h . cit. op. The path o f non-resistance to evil was the only one open to consistent Christians. a c c o r d i n g to the t e s t i m o n y o f their c l e r i c a l o p p o n e n t s . c h u r c h fathers like St. I t w a s not indeed until W y c l i f ' s protest against w a r b e c a m e k n o w n i n the C z e c h l a n d s . It was probably. ' was absolute. 138. i n his Vyklad desatera bozieho obranu p e r m i t t e d warfare ' i n defence o f f a i t h and the t r u t h (pro while at the same time recommending the spiritual fight w i t h evil as the better way. ' K h e l c h i t s k y i G u s .1 0 5 . 137. 9 7 . 2 6 4 . et supposito q u o d ista n o n sufficiat. They were t o conquer by meekness and suffering. p. 392. cit. 2 6 4 . 138-40. A t least s o m e o f the 1 1 2 dominio L o l l a r d s . 1 9 3 . who had perverted their master's teachings. 143. 4 8 5 . Augustine a n d even Hus himself h a d d r u n k ' f r o m the hand o f the Great H a r l o t . ChelCicky d i d n o t hesitate t o express his disagreement here w i t h t h e two men o f recent times w h o m he most revered: W y c l i f a n d H u s . op. his audacity i n challenging the most revered a u t h o r i t i e s . . filled h i m w i t h disgust. 4 6 6 . 3 9 2 . . Such prayers. ' p p . The doctor evangelicus was indeed.' 112 111 T h e c o m m a n d m e n t ' T h o u shalt n o t k i l l ' H u s . Sermones. 441. however. an advocate o f the superiority o f that spiritual warfare. 3 9 3 . from De civili that C h e l c i c k y learnt o f W y c l i f ' s v i e w p o i n t o n w a r . w h i c h ChelSicky had taken as the subject o f his first treatise. . hostes c o r p o r a l i t e r expugnare. 338. ' p p .. 110 H e poured scorn o n the b l i n d and false followers o f C h r i s t . H e denounced w i t h b i t i n g i r o n y the absurdity o f prayers offered f o r victory. 193. i n Chelcicky's view.60 PETR C H E L C I C K Y times a necessity. H u s h a d been deceived. 111 Sit' viry. Wyclif. H o c h c o n s i d e r s that C h e l C i c k y ' s p a c i f i s m w a s largely d e r i v e d f r o m W y c l i f ' s m o r e m o d e r a t e p o s i t i o n . a n d the use o f his name i n justification o f recent wars was o f great disservice to the cause o f truth.9 8 . that the q u e s t i o n a s to w h e t h e r warfare w a s c o n s i s t e n t with C h r i s t i a n i t y was d e b a t e d by C z e c h t h e o l o g i a n s a n d m o r a l ists. p p .* as he calls the soldiers w h o h a d taken p a r t i n battle. ' T h e m i n i s tration o f the sacraments by T a b o r i t e priests ' t o murderers a n d robbers. l i k e the Prague Masters. B u t his disapproval o f a l l kinds o f material warfare was n o t an absolute p r o h i b i t i o n . ' pp.' pfikdzanie viery a prawdy). 1 1 3 ' R e p l i k a p r o t i R o k y c a n o v i . p p . 194. pp. he went o n .

stirring u p wars and shedding men's b l o o d . those w h o suffered for their f a i t h i n this life w o u l d get their reward i n the next: while those w h o h a d stirred up strife a n d warfare w o u l d inevitably receive eternal d a m n a t i o n as their p o r t i o n . . cit. lidu. since p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n w a r was inconsistent w i t h the gospel teachings. over w o r l d l y goods.. I t is his attitude o n this question.. t h a t determines significance i n the history o f p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t . 2 0 0 . p.' B u t 'they have neither sufficient understanding. this w o u l d inevitably b r i n g d o w n vlry.' 114 B u t the contemporary c h u r c h . ' w h o m w o u l d the rulers find t o accompany t h e m to the wars (s kym by pdni na vojnu jeli)T Sit' A l t h o u g h . were frequently conscripted against their w i l l i n t o one or other o f the opposing armies. .' They are forced by the combined a u t h o r i t y o f c h u r c h a n d state t o a course o f action u t t e r l y c o n t r a r y to the C h r i s t i a n gospel. ' 1 1 7 'The people [he writes elsewhere] are herded together l i k e sheep a n d d r i v e n to the slaughter. 1 1 ' R e p l i k a . 1 . therefore. b u t compel their peasants to do i t f o r t h e m . 7 0 . 3 2 0 . A n y h o w . as Chelcicky admits. 1 115 O trojim ' K u l b a k i n . Christians should refuse m i l i t a r y service. n o r charity enough. ' H u m b l e and l o w l y (pesi) As indeed people [he calls them] w h o . 189. p p . u n w i l l i n g t o undergo persecution. ChelCicky b i t t e r l y complains o f such practices. too. ' i t w o u l d . to realize t h a t they s h o u l d prefer to die at the hands o f their l o r d t h a n c o m m i t such evil acts. priests or laymen. ' u n m i n d f u l o f God's flock. I n view o f this. . cit. ChelCicky puts his ideal o f the early c h u r c h .' Princes and prelates ought n o t be obeyed when they c o m m a n d evil things. prayed t o G o d . 114 D u r i n g the l o n g w a r years the peasantry. 157. 66. a n d . false Over shepherds. i f a l l d i d this. dispensing w i t h shield and Tolstoy was later t o realize. . i t is his doctrine o f n o n Chelcicky's resistance. especially. 3 9 3 . 6 7 .FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 61 w o u l d protect them even d u r i n g the worst persecution. op. ' I n time o f war [he says] y o u make w a r r i o r s (rytifi) o f tanners and shoemakers and weavers. op. p. F o r neither the k i n g n o r the princes n o r the nobles n o r the lesser gentry do the fighting themselves. Christian against C h r i s t i a n . p p . I . Postilla. men 'whose consciences otherwise m i g h t d r a w back f r o m k i l l i n g and r o b b i n g their fellows. that marks h i m off f r o m a l l his contemporaries i n the Hussite movement. brother against brother. Therefore. central t o his whole philosophy. o f anyone able t o w i e l d a club. p. when kings and princes came firearmsC/wifty).' 115 against them. ' against a l l such false Christians. have fled f r o m H i m i n t i m e o f t r i a l and have walled themselves i n castles and towns. ' p. be shameful to fight o r t o quarrel over material injustice. P e s c h k e .

was to some extent a nationalist reaction to the encroaching G e r m a n element. " " Clti'liiv'ky \VI\N not onlv an opponent o f n a t i o m i l animosities.. op cit. I I . They arc. umunu. They proclaimed the m o r a l superiority o f the simple c o u n t r y m a n . under 2izka's leadership. ' Chelöicky's pacifism. The T a b o r i t e chiliasts i n 1419-20 h a d . rather i m p l i c i t . i t is true. then i i m t i i l i i l | i In m n pi t it* 'İpin nl l o u il i'i m u tlnlv In sec İlini I it.' j i n ' i p d I\H p i c m i i n l by llio npoNlles. H e protested. Postilla. 9 8 5 . p. h a d r e t u r n i n g to the o l d social pattern. however. wheic.' I'or Hie I IIII m IIIIII i'W iv lllllllilll In lii|t in AMww H IH-I c)li• 1 h n ııri|!İıbıiııı lo lıo lıHpeıl. İM evet In IIITII.does not die l i o i u hunpi'i nı t nld m n it % niln'i n i l i i m i l v .62 PETR C H E L C I C K Y persecution f r o m the side o f 'those paganized rulers. B u t the disappointment o f their hopes o f Christ's second p u t an end t o these communistic dreams after a few m o n t h s . . against the t r a d i t i o n a l arguments o n w h i c h the existing inequalities were based. Traces o f national feeling. p. as Czech historians have been quick to p o i n t out.. 150. and commonalty. h a l f formed and never The C h i n c h for h i m was i n t e r n a t i o n a l . 2 5 0 . ' Only lor llio false ( i n islians ilhl tin' l 'tiiniiliiik '4 nl s p i ' n i i a n d niilinnnlily plav tiny l o i r in (Irlininj'. Chelcicky came very near to the chiliasts i n his social ideals.' nevertheless. 'If illlViMH'. nil Millions ami lan-uiancs | In* \vı i l c s | I here have been people who linvi' U li . A s we have seen. according to this conception.'w . p. Hus and his predecessors had championed b o t h i n theory and practice the rights o f the small craftsmen and peasants. repre"» "* Sit' v/ry. preached a complete reversal o f the existing social order. B u t neither Hus's predecessors. a n d by the autumn o f 1420 the Taborites. n o r any party w i t h i n the Hussite movement. 2 0 . 118 A strongly-felt sentiment o f internationalism was a n a t u r a l c o r o l l a r y t o The Hussite r e v o l u t i o n . 'according t o the f a i t h they must be more eager to be p u t to the sword than to c o m m i t such actions contrary to God's c o m m a n d m e n t . above a l l . clergy. The first t w o estates. l l u i i iilllliulo In lliolr l o l l o w s . U r b â n c k . p p . against the theory o f 'the threefold people. Ibid. b o t h i n its genesis a n d d u r i n g the course o f its history. He was ( 0 direct his licivcsl invective ngainst contemporary social inequalities and the theories by w h i c h class divisions were justified. 6 7 . ii li'\v m n l i n i l h i n m m mı nıriııv. 2 4 3 . 'Everynmsressive in expression.l m ıh. VvTiile he d i d n o t share their apocalyptic delusions. h a d consistently advocated a t o t a l revolution i n social relationships: the a b o l i t i o n o f serfdom (poddanstvi) and the establishment o f an egalitarian society.' the three estates i n t o w h i c h the Christian c o m m o n w e a l t h was d i v i d e d : the n o b i l i t y . are n o t absent f r o m Chelöicky's writings.

The lords t e m p o r a l were to defend society by a r m s . 7 7 . Etyudy. E t i n h a r m o n i a ista t r i u m C f . 33). o r by money. p a r c i u m a d i m i t a c i o n e m trinitatis i n c r e a t e c o n s i s t i t s a n i t a s c o r p o r i s p. istius ecclesie pp. pp. by the bonds o f C h r i s t i a n love as members together o f Christ's Body.a s Yastrebov has shown clearly by c o m p a r i n g extracts f r o m the T a b o r i t c Manifesto o f 1431.' as he scornfully calles m e m Their bers o f the n o b i l i t y . therefore. a g a i n s t e i t h e r W y c l i f o r the T a b o r i t e s . had taken over this theory f r o m W y c l i f . Kniike Sestero o obecnych vecech kfest'anskych (ed. Sit' viry.8 5 . M. scilicet esse p r o p i n q u i s s i m i ecclesie t r i u m p h a n t i et . T o m a S o f S t i t n y . the only j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the privileges o f the n o b i l i t y . dicitur c o m m u n i t e r tripartita. ' ( f r o m De Christo et suo adversario Antichristo. w h i c h c o n t a i n the passages a c t u a l l y c i t e d by C h e l 5 i c k y f r o m t h e C z e c h t r a n s l a t i o n . I V . Dialogus. K . ' S t i t n ? a C h e l C i c k y .. ut s e q u a t u r C h r i s t u m p r o p i n q u i u s . as follows: ' E c c l e s i a a u t e m m i l i t a n c i u m . Europe. as he was to return to this theme i n his later w o r k s . pp. O trojim lidu. the clergy's task was to f o l l o w the way o f Christ i n poverty and i n prayer'and t o teach the l a i t y . . . p. destined to serve their material needs. ' C. 1852. i t a s e c u n d a p a r s ecclesie d i c i t u r c o r p o r a l i u m T e r c i a v e r o p a r s ecclesie d i c i t u r w u l g a r i u m v e l l a b o r a t o r u m . 121 trojim just Chelercky saw in a society founded on class inequalities the antithesis o f it Christian social order. m i l i t a n t i s . 1 7 .. while the t h i r d estate were t o carry the whole burden o f s u p p o r t i n g the other t w o estates by their m a n u a l labour. But even before O lidu lie had outlined his opposition to current theory i n O clrkvisvate. after rejecting the c o m m u n i s m o f their chiliastic period.2 1 . W y c l i f ' s v e r s i o n r a n iuvare pars hunger w o u l d force t h e m t o d r o p their coats-of-arms and take to the Y a s t r e b o v . p. 100. c o n s i d e r s t h a t C h e l c i c k y ' s a t t a c k s o n this t h e o r y w e r e d i r e c t e d m o r e against S t i t n y ' s fuller e x p o s i t i o n o f it t h a n O cirkvi svate. the need for armed force i n a C h r i s t i a n society. defensorum. lost thereby its v a l i d i t y . q u o d s i c u t p r i m a p a r s i s t i u s e c c l e s i e d i c i t u r i n s t r u m e n t u m o r a t o r u m . Since he denied. w h i c h were united w i t h the t h i r d element. w i t h identical passages taken f r o m W y c l i f ' s Dialogus. 155. J . It was as completely pagan as the violence o n which its whole structure rested.5 . Secunda e c c l e s i a c l e r i c o r u m q u i debent r e s i d u u m ecclesie m i l i t a n t i s . addressed to the rest o f Catholic Europe. p p . 9 9 . 1 5 6 . T h i s t h e o r y o f 'the t h r e e fold p e o p l e ' w a s o f c o u r s e c o m m o n i n m e d i e v a l times t h r o u g h o u t W e s t e r n C h a l o u p e c k y . q u o t e d i n H e l i n k a ' s e d i t i o n o f O trojim lidu. p p .FORERUNNER OF THE UNITY 63 sented the divine a n d the h u m a n elements i n Christ's mystical body. the w o r k i n g people. was based solely o n robbery and violence. 120 It was. to them that Chelcicky addressed the refutation o f this conception that he wrote in Ihe middle twenties. 1914. The superiority o f these 'coroneted escutcheons (erby korunovane). . T h e g r a n t i n g o f titles meant giving t h a t homage t o men w h i c h should be reserved f o r G o d alone. whose task i t was to protect the other t w o estates. 4 3 . The Taborites. E r b e n ) .. as we have seen. m i l i t a n t i s ecclesie d i c i t u r esse m i l i t u m i t a . 121 M. 2 . 8 2 . »° ancestors h a d obtained p r o p e r t y a n d titles either t h r o u g h force o f arms ' I f they n o w h a d n o money i n a d d i t i o n t o their b i r t h .

'useless drones' w h o only c o r r u p t others by the bad example o f their lives.' They are indeed d o u b l y accursed. 2 2 1 . he cries. their contempt for manual w o r k . p p . p p . p p .' Chel&cky's denounces their whole way o f l i f e : their refined luxuries. . a n d h u m i l i t y . do n o t be o f any avail on the D a y o f Judgement (A nepomuoz tu nic ani zdpisove ve desky vepsani). and their oppression o f the workers. they w o u l d often go hungry.7 2 . ' 'They are quite unable t o show any passage f r o m God's scriptures [he writes] w h y . O trojim lidu. . originated w i t h A n t i c h r i s t . as they scorn w o r k . they are any different f r o m other people. apart f r o m their superior descent. 'when one member suffers. 1 2 2 The privileges o f the clergy. the close association between church and state. L a c k i n g money. and t o the commonalty. . 3 2 0 . W e a l t h alone. ' I t is as i f someone were t o f o r b i d the bakers to bake [he writes] and at the same time order the people to eat. is for Chel&cky a sin against G o d and man. forgiveness.' Let priests w o r k like other honest men ' a n d not become a burden o n the labouring c o m m u n i t y (aby polozili se). The task allotted the priesthood o f preaching the Christian gospel o f love. Postitla. their loose morals.' duchovni kneiie na obec robotny [ne] They should set a g o o d example o f industry. .64 PETR C H E L C l C K Y p l o u g h [he writes]. addressing the n o b i l i t y and gentry] bought h u m a n beings together w i t h their hereditary rights to the property. that bastion o f the feudal order. too. ' t h o u g h w o r t h y preachers [he concedes] should Sit' viry. sustains the h o n o u r o f their n o b i l i t y and the fame o f their b i r t h .1 6 . then. 1 1 4 . ' I f y o u r forefathers [he says. Serfdom.3 4 . whose status i n itself meant a denial o f C h r i s t i a n brotherhood. therefore. so-called kaupeni Christians dare to traffic i n h u m a n lives? A l l their legal documents w i l l F o r there is n o basis for social inequalities i n Christianity. then they bought something that was n o t theirs t o b u y and sell.' Christ has redeemed m a n k i n d w i t h his b l o o d : how. to the nobility. 197. Even their frequent ablutions were i n his eyes an a b o m i n a t i o n . whose very existence depended o n violence a n d inequality. their noble b i r t h w o u l d decay miserably. they w o u l d soon s i n k back to the level o f the peasantry and. ' I f this disappeared. their class education. 6 3 . their pride. was an absurdity. their unwillingness to suffer w r o n g as Christians should. should do n o t h i n g to justify the taunt t h a t they had chosen their calling f r o m material considerations. I .' They were at present o n l y able to live o u t their lives i n idleness and l u x u r y because o f the labour o f their peasants. once t h r o u g h original sin and a second time by reason o f their noble birth.' The nobles were only a millstone r o u n d the necks o f the h a r d w o r k i n g c o m m o n people. a l l the other members suffer w i t h h i m . 'a burden t o the servants. where.

Indeed.' As w i t h W y c l i f and the Hussites i n general. which show similar sentiments: 'Item 1 1 5 C h a l o u p e c k y . against the r u l i n g classes. the avenger o f the poor.e. otdzka. he stood unhesitatingly w i t h the latter. and are m o r e fit t o w o r k t h a n aged peasants.FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 65 n o t be disallowed f r o m t a k i n g those things necessary. 8 2 . a n d consider themselves superior w i t h i n Christ's B o d y t o the c o m m o n a l t y o n w h o m they ride. 'Some are as strong as horses [he writes] . 2 0 . . ' b u t at the end he w i l l come i n his m i g h t to destroy all the great and p r o u d o f this earth . O cirkvi svate. 4 5 . S e e a l s o t h e ' A r t i c u l i V a l d e n s i u m ' f r o m the last century. p. lidu.6 7 . I trust G o d [writes ChelSicky] that t i l l m y d y i n g day I shall never assent t o this doctrine concerning Christ's Body. 125 and that some may have misunderstood his message. p. Chaloupecky has pointed o u t w i t h some justification t h a t the apostle o f non-violence was n o t uninfluenced by the general atmosphere o f social hatred generated by the r e f o r m m o v e m e n t .m a r k o f every true member o f the C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y . are n o t far removed i n tone f r o m the voices o f the chiliasts. these subject t o t h e m . the mouthpieces o f the d o w n t r o d d e n proletariat o f t o w n and c o u n t r y . w h o have oppressed the poor a n d devoured the f r u i t o f their l a b o u r and ruled w i t h cruelty over t h e m . Selskd d e c a d e o f the fourteenth . monks and mendicant friars were especially singled o u t by Chel&cky' for attack.. I t w i l l go h a r d i n that time w i t h the lords o f the earth. he writes. 7 2 . p. 1SS 1 2 6 B u t i n this w o r l d The O trojlm lidu. . n o t as one l i m b to another. indeed.. W o r k was the h a l l . w h o have ridden w i t h o u t mercy o n the backs o f the l a b o u r i n g poor. * 12 ChelSicky was certainly ruthless i n his analysis o f the class basis o f the society o f his day. T h e n w i l l y o u see the L o r d . w h o m Christ has redeemed.7 4 .9 4 . . D u r i n g his first sojourn on earth Christ was meek and l o v i n g . p p . I n the conflict w h i c h he revealed between feudal landlords and serf peasantry. 8 4 . The apostles had n o t considered 123 themselves as a specially privileged class w i t h i n society. Sit' viry. p p . I I . p p . w h i c h holds i t r i g h t that these t w o arrogant estates [i. t o o . H e accuses them o f leading a luxurious life at the expense o f the w o r k i n g people. n o b i l i t y and clergy] should exempt themselves [ f r o m h a r d w o r k ] and lay the whole burden on the c o m m o n f o l k . 2 4 7 . .5 9 . should be abolished. . r u l e that priests s h o u l d k e e p themselves b y s o m e f o r m o f m a n u a l w o r k w a s p u t i n t o p r a c t i c e by the U n i t y o f C z e c h B r e t h r e n a n d l a t e r b y the m o r e r a d i c a l R e f o r m a t i o n sects.' Such passages. conceiving i t as one o f revenge and violence A p a r t f r o m the acerbity o f his language the element o f revenge is n o t altogether absent: o n l y i t is postponed u n t i l the after-life. . b u t as beasts w h o m i t is o f little account to w o r k t o d e a t h . should as i t were ride u p o n t h e m . 7 1 .' Tithes. p. 5 7 . dicunt. I . 124 O trojim Postilla. .

C o m m u n i t y of goods w a s their priesthood. 2 7 0 . pp.66 PETR CHELÖICKY reform. I . pp. 1952. 145. p p . cit. 1 2 8 F o r the influence o f t h i s d o c t r i n e f r o m the b e g i n n i n g o f the fifteenth c e n t u r y o n Review.. cit. f o r instance. K a u t s k y . reges. p. The positive side o f Chelöicky's social doctrine was never so w e l l developed as his critical analysis. * 'Whoever is n o t o f G o d [writes the Czech] cannot t r u l y enjoy o r h o l d a n y t h i n g belonging to God. Die op. 7 3 . pp. indeed the only r a t i o n a l course i n view o f the vanity o f t e m p o r a l things. tarn spirituales. for i n s t a n c e . cit. otherworldliness. op. 169. t h a t Chelöicky d i d n o t advocate c o m m u n i s m o f goods . 2 6 7 ) .. Sektafstvi 1 2 7 (quoted p. except as the m a n o f violence u n l a w f u l l y enjoys a n d holds w h a t is not his o w n . p r i n c i p e s et o m n e s iudices. according to Chelöicky. ' O selmS a o b r a z e j e j i m . 3 6 5 . 320. 2 3 . p p . 3 1 . p p . 2 0 8 . T o w n life i n his o p i n i o n is inseparable f r o m violence and deceit. T f m a n was n o t deceived by avarice [he asks] w h y should he need property (zbozie) o r take any heed o f w o r l d l y things?' His views o n 12 property. representative 1 2 9 Asceticism. a n d even a m o n g o r t h o d o x t h e o l o g i a n s p r o p e r t y rights d u r i n g the M i d d l e A g e s were never c o n s i d e r e d a b s o l u t e ( V o g l . see K e l l e r . I . i m p e r a t o r e s . has seen i n Chelöicky 'a c o m m u n i s t i n the primitive Christian sense.at least as a n i m m e diately practicable s o l u t i o n . e s p e c i a l l y the Waldenses. 3 1 9 . 1 1 5 . D e c .3 5 . ' T h e whole earth belongs t o G o d : therefore o n l y those w h o were putting i n t o practice the principle o f C h r i s t i a n equality had a real claim to the use o f enough to satisfy the bare necessities o f existence. see B e t t s . ' MenSi . 3 1 . recall W y c l i f ' s theory o f dominium. 8 7 . p.8 0 . q u a m s e c u l a r e s u n a c u m p r e s b y t e r i s esse d a m p n a n d o s ' i n H o l i n k a . His injunction to give alms t o the poor w o u l d seem t o show. H e was a prophet c r y i n g i n the wilderness rather than the patient reformer bent o n a gradual t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f society. d u c e s . apart f r o m inordinate wealth o r its i m p r o p e r use. 5 5 . H e speaks here as the between t o w n and c o u n t r y . p p . J o n e s . I I . 8 8 .7 6 . 7 9 . 177). the apostolic poverty o f the first Christians remained Chelöicky's ideal throughout. c o u l d only come b y the conversion o f the powerful t h r o u g h the long-suffering patience o f the oppressed. spisy. b y N i c h o l a s o f D r e s d e n a n d the T a b o r i t e c h i l i a s t s ( P e k a f . Kautsky. 144. Slavonic Sit' viry. in Central Europe in the Time of the Reformation. cardinales. 54. preached. v Cechäch. 2 4 9 .' 127 T h o u g h indeed he d i d n o t expressly con- demn property i n itself. a protagonist i n the l o n g battle C a i n founded the first city to protect himself f r o m refinements and amenities o f u r b a n civilization. 1 3 3 . Postilla. philosophy. was a p r o m i n e n t feature o f Chelöicky's This is p a r t i c u l a r l y evident i n his negative attitude t o the o f a peasant culture. op. O boji duchovnim. 354. 2 0 0 . p. 7 3 . however. 14). indeed. p. 1 2 4 . Communism C o m m u n i s t i c tenets w e r e c e r t a i n l y h e l d b y m a n y m e d i e v a l sectaries.. e p i s c o p o s . t h o u g h the p r a c t i c e o f a p o s t o l i c p o v e r t y w a s p r o b a b l y confined o n l y to böhmischen Brüder und ihre Vorläufer. 4 2 0 . H u s a n d his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . a r c h i e p i s c o p o s . The path o f v o l u n t a r y poverty was the only way open t o a true C h r i s t i a n .

5 5 . a d d . B u t only the u r b a n proletariat. A s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n a s r e g a r d s u s u i y w a s Universitates scholarum v Cechdch. ' filled him with l o a t h i n g . a c c o r d i n g t o C h e l c i c k y h i m s e l f . t h e e a r l y T a b o r i t e s a l s o o b j e c t e d to t r a d e a n d commerce.' 'Every k i n d o f trade and p r o f i t . necessary f o r even the simplest existence. p. H i s ideal seems t o have been a loose association o f independent and self-sufficient village republics founded o n a barter e c o n o m y . usury a n d taverns. 178.. Sektafstvi P a r i s i c n s i s . Suspicion o f higher studies had been strong a m o n g the W a l d e n and early Taborites . they live i n constant fear o f losing their lives and goods. even i f they wished. the townspeople i n t u r n exercise a c o r r u p t i n g influence o n the countryside. 'they w o u l d fill i n their moats and tear d o w n their walls. the legend a b o u t C a i n is t a k e n f r o m W y c l i f (cf. 133 as well as H u s a n d his predecessors. 61. n o t e 2 . pp. was 'the simple m a n . 132 and even W y c l i f . 5 3 . and as a result the former simplicity o f life was lost f o r ever. I V . . 1 3 3 W y c l i f . the burghers are unable. n o t u n k n o w n a m o n g other medieval writers. i t was 'difficult t o sell o r b u y w i t h o u t sin o n account o f excessive greed.' M a r k e t s and fairs were equally i m m o r a l . According t o P e k a f . I n Chel&cky's o p i n i o n . A p e i n g the manners o f the n o b i l i t y . ses 131 130 A s w i t h MatSj o f Janov Chelfcicky's ideal. p. c o m i n g i n t o contact w i t h their way o f life. a n d classed a n u m b e r o f other occupations as i m m o r a l . O trojim lidu. Dialogus. U n i v e r s i t y learning. 132 Ktoijsu boii bojovnici. Sit' viry. as were the taverns and usurious practices always t o be f o u n d i n the towns. op. 118. t a k e n u p by m a n y c o n t e m p o r a r y c h u r c h a u t h o r i t i e s . then.. 1 3 1 o m n i a studia privilegiata . P r a g e n s i s .FORERUNNER OF T H E UNITY 67 the consequences o f m u r d e r i n g his brother. 39. n o r w i l l they suffer those w h o attempt to do so. h i s De civili dominio. Few. 3 3 . cit. 2 3 4 . 64. MenSispisy. I f the r u l i n g elements ever became true Christians. those 'who o w n neither houses w i t h i n the c i t y n o r l a n d w i t h o u t . 17.K r o f t a .' They w o u l d abandon their whole satanic way o f life. w h i l e . to f o l l o w i n Christ's footsteps. pp. cit. 4 1 . 9 8 . ' D a m p n a n t et r e p r o b a n t I . 38. op. indeed. T h i s m y t h . are strong enough t o escape its snares. O n l y agriculture a n d certain crafts. 3 6 ) .' a n d f o r h i m a trader was 'one w h o has the m a r k o f the Beast. p p . p. 182. derives f r o m a very strained i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Genesis. 152). p. p p .4 7 . Surrounded b y walls t o protect their illgotten possessions. were h i g h l y critical o f 130 Sit' viry. pp. . 119. while n o t c o n d e m n i n g them as such. Instead. 2 3 9 . C h e l & c k y condemned the use o f weights and measures as well as b o u n d ary marks. I . the o u t w a r d symbols o f unchristian mistrust. were permissible. 187. the e r u d i t i o n o f the schoolmen. See a l s o H o l i n k a . V i e n n e n s i s et a l i a r u m r e p u t a n t i n u t i l e s et t e m p o r i s p e r d i t i o n e m ' ( G o l l . ' were likely to f a v o u r such a policy. 7 4 . p.m a k i n g occupation connected w i t h the t o w n should be avoided i n order n o t t o h a r m one's soul. likewise produced by C a i n . .

fine costumes. learning is n o t necessary t o m a n k i n d ' s salvation. Jednota O boji duchovnim. w o r l d l y luxuries . indeed. p p . scents.were a l l snares set by the devil f o r the u n w a r y . and Chelcicky returns repeatedly to this theme. Sit' viry. pp. C f . while inveighing as he slightingly against the university masters . fine rooms. was also present i n C h e l c i c k y . R o k y c a n a ' s f u l m i n a t i o n s . 2 6 7 . Even so. solely the privileges o f the upper classes. n o doctrine not to be f o u n d there. a s fiery i n e x p r e s s i o n a s C h e l c i c k y ' s . P e k a r .. 144-46.1 7 .7 4 . op. p p . . to be prized above a l l the learning o f the universities.roty mistruo kolejskych. colours. were w r o n g since they tended t o distract the congregration f r o m the real purpose o f their attendance. calls them . op.' Chelóicky saw clearly that education was t o o often misued for the purpose o f perpetuating class differences. C u l t u r a l refinements. beautiful dresses. 135 The p u r i t a n i s m i n a r t and c u l t u r e . he argues. by their use o f the vernacular tongue. a rector or prelate. their i m m e r s i o n i n scholastic subtleties. 2 0 3 . cit. even t h o u g h this may give rise to dangers i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . tasty dishes. by their emphasis o n the Bible. i f the simple m a n does n o t also k n o w a n d understand i t for himself. 'Even a great k i n g d o m [he writes] cannot satisfy its k i n g n o r a great estate its l o r d o n account o f such display and bottomless 1 5 4 Urbánek. that some learned person knows the Bible. ' I t is not enough [he writes] . therefore. physical beauty i n m a n or w o m a n ' . . who were only able to indulge their aesthetic tastes t h r o u g h the oppression o f the masses. 138 A l l matters connected w i t h the M u s i c a n d singing i n w o r l d were dangerous f o r the soul's salvation. Simple f a i t h is.'lovely a n d delightful things.stresses the need f o r all t o be able to read the scriptures f o r themselves. H e does n o t indeed condemn learning i n itself. 5 . 2 2 8 .2 5 . pp. 1 2 1 . T h e treatment meted out at Constance t o H u s and Jerome o f Prague had shown h i m that learning had become an i n s t r u m e n t i n the hands o f the state. the w o r s h i p o f God. p r o c l a i m i n g i t to the people. i n a r t and culture. 8. 134 ChelCicky likewise. provided i t teaches n o t h i n g c o n t r a r y to the N e w Testament. and j u d g e d by its fruits i t is indeed evil. w h i c h was a m a r k e d feature a m o n g the Waldenses as well as a m o n g almost a l l sections o f the Hussite movement. H r u b ^ . these reformers were a p o w e r f u l factor i n the spread o f popular e d u c a t i o n . O n the other h a n d . a g a i n s t a l l k i n d s o f e x t r a v a g a n c e i n matters o f dress. cit. . bratrská a vyfsí vzdélání. pp. i n the amenities o f civilization. t h a t t r u t h had ceased to be its goal. soft raiment. ' I f o n l y they w o u l d cease t o l o o k d o w n o n the unlettered [thus he appeals to 'the wise'] and try out instead G o d ' s gospel. He saw..68 PETR C H E L C I C K Y the universities' failings and inconsistencies. o u t of-the-way objects. church services. the simple w o u l d indeed bear n o grudge against t h e m ' for their l e a r n i n g .

as f o r Chelcicky himself. P e k a f . Violence. .1 0 3 . Zachodni. the T r u t h had n o t prevailed. w i t h their negation o f the state and all forms o f violence. deceived i n their hopes o f social betterment t h r o u g h war and state a c t i o n . ' R e p l i k a p r o t i R o k y c a n o v i . c h a p . 6 9 . h a d b r o u g h t only misery to the peasants and u r b a n proletariat. C h a l o u p e c k y . 3 9 0 . 2 6 9 . even a m o n g the Taborites. 1 0 5 . taken i n 1457-58 p r o b a b l y still d u r i n g Chel5icky's life-time. and the wealthier townsmen. cit. cit. n o w began t o find a ready hearing a m o n g the disappointed peasants and small craftsmen. m a r k e d . the good o f the whole. 139 The first step towards the establishment o f a U n i t y o f Brethren independent o f c h u r c h and state. while at the same t i m e the p o l i t i c a l and social aims w i t h w h i c h they had set o u t were no nearer fulfilment. 9 7 .3 5 . » a c c e p t i n g B a r t o S ' s recent theories a s p r o v e d . B u t . democratic and c o m m u n i s t i c tendencies began t o disappear under pressure f r o m the representatives o f the m i n o r gentry. i n particular. Sit' "* l viry. Postilla. " M a g r . w h o had ousted the church f r o m p o l i t i c a l power and confiscated its lands f o r themselves. 8 5 . p p . B u t the only classes to derive permanent gain f r o m the l o n g years o f war were the nobles and gentry. p.. W a r . p. 2 3 2 . 5 5 . op. I I . whose leadership was essential f o r c a r r y i n g o n the war. p. the fusion o f his theoretical protest w i t h the increasing discontent o f the masses w i t h the results o f the war to defend G o d ' s w o r d . K r o f t a . o p pression and social i n e q u a l i t y . therefore. pp. 137 A t the outset o f the Hussite movement the element o f social protest h a d . p. demanded the a b o l i t i o n o f a culture based on violence. 1 2 6 . 1 3 . Listy.. p p . pp. Pravda vitezi. therefore. The peasants' legal status. The battle o f L i p a n y (1434) merely m a r k e d the c o m p l e t i o n o f this process o f social reaction. cit. c h a m p i o n i n g the rights o f those w h o h a d r e m a i n e d i n their villages a n d n o t b e e n d r a w n i n t o o n e o r o t h e r o f the o p p o s i n g armies. been a powerful d r i v i n g force. B u t for the d o w n t r o d d e n i n t o w n and country. therefore. must be applied to their o w n p o o r and the p o o r o f other lords.6 0 . the Hussite leaders had p r o u d l y proclaimed. 137 O boji duchovnim. h a s s h o w n . X I V . ' Przeglqd 1951. op. 138 Chelcicky's teachings. 2 7 0 . a s for i n s t a n c e F o u s t k a . A f t e r 1420.9 5 . deterioriated steadily t h r o u g h o u t the c e n t u r y .FORERUNNER OF THE UNITY 69 greed. I . indeed.' Social as well as m o r a l considerations. ' selskeho stavu. C h e l i i c k y . Dijiny pp. sees i n C h e l c i c k y a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the interests o f the m i n o r gentry.w a s i n fact s p e a k i n g o n b e h a l f o f the p e a s a n t r y a m o n g w h o m h e l i v e d . p. w h o had taken over the privileged p o s i t i o n o f their former G e r m a n rivals..w h a t e v e r m a y a c t u a l l y h a v e been h i s s o c i a l o r i g i n s . ' P i o t r C h e l c z y c k i i S z y m o n B u d n y . op.

therefore. Vladislav IPs reign. the abandonment by the overwhelming m a j o r i t y o f its members o f the radical p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines.II THE OLD BRETHREN The origins o f the U n i t y o f Brethren reach back to the middle fifties o f the fifteenth century. w h o acted together as the executive organ o f the U n i t y . still maintained the seven c h u r c h sacraments. more i m p o r t a n t . Founded d u r i n g the winter o f 1457-58. responsible only to synods o r general assemblies held at first at irregular intervals and composed o f a l l the priests i n charge o f the local congregations a n d o f the lay functionaries o f the church. and f o r l o n g transubstantiation and the celibacy o f its clergy as well. This was due i n large measure t o the increasing power o f the great nobles. was a period o f fairly steady g r o w t h i n numbers and influence. the U n i t y f o r m ally broke b o t h w i t h R o m e and the official U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h a decade later. by i n s t i t u t i n g its o w n separate priesthood and dispensing w i t h the usual channels o f apostolic succession.or bishop. T h e end o f the century was to m a r k an epoch i n the history o f the U n i t y : the renewal o f persecution o n the p a r t o f the state a n d . Indeed. A t the t o p was the chief elder . the U n i t y was to meet o n this account w i t h severe persecution at the hands o f the authorities. its action was a r e v o l u t i o n a r y one even i n fifteenth-century Bohemia. d u r i n g the reign o f K i n g George o f PodSbrady. T h o u g h the U n i t y . . as he was to be k n o w n i n the next century . when an efficient administrative organization was set up t o govern the y o u n g church. i n 1461 a n d again f r o m 1468-71. w h i c h give a specific character to w h a t may be termed the period o f the O l d Brethren. which concerned itself l i t t l e w i t h complicated theological problems. w h o i n some cases f o u n d i t to their advantage t o extend protection t o the communities o f industrious a n d f r u g a l Brethren established o n their estates. the Brethren were to enjoy a p e r i o d o f comparative quiet and freedom f r o m outside interference. i n 1467. B u t f r o m the accession o f K i n g Vladislav I I i n 1471 u n t i l the beginning o f the next century.w i t h his c o u n c i l (Ozkd radd) o f lay and clerical advisers.

Those w h o sought office to satisfy a lust f o r power o r fame were no better than thieves o r even murderers. Trade. B u t the final destruction o f T a b o r i n 1452 a n d the a r r i v a l i n B o h e m i a o f the y o u n g C a t h o l i c K i n g . w h i c h he was n o w able t o give i n his o l d c h u r c h . Rokycana's sermons were essentially the p r o d u c t o f a m a n . t o o . H e began t o denounce abuses i n c h u r c h a n d state. p. 934. was unbecoming i n a C h r i s t i a n . whose a i m was ' t o choose the m i d d l e way (v mieru uchoditi). i n Rokycana's o p i n i o n . the T ^ n c h u r c h i n Prague. against usury. w h o cloaked their avarice under a pretence o f m a i n t a i n i n g order. Jan Rokycana. C i v i l government and the existing social system c o u l d be instruments o f God's w i l l i f r i g h t l y administered. signified a new t u r n o f events: m a n y feared a r e t u r n t o the state o f affairs w h i c h h a d existed i n the years f o l l o w i n g Sigismund's assumption o f the c r o w n i n 1436. the simple c o u n t r y f o l k were m o r e concerned t o attain salvation than those w h o lived i n towns.THE OLD BRETHREN 71 H a l f a century earlier. T h e tone o f Rokycana's sermons. made possible only t h r o u g h the labours o f the p o o r . were to be carried o n only according t o strictly denned rules. For wealth m i g h t be p u t to g o o d purpose. where the t e m p t a t i o n t o yield to sin was so m u c h greater. the t a k i n g o f oaths. Indeed. H e spoke o u t against excessive wealth. industry. met w i t h his sternest disapproval. the increasing number o f men w h o became mercenaries. a n d the l u x u r i o u s a n d sinful life o f the richer burghers was condemned i n the strongest terms. Ladislav. . however.' 1 I t was o n l y excesses t h a t were condemned. I I . w i t h the predominance w o n by George o f Podebrady i n 1448 a n d his entry i n t o Prague i n the same year accompanied by the archbishop-elect. T h e a d o p t i o n by many Czechs o f soldiering as a profession. a n d commerce. by Rokycana as the official head o f the U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h . t o call for a r e t u r n t o the p a t t e r n o f p r i m i t i v e C h r i s t i a n i t y . Officials and judges were t o act j u s t l y a n d n o t oppress the p o o r a n d the weak. he tended to extol the virtues o f the p o o r a n d oppressed over against the t y r a n n y a n d m o r a l c o r r u p t i o n o f the upper classes. I n spite o f their radical c o l o u r i n g . a n d the use o f the death penalty f o r such crimes as theft. a n d they soon led to an estrangement between h i m a n d PodSbrady. the prospects f o r U t r a q u i s m h a d brightened. since Podebrady himself was n o w p u r s u i n g a conciliatory policy towards the papal c o u r t . a theme i n line w i t h early Hussite thought. 1 Posiilla Jana Rokycany. t o o . against the oppression o f the peasantry by their lords. A n y eagerness t o shed b l o o d . against the pride a n d ostentation o f the r i c h . These fears were shared. Here MatSj o f Janov a n d Jakoubek o f S t f i b r o p r o v i d e d his i n s p i r a t i o n . said Rokycana. I n general. became increasingly outspoken.

7v. was later to w r i t e t h a t they were d r a w n b o t h f r o m simple men and also f r o m the ranks o f 'the learned. 4 2 6 . Ceske postilly. 7. a leading member o f the U n i t y . 74. 106. C. was t o offset some o f the grosser forms o f social inequality. 7 3 . b u t . ' O u c e n y c h .. R o k y c a n a ' s Postilla. This. 2 0 1 .0 6 . X . G o l l . 3 We k n o w the name o f at least one priest w h o was a member o f the g r o u p : M a r t i n o f K r S i n . His sermons were given p r o b a b l y over a period o f more t h a n a year. C. ' N e z n a m a d i l a J a n a R o k y c a n y v m u s e j 1919. A member o f the m i n o r gentry who w o r k e d as a t a i l o r for his l i v i n g . students a n d scholars. was n o t necessarily t a n t a m o u n t t o an absolute p r o h i b i t i o n o f these t w o institutions. N o more d i d he ever conceive o f a social order i n w h i c h class divisions d i d not exist. ' K r a s o n i c k y . A l m s g i v i n g . B l a h o s l a v . was t o be the case w i t h Rokycana. C. Rokycana's eloquence as a preacher. 550. one o f the earliest Brethren. 746. p. 2 Often. every f o r m o f o a t h .2 5 . Rokycana's nephew and the future founder o f the U n i t y . M. w h i c h he m a y e v e n h a v e begun to p r e a c h as e a r l y a s 1453. T h e y h a v e not. C f . 2 2 . 4 1 7 . 7 9 4 . 523.. to s o m e extent r e p r e s e n t s a toned-down v e r s i o n o f h i s s e r m o n s o f the m i d d l e fifties. 9 2 . 134. ' fol. 13. Rehof had originally been a follower o f the 1 Ibid. f r o m A p r i l 1454 to July 1455. B u t its acknowledged leader was Rehor. 1 8 8 . the followers w h o m such a leader easily gathers a r o u n d h i m are not prepared to d r a w back f r o m the logical consequences o f their master's doctrine.like H u s and m o s t o f his contemporaries and predecessors .7 9 .. 5 5 6 .9 2 . then aged about t h i r t y .' C. free f r o m learned theological formulae. h o w e v e r . 2 7 2 . 336. w h i c h finally t o o k 5 2 2 . 100. 129-49.5 0 0 .72 THE OLD BRETHREN Rokycana d i d n o t i n fact condemn a l l war. o n its present form in the e a r l y y e a r s o f G e o r g e o f P o d e b r a d y ' s reign. f r o m those conclusions w h i c h he himself expressly rejects. 1 7 4 . 714-18. and a group soon arose among those w h o regularly attended.' i n fact f r o m the intelligentsia o f the capital.9 6 . pp.' and his reference to the parable o f the wheat and the tares i n connection w i t h the death penalty. Few personal details about these individual 'hearers (posluchace)' have come d o w n . n i c h rukopisech. esp. . Hruby. ' R o k y c a n o v a Postilla. the simple and comprehensible language i n w h i c h he spoke. pp. 365. w h i c h met f r o m time t o t i m e to discuss the subjects raised i n the course o f their delivery. 2 7 3 . F o r his belief t h a t the o n l y outcome o f war was to "fill the air w i t h the cries o f the p o o r . attracted m a n y listeners. O p&vodu Jednoty bratrske a fadu v ni. pp. One o f the g r o u p was designated to note d o w n their contents. the exercise o f Christian charity by the r i c h .X I V . Krasonicky. indeed. 747. 12. the earth w i t h blood and hell w i t h spirits. p p . 8 3 1 . M. the use o f the death penalty for exceptionally grave crimes. pp. 36. 1879.he left the f r a m e w o r k o f feudal society u n t o u c h e d . 4 9 4 . 63. however. 850-53. 9 3 . 62. B a r t o S . I . s u r v i v e d i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l form. I I . 7 0 . 8 3 2 .

8 8 . I I I . pp.' I t was the Christian d u t y o f those i n a u t h o r i t y . 1 1 3 . possibly. p p . the source o f m a n y o f the U n i t y ' s later ideas i n the p o l i t i c a l . p. constrained and compelled. and m o r a l field can be traced back to the words that the earnest y o u n g men heard at this p e r i o d f r o m Rokycana's p u l p i t and to the inferences that they drew f r o m t h e m . and had for a number o f years been an inmate o f the Hussite monastery na Slovanech. 53. H e had apparently had little f o r m a l t h o u g h he possessed some knowledge o f L a t i n . Cheléicky a Jednota Ceskoslovensku. the kings and princes. Dëjiny kfest'anstvi siècle: VUnité pp. 2 0 . 2 9 . 2 7 . text pp.2 9 . H r e j s a . Goll-Krofta. lords and squires.2 2 . as some m a i n t a i n . 2 2 4 . see B a r t o S ' s e s s a y i n Svëtci a kacifi. I. 1 0 9 . 6 8 . Postilla Jana Rokycany. 5 des Frères. V l c e k . B u t he was a m a n o f remarkable energy w i t h an outstanding gift for organization and for i n s p i r i n g others w i t h his o w n enthusiasm. 3 7 . 92. o n the subject o f oaths and war they read i n t o them a t o t a l condemnation along Chelôicky's lines. 9 3 . anyone w h o has accepted the faith may be constrained and forced to keep and preserve i t aright as he promised on baptism. p. R e h o f and the other members o f his group appear t o have interpreted Rokycana's fiery words i n a more radical spirit than the preacher himself had meant t h e m . layman t h r o u g h o u t . while remaining a education. a n d his contact w i t h Brother Rehor and Rokycana's 'hearers' is the 4 Akty Jednoty bratrské (ed. pp. Petr Chelôicky was then nearing the end o f his life. I I . he wrote. he was also to be responsible for directing their attention t o the m a n whose direct influence o n the U n i t y . especially as regards its social a n d p o l i t i c a l doctrines. F o r instance.' 4 Later. 189¬ F o r R e h o r . Jan o f P r i b r a m . ' Y o u used t o b r a n d as evil [the Brethren were to w r i t e to h i m i n 1468] swearing o r going t o w a r i n one's o w n person i n order to k i l l others. . 605 . 5 Nevertheless.9 0 .2 7 . Dëjiny ceské literatury. I n t r o . v XV stoleti.9 5 . B i d l o ) . N o t only had Rokycana i m p l a n t e d i n his followers the seeds o f the ideas f r o m w h i c h the U n i t y was later t o grow. H e was i n fact a b o r n leader. 7 2 6 . Rokycana himself was to deny The Christian explicitly the validity o f that h o s t i l i t y t o the state i n all its manifestations. pp. pp. social. p p . w h i c h i t is evident was n o t the Master's i n t e n t i o n . v bratrské. Tapié. p o s i t i o n . Dëjiny Jednoty I I I . t o enforce r i g h t l i v i n g o n the refractory.6 4 . 4 9 .T H E OLD BRETHREN 73 conservative U t r a q u i s t .7 2 . But rather. w h i c h the early Brethren were to adopt f r o m Chelcicky. 8 5 2 . was ' n o t . or. that no one should be T h a t is a lie. was t o be even greater than his o w n . 1 2 5 . I . and his words were seized u p o n by his followers as c o n f i r m a t i o n o f their o w n views.4 3 . Vëkpodëbradsky. the latter i n the heat o f the moment expressed himself i n more unqualified terms t h a n he w o u l d n o r m a l l y have used.4 2 . M i i l l e r .B a r t o S . Une église tchèque au XVe U r b á n e k . 6 2 .

b u t also w i t h other religious groups. 6 Indeed. and his actual position as the head o f a state c h u r c h . i n p a r t i c u l a r the search for priests o f pure life f r o m w h o m the sacraments m i g h t be received w i t h o u t fear o f their being tainted by the prevailing m o r a l c o r r u p t i o n : a l l these motives impelled R e h o f and others f r o m his circle to make contact. . as well as dues. cit. cit. fol. f r o m the peasants • B i d l o . ' F r o m a l l this [they wrote o f the effect w h i c h Chel5icky's works had u p o n them] we saw t h a t there was much evil i n priests and people. but were later repelled by irregularities i n its eucharistic practice. so that we finally came t o d o u b t even about y o u . d u r i n g the p e r i o d when he was giving his famous sermons. then later [they add] we spoke w i t h h i m and read his w o r k s .. t o o . ' T h e ChelSicky Brethren lent them t w o o f their master's books. w i t h w h i c h he was certainly i n basic disagreement. 8v. See also K r a s o n i c k . 14. They were i n close t o u c h w i t h M a r t i n LupaC. 'We sent y o u the books we received f r o m t h e m [they wrote i n 1468] and.' church.' I t is indicative.. as well as by the fact that these V i l e m o v B r e t h ren were accustomed ' t o accept wealth. o f the radicalism o f Rokycana's o u t l o o k at t h a t time that apparently he d i d n o t feel called t o say a w o r d o f criticism. a desire t o discover similar religious c o m munities free f r o m the blemishes o f the state religion. a reading o f Chelcicky's w o r k s soon disciples as to the began to raise doubts i n the minds o f Rokycana's consistency o f the b o l d words. They visited the c o m m u n i t y w h i c h had been established i n the former Benedictine monastery o f Vilemov. The Brethren were later to remind Rokycana t h a t . i t is very d o u b t f u l .74 T H E O L D BRETHREN last incident i n i t o f w h i c h we have certain record.^ . 13. op. Rokycana's assistant bishop a n d a theologian o f radical views. i f y o u had disapproved. not only w i t h ChelCicky and his Brethren. w i t h those small bands o f seekers w h i c h had sprung u p at t h a t period w i t h i n the U t r a q u i s t church. However.' w h i c h has usually been identified as 0 trojim lidu. w h i c h they heard f r o m their master's pulpit. nevime. indeed. 3. as one o f the main bulwarks o f the existing social order. i f we s h o u l d have accepted t h e m (a by ty byl nam zhyzdil. whether y o u d i d n o t do i n fact t h a t w h i c h y o u held t o be wrong. one o n A n t i c h r i s t and later another o n 'the temporal power (moc svetskd). bychom byliprijali). 'he had praised Petr Cheldicky before us. even about Chel£icky's views o n c i v i l government. A t t h a t period however Rokycana's disciples were so m u c h under his influence t h a t they at once b r o u g h t these books back t o h i m for his opinion. 606. p. b y p u t t i n g his disciples i n t o t o u c h w i t h Chel5icky Rokycana had u n w i t t i n g l y l a i d the first b r i c k i n the edifice o f a r i v a l A feeling o f spiritual unrest. op.

. to h a v e possessed the gifts o f religious l e a d e r s h i p . i n whose person Rokycana's disciples h a d f o u n d their ideal priest. suspected by t h e m o f a T a b o r i t e deviation i n the doctrine o f the Eucharist. 2 0 3 . taken i n the w i n t e r o f 1457-58.K r o f t a . C. A n y h o w the decision. cit. t h o u g h i t was nearly ten years before a f o r m a l separation f r o m the U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h actually took the records tell us place. the l e a d e r o f the V i t a n o v i c e B r e t h r e n .8 8 . where K u n v a l d was situated.. U r b á n e k . 4 5 . cit. m a n y individuals must already have been d r a w n i n t o the m o v e m e n t . e l e c t i o n ( M a r c h 1458). visiting especially often south Bohemia. The archbishop. 224. B o t h m e n w e r e to b e c o m e l e a d i n g m e m b e r s o f the U n i t y . Tapié. 9 8 7 . 6 8 . • G o l l . w h e n the socalled Vitanovice Brethren b r o k e away f r o m the m a i n g r o u p . to discover w h y Rokycana's 'hearers' d i d n o t use Chelcicky's g r o u p as the nucleus f o r a new religious c o m m u n i t y . 8 The settlement o f the Brethren at K u n v a l d m a r k s the v i r t u a l f o u n d a t i o n o f the U n i t y as a n independent g r o u p . op. then intervened w i t h George o f Podébrady t o o b t a i n his permission f o r t h e m t o settle o n his estate o f Litice. w h i l e G o l l c o n s i d e r e d h i m i d e n t i c a l w i t h J a n K o l á f o f V i t a n o v i c e ( l a t e r k n o w n a s J a n C h e l c i c k y ) . w h o was responsible for the expansion o f the g r o u p f r o m a t i n y circle. a s J a n Táborsky. w e r e J a n O p o c n a a n d J a k u b o f D i v i s o v . h o w e v e r . cit. another centre o f Brethren a c t i v i t y was K r c i n . T h e y d o n o t a p p e a r . 1457) a n d George's p. 6 4 5 . was priest. Possibly they d i d n o t consider ChelCice remote enough f r o m the w o r l d . where one o f Rokycana's 'hearers. U r b á n e k . 1921. p u t s it b e t w e e n V l a d i s l a v ' s d e a t h ( N o v . places the settlement at K u n v a l d i n the p e r i o d j u s t after G e o r g e ' s e l e c t i o n to the t h r o n e .. C. 6 4 . . consisting m a i n l y o f intellectuals and restricted t o the capital. and little This new c h u r c h was t o represent a fusion o f several social elements o f different religious groupings. M. t o settle i n the village o f K u n v a l d i n north-east B o h e m i a seems t o have been connected w i t h the fact t h a t the priest o f the neighbouring townlet o f Zamberk was M i c h a l . may have been an i m p o r t a n t factor.. op. B a r t o s identifies J a n . i n t o a movement w h i c h had adherents i n m a n y other districts. 2 2 5 . pp. n o t resting content w i t h their tithes and free-will offerings. p. w h o s e n a m e s o c c u r i n the e a r l i e s t records. o f the social strata f r o m w h i c h the U n i t y drew its o r i g i n a l membership.' M a r t i n . pp.THE OLD BRETHREN 75 and from their 7 woods. B u t i t was Rehof. op. and elsewhere t o o . T w o priests o f e x e m p l a r y life.' I t is difficult.6 8 . 9 8 6 . U n f o r t u n a t e l y . They speak only o f 'certain educated persons and priests and certain ' Ibid. indeed.0 6 . ' Z pocátku J e d n o t y bratrské'. w h o approved o f their desire t o flee f r o m the c o r r u p t i o n o f the cities t o find refuge i n the remote m o u n t a i n valley. o w i n g t o Rehof's journeyings. while G o l l . p p . pp. p p . A p a r t f r o m K u n v a l d and Prague itself. 4 3 . w h o since at least 1456 had been traveling u p and d o w n the country. p r o b a b l y t o o the split w h i c h occurred soon after Chelcicky's death. B a r t o S .

a wandering Taborite priest.. See also G o l l .. while the b u l k o f the membership was d r a w n f r o m the peasantry and small craftsmen. D r i v e n o u t f r o m K r o m ë r i i b y the bishop o f O l o m o u c i n 1456. cit. in 1467. 119. op. the first bishop. and pursued their wanderings amidst continual persecution. 9 . had gathered a considerable f o l l o w i n g a r o u n d h i m . where a U t r a q u i s t priest. 10 The leadership. 11 A t the end o f the fifties. K l a t o v then became an i m p o r t a n t centre o f ' 1 0 B i d l o . some even w i t h university degrees: P r o k o p o f J i n d richûv Hradec and A u g u s t i n H a l a r o f Chrudím. a g r o u p w i t h radical Taborite. p.' antecedents fused with the groups centred a r o u n d the settlement at K u n v a l d . broke away under a cutler.. fol. pp. who retracted his views under t o r t u r e i n 1461. and Eliás Chrenovicky. op. t h r o u g h Rehof's proselytizing efforts i n south Bohemia. 120. pp. Soon they were i n t u r n expelled f r o m Mezifië. Stëpàn. précisément p a r c e q u ' i l s s o n t si different d ' e u x : c'est l a dernière et nécessaire p h a s e de l a m a l a d i e révolutionnaire: après les héros. 3 1 8 : les ' L e s disciples de K h e l t c h i t s k y [sic]. Tapié. Stëpânek. 3 2 2 . op. and T u m a Preloucsky. that is to say. . op. Here a split occurred when those who held ' P i c a r d ' views on the eucharist. w h i c h p a r t l y explains the strength o f social radicalism a m o n g the Brethren o f t h a t area. he and his followers wandered first to Meziriô.. o n account o f the denun- Stëpàn (who however eventually ended Here up himself as a member o f the U n i t y ) . I . already the birthplace o f the Czech revolutionary movement.. finally settling at K l a t o v i n south Bohemia. w h o denied the real presence i n the c o m m u n i o n bread and wine. p. b o t h bachelors o f the university. This T a b o r i t e group was indeed to constitue. This fact. the nucleus o f the south Bohemian branch o f the U n i t y . C f . even 'Picard. cit. then. op.K r o f t a . n o u s a p p a r a i s s e n t a i n s i c o m m e c o n t i n u a t e u r s des T a b o r i t e s . D e n i s . K r a s o n i c k y . les Frères. cit. w i t h the remnants o f the Chelcicky Brethren. 9 8 8 . cit. But there was f r o m the beginning a s p r i n k l i n g o f educated members. was to be o f great importance d u r i n g the schism w h i c h occurred at the end o f the century. Jira Pétikostelsky. ' . Veliky V i t . one o f the three first priests.' priests and laymen. w h o ad- vocated a literal carrying-out o f the injunctions o f apostolic poverty on the part o f the priesthood. The group had originated i n the early fifties from Kromëfiz i n M o r a v i a . t w o came o f peasant o r i g i n : Matèj.' 9 THE OLD BRETHREN O f the three laymen t o be chosen later. came m a i n l y f r o m Rokycana's 'hearers.76 simple people. 1 1 Bohème. p. 241-45. as the Unity's first priests. the same elements w h i c h had previously formed the rank and file o f the T a b o r i t e movement. les m a r t y r s . Rehor. Brother Rehor f o u n d t h e m a b o u t 1458-59 and b r o u g h t them i n t o the rapidly expanding U n i t y . and j o i n e d up w i t h ciations o f their former master. U r b á n e k . Fin de VIndependence cit.

despite the persecution w h i c h b r o k e o u t i n 1461. H r e j s a . cit. 86.. as well as t o the fears aroused by the new religious c o m m u n i t y a m o n g U t r a q u i s t priests. op. novsky o f R y c h n o v . a s G ö l l h i m s e l f p o i n t s o u t . F i n a l l y .. therefore. pp. b u t u l t i m a t e l y unsuccessful. T h e first v o l u m e o f G ö l l . had to hide i n the forests and m o u n t a i n s . being accepted i n t o the U n i t y only after repentance. 12 A t the end o f the fifties. p p . ' D i e Weihe der ersten Priester [writes Göll] is das schwierigste P r o b l e m der Brüdergeschichte.give the results o f l a t e r r e s e a r c h o n t h i s subject. t o prevent the U n i t y f r o m increasing i n numbers and influence. The measures taken. extremist Taborite and 'Picard* eucharistic doctrines were. Jan Rych13 Nevertheless. B i d l o . bent u p o n b r i n g i n g public life and private morals i n t o complete c o n f o r m i t y w i t h the demands o f the gospels. G o l l . too. and himself and M i c h a l o f finding refuge. the services o f the few ' g o o d ' priests o f R o m a n o r d i n a t i o n . pp. op.B a r t o s . the former Klatov Brethren continued to act as a focal p o i n t f o r radical theological and some o f their Zamberk. thereby f o r m a l l y breaking n o t only w i t h official U t r a q u i s m . i t is a s o l d a s the U n i t y itself. cit. t h o u g h . I t had taken almost a decade to b r i n g this fact home t o t h e m . w h o m they possessed.4 1 . Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Böhmischen 1 3 1 4 Brüder. 8 3 . the role played by the latter i n the setting u p o f an independent priesthood i n the U n i t y has been one o f the most debated points i n its history. and henceforth those suspected o f such antecedents had t o go t h r o u g h a p r o b a t i o n a r y period. T h e s t a n d a r d U n i t y h i s t o r i e s M i i l l e r . Indeed.THE OLD BRETHREN 77 U n i t y activities.' 1 2 from among the ranks o f the l a i t y . op. cit. i n c l u d i n g Rehof imprisoned. dfinitely rejected. 6 3 6 . to show the Brethren that there was n o r o o m w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k o f the U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h f o r a c o m m u n i t y such as theirs. w h i c h were due to K i n g George's desire to prove to the rest o f Europe that Bohemia was n o t a hotbed o f heresy. negotiations f o r fusion w i t h the Waldenses. . b u t w i t h the 14 U r b á n e k . T h e sixties were a p e r i o d o f r a p i d expansion for the U n i t y . were leading members. 9 3 . o n the near-by estates o f a sympathetic nobleman.K r o f t a . were n o t enforced w i t h sufficient vigour. t h o u g h . 5 5 0 . either t h r o u g h death or i m p r i s o n m e n t . b u t fears o f losing. however. The synod had been preceded by protacted. M a n y members.. They were enough. at the Synod o f L h o t k a (near R y c h n o v ) i n 1467 they t o o k the u l t i m a t e step o f electing their o w n priesthood whole Catholic church. social ideas w i t h i n the U n i t y . a n d T a p i é . 3 3 . T h e Brethren were t e m p o r a r i l y driven f r o m K u n v a l d . w a s o n e o f the earliest attempts to deal w i t h t h i s p r o b l e m i n d e t a i l . largely t h r o u g h B r o t h e r Rehof's influence. however. strengthened the feeling t h a t a radical s o l u t i o n was necessary. the first o f a long series i n its history. however.

w h o functioned j u s t across the border i n A u s t r i a . 34. I t is. B u t . whose members still p u t i n t o practice the teachings o f the gospel. etc.. M a r t i n Lupac. W i t h the n a t i o n a l r e v i v a l i n the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y C z e c h h i s t o r i a n s (e. T h i r d l y . C. indeed. the p r o b l e m figures largely i n the c l a i m s put forward u n t i l recently by the M o r a v i a n C h u r c h for the a p o s t o l i c s u c c e s s i o n o f t h e i r bishops t h r o u g h the U n i t y a n d the W a l d e n s e s . 567. op. s i x t e e n t h . after the Brethren's break w i t h Rokycana. had survived anywhere f r o m apostolic times. The 17 reasons w h y . especially i n matters o f p r i n c i p l e . I . Stephen o f Basel. 193. cit.t h e p r o b l e m h a s figured so p r o m i n e n t l y i n U n i t y h i s t o r y a r e threefold. Chelcicky's was probably the more conscious one. as w i t h ChelSicky. Ibid. Their enquiries had ranged as far as Russia. 'whenever we have h e l d converse w i t h t h e m . U n i t y . w r i t i n g t o R o k y c a n a i n 1463. w h e n U n i t y h i s t o r i o g r a p h y w a s b o r n . ' O stycich a p o m e r u s e k t y W a l d e n s k e k n e k d e j s i m s e k t a m v C e c h a c h . by b o t h ChelSicky and the Waldenses. Waldensian leaders.a p a r t f r o m its i n t r i n s i c i m p o r t a n c e . 1 5 G o l l . P a l a c k y . therefore. M. p. ' C. pp. B i d l o . education. and.. a n d s e v e n t e e n t h centuries. " 17 . 35.. 3 2 6 . t o be one o f the m a i n factors i n their decision t o establish their o w n independent o r g a n ization. I n the fifteenth. w a r . M a r t i n o f K r 5 i n .. were o n friendly terms w i t h their bishop. The Brethren at this p e r i o d were indeed l o o k i n g far afield i n their search to discover i f a pure church. 1868. pp. 15 Direct contact w i t h the Waldenses p r o b a b l y began about 1461. remarks o n the latter's tolerant and friendly attitude towards the Waldenses. almost impossible t o disentangle one influence His f r o m the other. since fundamentally t h e same attitude was taken up i n regard to such subjects as the state. and even I n d i a .. oaths. 16. the failure o f their hopes was. a d d i n g that. 3 1 6 . a n d the death penalty. t h o u g h they were to continue t o believe i n the existence o f true Christians among the various churches a n d a m o n g all nations. we have n o t f o u n d them far removed f r o m us. ' 16 This shows that negotiations between the two groups were already under way. as for the Brethren.78 THE OLD BRETHREN B u t the direct influence w h i c h the Waldenses exercised o n the p o l i t i c a l and social ideas o f the Brethren is equally unclear. op.2 8 . Greece. cit. the B r e t h r e n w e r e persecuted u n d e r the n o m e n c l a t u r e o f W a l d e n s e s : h e n c e t h e i r a n x i e t y to d e n y too c l o s e a c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s sect.1 7 ) w e r e l i k e w i s e k e e n to stress the n a t i v e o r i g i n s o f the m o s t p r o m i - n e n t o f the C z e c h r e f o r m a t i o n c h u r c h e s .g. who i n t u r n framed the theoretical basis o f its ideology. i t may have been Rokycana himself w h o recommended the Brethren to seek o u t the F o r he and his assistant. p. writings obviously shaped the thoughts o f those leading members o f the B u t the circulation o f Waldensian influences among the masses o f the p o p u l a t i o n f r o m w h o m the U n i t y drew most o f its members prepared the g r o u n d f o r acceptance o f such d o c t r i n e s .

Rather should he distribute i t as alms. w h o n o w represented the Waldenses after Stephen's death.. Friedrich Jahrhundert. C.f. M. Waldensian had agreed to a l l conditions l a i d d o w n by the Brethren. directly concerned w i t h social se practice.later j o i n e d the U n i t y a n d relations between the t w o churches continued t o be friendly. ' C. B u t there was t o be no f o r m a l union. F o r i t is indeed n o t only against the f a i t h for a C h r i s t i a n priest t o lay u p treasure f r o m earthly things. op. categorically refused the terms o f the alliance previously agreed upon. lide maß miti k cirkvi had fimske. Müller. 38. cit. therefore. see J u n g . 2 1 4 .. op.T H E O L D BRETHREN 79 The Conversations w i t h Stephen h a d at first progressed favourably. cit. a n d their f o l l o w e r s w e r e s t r o n g l y u n d e r Taborite geschichte " influences. 1 8 W h a t were the conditions p u t f o r w a r d by the U n i t y as a sine qua non o f a u n i t e d church? These were. b i s h o p w h o c o n s e c r a t e d B r o t h e r M i c h a l i n 1467/68. pp. C. and M a r t i n the G e r m a n . 328. w a s a m e m b e r b r a n c h founded by F r i e d r i c h R e i s e r ( b u r n t at S t r a s b u r g i n 1458) a s a n entirely independent f r o m the official c h u r c h . for otherwise .he has abjured the apostolic f a i t h and thereby excluded himself f r o m grace. under pressure f r o m his friends a m o n g the U t r a q u i s t clergy. was responsible for the fact that no merger t o o k place between the t w o g r o u p s . F o r r a t h e r s i m i l a r c r i t i c i s m s . w h o u n t i l recently w a s believed W a l d e n s e r b i s c h o f S t e p h a n u n d die W e i h e d e r ersten Brüderpriester. to h a v e been the of 'Der B.7 7 . pp. B l a h o s l a v . p. The Brethren f o u n d the Waldenses' priests had fallen off i n their practice o f apostolic poverty.. negotations behaviour: They take f r o m their people and. several years after the priests' finally broken 1921. B u t i n the meantime Stephen himself h a d been seized by the authorities a n d b u r n t at Vienna i n A u g u s t 1467. T h e Waldensian unwillingness t o accept the p a r t i a l c o m m u n i s m o f the early Brethren. C. neglecting the p o o r .1 8 . Stephen. negotiations for fusion t o o k a t u r n f o r the worse.according t o the w r i t i n g s o f the apostles . a n d the stories the latter heard f r o m Stephen concerning the apostolic successi o n . 19 They c o m p l a i n i n their tract Kterak down. C f . Waldensian the r a d i c a l organization j c h o ücast p r i u s t a v e n i J e d n o t y b r a t r s k e . " BartoS.a n d u n d o u b t e d l y m a n y o f their followers i n Bohemia . 1916. amass m u c h wealth.. cit. " V a l d e n s k y b i s k u p Stepän z B a s i l e j e a 1916. Reiser: Eine Ketzeraus dem fünfzehnten B i d l o . led t h e m later t o seek c o n f i r m a t i o n f o r their orders f r o m the Waldenses. of the Waldensian w r i t t e n i n 1471. S t e p h e n a n d R e i s e r ' s o r d e r s w e r e d e r i v e d f r o m the T a b o r i t e b i s h o p . F o r R e i s e r .S c h m i d t . M. pp. w h i c h supposedly existed i n his c h u r c h .. Mikuläs o f P e l h f i m . op. together w i t h a disinclination t o break entirely w i t h official U t r a q u i s m . p. Several Waldensian priests . indeed. Thereafter. 128-44. b u t even to i n h e r i t p r o p e r t y f r o m his parents..' Z. 2 7 3 . n o t forgetting the p o o r i n need.

' A t a n y rate the regulations c o n t a i n e d there a t least refer to the U n i t y i n the p e r i o d before the s c h i s m i n the nineties. chap.whether at home o r on a j o u r n e y . T h e n came the o r d i n a r y Brothers a n d Sisters. F o r i t is r i g h t a n d proper that those w h o are called to Christ's service should be abstemious i n their eating a n d modest i n their dress. . . having means. .f r o m those w h o . penitent (kajici). Ideología polilycznai " spoleczna Braci Polskich. receiving sufficient f o r their proper needs . see K e l l e r . therefore. according to the example given by the first Christian leaders. 2 1 F i n a l l y there were 'the probationers n o t yet a d m i t t e d i n t o f u l l membership o f Complete fulfilment o f the injunctions o f apostolic Christiani- ty was. . They should. avoid a l l superfluities. about w h o m it is w r i t t e n that they held all things i n c o m m o n . Die böhmischen Brüder und ihre . fol. demanded o n l y o f the first category. .as they were also called. M o s t authorities f o l l o w the date given i n A k t a J e d n o t y Bratrské. . ' These f o r m e d the overwhelming m a j o r i t y o f the membership. 20 A c c o r d i n g to the decree issued b y the synod. 'the perfect' . Such an arrangement was believed to have been enforced i n the apostolic c h u r c h : i t was. therefore. the renunciation o f a l l private p r o p e r t y . cit.80 THE OLD BRETHREN F o r d u r i n g the middle sixties the Brethren's views h a d . . members o f the U n i t y (Bratri I n the first g r o u p came the priests a n d teachers and those laymen w h o had v o l u n t a r i l y renounced a l l w o r l d l y wealth. op. I V . 261 v. described as 'those w h o live f r o m a handicraft o r f r o m the l a n d . p. t h o u g h a h i g h standard o f social a n d m o r a l behaviour was indeed expected o f a l l members. neither private property n o r money nor any other t h i n g .. see K o t . was the m a r k o f the highest category. obligatory f o r a l l those w h o sincerely tried to p u t Christ's teachings i n t o practice.' the U n i t y . 4 9 : ' s a date e s t . for instance. " F o r a detailed d i s c u s s i o n o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the first B r e t h r e n to the e a r l i e r Vorläufer. d o u t e u s e . m e d i e v a l sectaries w i t h t h e i r three categories o f m e m b e r s h i p . i n line w i t h the practice o f other medieval sects. crystallized far enough for t h e m to be able t o issue a clear statement o n the relationship w h i c h should exist between the various grades w i t h i n the U n i t y . A l s o i n m a t e r i a l concerns some have come t o a c o m m o n decision to renounce such things. h a v i n g n o t h i n g o f their o w n but sharing everything w i t h those i n need. C o m m u n i s m o f goods. t o h o l d n o t h i n g o f their o w n . . at that time apparently called the ' B r e t h r e n o f Christ's Gospel' zákona Kristova) . et j e p e n c h e à c r o i r e q u ' i l s'agit d ' u n état ultérieur de l'Unité. Tapié. B u t cf. however.fell i n t o three categories. indeed. V . by the Waldenses. This embryo c o n s t i t u t i o n dates back to 1464 a n d was p r o m u l a t e d at a synod i n that year held somewhere i n the m o u n t a i n s near R y c h n o v . Priests a n d those w h o teach [thus r a n the synodal decree] should give a n example t o others i n w o r d a n d deed. are allotted the m a d e i n the s e c o n d h a l f o f the sixteenth c e n t u r y b y the P o l i s h A r i a n s o f the M o r a v i a n A n a b a p t i s t s .

t h o u g h even w i t h them the passage o f time was to soften their former r i g o u r . g o o d . by the aban- . ' B u t i f they themselves knew no needy and deserving Brethren i n their neighbourhood. T h i s was the task especially o f the heads o f households. The category o f laymen w h o had v o l u n t a r i l y adopted the rule o f apostolic poverty was to disappear soon after 1467. . . let them share i t w i t h their nearest. p u t t i n g their trust i n G o d . let t h e m take f r o m their brethren. as well as to offer hospitality to those Brethren travelling o n lawful business. . A n d whichever among them possess w o r d l y wealth. indeed. w h o have indeed concurred i n this decree. then has he denied the faith and is lacking i n love.w h o were to be covered by such d i s t r i b u t i o n s : their charity does not seem to have embraced the p o o r w h o d i d not belong to their c h u r c h . . B u t if. they are unable t o supply their o w n material wants. i t was stressed. . and having shared their goods o u t a m o n g t h e m . I n no case was pressure to be p u t on a Brother to j o i n 'the perfect': the hitter's t o t a l renunciation. p r o v i d e d he later gave an account o f his transactions. for this is. to carry-out the d i s t r i b u t i o n themselves. while p e r m i t t e d personal possessions w h i c h they c o u l d pass on by w i l l .a n d there must have been many such d u r i n g the periods o f persecution . . i n the first instance. Therefore. and to give i t i n t o safe keeping o r t o bequeath i t to someone after death. . M i i l l e r has pointed o u t that.T H E OLD BRETHREN 81 task o f p r o v i d i n g for their material support. . O n l y a m o n g the priesthood were these precepts to continue i n force. u n t i l the c u s t o m for priests to earn a l i v i n g by m a n u a l w o r k became the only surviving remnant o f the Unity's earlier c o m m u n i s m . I t was apparently only the needy a m o n g the Brethren . c a r r y i n g one another's burdens. all this may be done according t o proper testimony (podle svedectvi hodneho)? B u t the ordinary Brethren. let t h e m earn their bread by the labour o f their hands. o n the other h a n d . Thus a l l believing Christians should strive to fulfil the L a w o f Christ. . for those w h o felt a call to j o i n 'the perfect' i n their practice o f Christian c o m m u n i s m . and is worse even than the heathen. were still obliged to assist those i n need o u t o f their o w n property. 'If anyone wishes to keep a n y t h i n g for a good reason. ' g i v i n g to the poor. They were. The decree included instructions for those w h o wished t o renounce their property. the sick as well as t o orphans and w i d o w s . I f after that a n y t h i n g still remains over. was to be an entirely v o l u n t a r y act. I f anyone sees that a C h r i s t i a n o f l i k e f a i t h is i n want. let t h e m do w i t h i t as the gospels o r d a i n : give t o the poor. he should o u t o f love give h i m f r o m his o w n estate according to need. they m i g h t entrust the j o b to some Brother o f good repute. I f anyone fails to care for fellow Christians w h o t h i n k alike w i t h h i m . let them be w i t h o u t care. the needy.

G o l l . indeed. the danger o f a d i v i s i o n growing u p i n the U n i t y . w h i c h was to be such an i m p o r t a n t factor i n causing the schism i n the nineties. to f o l l o w h i m i n everything once he had openly accepted their basic principles. was averted. pp. pp. 2 6 2 v . never quite gave u p hope of w i n n i n g Rokycana over. Dekrety 1 6 7 . The Brethren.K r o f t a . o f b r i n g i n g h i m to see the wisdom o f f o l l o w i n g 'the n a r r o w p a t h . a final appeal to h i m to see the l i g h t . B u t " Mülier-Bartoä. mingled w i t h their disappointment at w h a t they considered his moral cowardice f o r n o t breaking w i t h the w o r l d and t h r o w i n g i n his l o t w i t h those w h o believed they were n o w o n l y p u t t i n g i n t o practice w h a t he had himself formerly preached.. p p .6 8 .6 1 v . to a break w i t h Rokycana. and once more i n 1468 a wave o f renewed persecution started. t o o . between those w h o practised a higher social m o r a l i t y and those f o r w h o m a lower sufficed. cit. the U n i t y c o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1464. p. Fear o n the p a r t o f the U t r a q u i s t s at the successive steps taken by the Brethren towards final separation. w h i c h continued u n t i l Vladislav's accession i n 1471. ' Shortly before the latter's death. w h i c h had even included the execution o f a small number o f Brethren and were i n general aimed at suppressing p u b l i c manifestations o f the new sect. s c h e n Brüder i n i h r e n Grundzügen. I n b o t h cases the measures directed against the U n i t y . the creation o f a separate priesthood i n 1467: these events m a r k e d the first stages i n the establishment o f the new church.6 3 v . ' D i e G e m e i n d e .' Monatshefte 1 4 2 . and o f the esteem i n w h i c h the Brethren continued to h o l d Rokycana f o r his superior judgement.. The regulation was o r i g i n a l l y enacted as a compromise between the demands o f the m i n o r i t y . op. op. B . 22 The settlement at K u n v a l d i n 1457-58. w h o believed c o m munity o f goods was an essential p a r t o f true C h r i s t i a n i t y . J . 1896.V e r f a s s u n g d e r B ö h m i der Comenius-Gesellschaft. cit. Jednoty bratrske (ed. similar t o that existing i n the Catholic c h u r c h . b o t h played their p a r t i n b r i n g i n g about these t w o periods o f persecution.4 8 . Something o f the w a r m t h w h i c h had persisted between the t w o men despite their diverging ways. T h e r e a r e two v e r s i o n s o f the decree i n A . w h o had failed to respond to the Brethren's pleas to p u t himself at the head o f their movement. had been taken f o r reasons b o t h o f external and internal politics. w h i c h had lasted several years. fols. 57. The sixties h a d commenced w i t h a period o f persecution. Rehof addressed 'a seventh and last letter' to the master.82 T H E O L D BRETHREN donment o f this tenet o f v o l u n t a r y poverty. . C f . a n d the more numerous section w h i c h was u n w i l l i n g t o go so far. . Rehof writes. They were ready. 2 6 0 .6 2 . Its abandonment reflected the shift i n the social basis o f the U n i t y ' s membership. and K i n g George's eagerness to show the rest o f Christendom that Bohemia d i d n o t w i l l i n g l y suffer the g r o w t h o f heresy. G i n d e l y ) . They led. 5 8 . Müller. V . comes o u t i n this letter.

however. d a t i n g b a c k to the sixties. u n t i l i t had covered the whole o f Bohemia and M o r a v i a w i t h a net-back o f small congregations.short o f as the directing force behind the persecution has. I l l . w h i c h h a d survived successfully its first times o f t r i a l . H r e j s a . eldest son o f K i n g K a z i m i e r z I V o f Poland. the earliest k n o w n c o n g r e g a t i o n s . Lenesice near L o u n y . ' M u l l e r . a m a n l a t e r f a m o u s i n C z e c h l i t e r a t u r e for h i s w i t t y sayings. w o r n o u t circumstances by the effort and strain o f constant pastoral visitations a m o n g the scattered groups o f U n i t y adherents. 3 9 . 4 3 .5 1 . H e a p p e a r s t o h a v e d i e d before the k i n g . I n 1471. only t o be b r o k e n by the momentous schism w h i c h began at the outset o f the nineties. ' K l e n o v s k y . a p p e a r s to h a v e been a B r o t h e r . op. p p . w a s p r o b a b l y o n e o f the K l a t o v B r e t h r e n . J a k u b e c .. i f h e r e a l l y w a s a m e m b e r o r a t least a secret s y m p a t h i z e r o f the U n i t y . op. J a n P a l e c e k ( o r P a l i e k ) . died i n A u g u s t 1474. H e w a s m u c h l o v e d by the k i n g . ceske. despite the k i n g ' s c o n t i n u o u s h o s t i l i t y to the U n i t y . I V . 2 2 .T H E OLD BRETHREN 83 i t was already t o o late for any reconciliation o f their t w o points o f view. a b o u t 1479 the w h o l e U n i t y n u m b e r e d o n l y C o n g r e g a t i o n s (sbory) u s u a l l y c o n t a i n e d fewer t h a n a Apart from K u n v a l d and between 1 0 0 0 . I . p o s s i b l y a secret a d h e r e n t . ' Sbornik " historicky. N e m e c k j ? B r o d .. p p . p p .2 0 0 0 m e m b e r s . Dejiny h u n d r e d m e m b e r s . often i n extremely dangerous w h i c h c o u l d result i n i m p r i s o n m e n t o r even death. 23 T h e impression gained f r o m U n i t y historiography o f Rokycana H e appears t o have done a l l i n his power . P f e r o v i n M o r a v i a a n d at s o m e u n s p e c i f i e d spot i n the Pracheft a r e a .t o soften the severity o f the blows dealt o u t t o his former disciples. a period o f quiet. op. P r a g u e .. Benatky. op.. 1935. Vinafice near M l a d a Boleslav. and the religious peace w h i c h was to last indeed i n t o the next century gave the U n i t y the o p p o r t u n i t y to develop its influence a n d expand i n numbers. R o k y c a n a remained for the Brethren the classic example o f the apostate leader. a n d there w e r e a n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s s c a t t e r e d i n g r o u p s too s m a l l to f o r m a s e p a r a t e c o n g r e g a t i o n o f t h e i r o w n . n o w ensued. little historical foundation. ' S b o r o v e J e d n o t y b r a t r s k e . cit. p. Uteratury 1883.P a l e c e k . B i d l o . cit. O n t w o occasions d u r i n g this " ** B i d l o . op. 1-4. a b a n d o n i n g his p o s i t i o n as head o f the U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h and himself j o i n i n g the U n i t y . w h o j o i n e d the U n i t y a t the e n d o f the fifties. h i s jester. . 2 0 5 . 3 8 .B a r t o S . 6 1 2 . Reformacni sbornik. See also H r e j s a . 2 3 . w i t h the deaths o f R o k y c a n a and George o f P o d e b r a d y 24 and the accession t o the Bohemian t h r o n e o f Vladislav I I . w h i c h w a s c u r r e n t i n the l a s t c e n t u r y . p. a n d .. Brother Rehof. cit. T h e r e is n o f o u n d a t i o n for the t h e o r y o f h i s identity w i t h J a n K l e n o v s k j ? . P a l e c e k . cit. p. I . 118. o f freedom f r o m persecution i n spite o f several abortive and short-lived attempts i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . w e r e s i t u a t e d a t R y c h n o v n a d K n e z n o u . b u t steady expansion h a d set i n . cit. pp. 149. 6 1 1 . A p e r i o d o f comparative c a l m . See Herben. w h o w a s o f gentry o r i g i n . w h o t o o k h i s a d v i c e i n m a n y m a t t e r s . d o u b t l e s s o n o c c a s i o n P a l e c e k u s e d h i s influence w i t h h i s r o y a l m a s t e r i n f a v o u r o f the B r e t h r e n . I I . A c c o r d i n g to H r e j s a . 25 W h e n its founder. I t is interesting to n o t e t h a t . a new era dawned for the U n i t y .

responsible.. B i d l o i n particular has pointed o u t how the earlier view denying any o r i g i n a l i t y t o Rehof as a w r i t e r is an exaggeration. age when the U n i t y . The seventies and eighties o f the century represent the p e r i o d o f the O l d Brethren. i n 1473 and again i n 1478. the Prague city c o u n c i l . pp. 109. 4 1 . there are the apologetic writings. u n t i l the nineties. The style i n w h i c h they are w r i t t e n is usually.T H E O L D BRETHREN period. remained the f o u n d a t i o n o n w h i c h they based their conduct i n every sphere o f life. ' N a b o z e n s k e nazory P e t r a C h e l c i c k e h o a b r a t r a R e h o f e i j e j i c h v z a j e m n y p o m e r . o f w h i c h the U n i t y t h r o u g h o u t its history was to continue t o p o u r f o r t h a steady stream. remarkable for its freedom f r o m lengthy citations f r o m L a t i n authors. either of alone o r i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h such 'learned' Brethren as P r o k o p Jindfich Hradec o r T i i m a PfelouSsky. f o r almost a l l the w o r k s issued i n name o f the O l d Brethren. C. K i n g George. pp. These oldest sources f o r the h i s t o r y o f the U n i t y . indeed. o n the other hand. The second g r o u p comprises those pieces w h i c h were intended f o r private circulation w i t h i n the U n i t y alone and n o t f o r public c o n s u m p t i o n . 3 1 7 . and sometimes j u s t 'for all people (vsem vubec)'. already a completely attempted t o p u t i n t o practice. First. I t was due almost entirely t o Brother Rehof t h a t the U n i t y ' s theoretical doctrines as well as its practical organization t o o k shape. . a body o f w r i t i n g s w h i c h . . destined f o r such personages as Rokycana. tit. o f w h i c h the vernacular translation o f the Bible t o o k the central place. the p a t t e r n o f life o f the apostolic C h r i s t i a n communities as portrayed i n the w o r k s o f Petr Chelcicky. 26 Rehof was.2 2 . l i k e Chelcicky. I . w i t h i n the f r a m e w o r k o f the existing social order. fall f r o m the p o i n t o f view o f their contents i n t o t w o categories. op. o f stating their case publicly i n colloquia fifteenth w i t h the representatives o f the U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h .. See also C e d l o v a . Chronologically. they can be divided as a whole i n t o three distinct categories: those pieces composed d u r i n g the first and second persecutions respectively. Rehof's education was based mainly on writings i n Czech. and those w r i t t e n d u r i n g the first few years o f Vladislav I I ' s reign w i t h the object o f i n d u c i n g a more favourable attitude o n the part o f the new k i n g . the Prague masters. F o r a literal interpretation o f the injunctions contained i n the N e w Testament was to be the h a l l m a r k o f the " B i d l o . even t h o u g h he is usually dependent / o n Chelcicky for his i n s p i r a t i o n . t h r o u g h the instrumentality o f their protectors a m o n g the magnates. the Brethren were given the o p p o r t u n i t y . I n t r o . w h i c h i n a d d i t i o n contain almost all the i n f o r m a t i o n obtainable concerning their social a n d p o l i t i c a l doctrines. ' C. M. 108. indeed. a p a t r i a r c h a l separate religious entity. showing that. 1932.

see C e d l o v ä . . I I . t a m e n u s q u e a d t e m p o r a S i l v e s t r i p a p e et a m p l i u s c r c d u n t earn durasse. hearing H i s voice a n d believing o n H i m .. " " C h e l c i c k y . 7 3 . was their ideal o f a C h r i s t i a n society. J a n Täborsky. Chelöicky' had w r i i t e n f o r the small h a n d f u l o f his contemporaries w h o were prepared t o frame their lives according t o the m o d e l set o u t i n the gospels. op. T h i s fact illustrates t h e p a r a m o u n t r o l e p l a y e d b y R e h o f i n f r a m i n g the i d e o l o g y o f the O l d B r e t h r e n . h o w far. I . cit. T h e f o u r B r e t h r e n hail been intercepted at K l a d s k o by o r d e r o f H e n r y D u k e o f M u n s t e r b e r g o n t h e i r w a y to visit the W a l d c n s i a n c o m m u n i t i e s i n B r a n d e n b u r g . stolen'. I n this article G ö l l r e p r i n t s a l m o s t i n full the r e p o r t o f the official e x a m i n a t i o n ( i i . 1895. ' I n t e r r o g a t i q u a n d o desiit p o t e s t a s et a u c t o r i t a s r o m a n e ccclcsic responderunt. whose spiritual heirs the Brethren felt themselves to b e . B i d l o . They.i /. p. Sit' viry. I n t r o . the early c h u r c h . The history o f the c h u r c h i n the centuries f o l l o w i n g Constantine's conversion was painted by t h e m as a steady descent f r o m the perfection w h i c h h a d existed w i t h i n the C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y u n t i l that date. C f . R e f e r e n c e to the detailed list o f e a r l y B r e t h r e n writings given i n the G e r m a n e d i t i o n o f M ü l l e r . q u o u s q u e i n e a n o n fuerunt t a n t a p e c c a t a ' ( ' N i k t e r e p r a m e n y k n a h o J c n s k y m dejinäm v 15. p p . t o o . w h i c h s i n c e 1458 h a d e x p e r i e n c e d .rA) by C a t h o l i c priests o f f o u r l e a d i n g B r e t h r e n . 3 3 3 . l i v i n g strictly according t o the rule o f life l a i d d o w n by Christ himself and his apostles.8 2 . 7 8 . der Böhmischen Brüder. e v e n t h o u g h s o m e o f their later w r i t i n g s m a y h a v e b e e n lost. as f o r Chelöicky.T H E O L D BRETHREN 85 earlier Brethren's conduct. were l a c k i n g i n any conception o f historical e v o l u t i o n . 5 8 5 . I . 1 4 6 . F o r t h e m . p. Geschichte pp. are ready t o f o l l o w i n H i s footsteps. op. I . all l i v i n g according t o this same pattern and n o w numerous enough to f o r m their o w n separate c h u r c h .h e l d o n 4/5 J u n e 1480. b o t h w i t h i n the U n i t y and i n their relationship w i t h society outside. cit. w h o . p..M i c h a l . can any o r i g i n a l elements be detected i n their social theory and practice? These questions can only be answered after a detailed examination o f the doctrines as they appear i n those writings o f the early Brethren w h i c h have survived. op. p. o n the other h a n d . 27 H o w far had R e h o f a n d his assistants taken over intact f r o m such writers as Chelöicky the social and p o l i t i c a l doctrines w h i c h were t o be a distinctive feature o f this first p e r i o d i n the U n i t y ' s h i s t o r y . se n e s c i r e . t u r n i n g aside f r o m the w o r l d f o r H i s sake and placing their hopes f o r their o w n welfare i n H i m alone.' Vistnik 6).9 1 . B i d l o . kralovske ceske spolecnosti nciuk. 1 7 29 F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f the d a t i n g o f R e h o f ' s w r i t i n g s . f o r Christ's 'flock. cit. P r o k o p o f Jindfichüv H r a d e c . T o m a s ' o f L a n ä k r o u n . 9 2 .' 28 T h r o u g h Rehof's u n t i r i n g activities this small circle w h i c h had gathered a r o u n d Chelöicky had been widened t o embrace a m u l t i t u d e o f small congregations. s h o w s that s c a r c e l y a n y t h i n g o f i m p o r t a n c e w a s issued by the U n i t y d u r i n g the sixteen y e a r s i n t e r v e n i n g b e t w e e n R e h o f ' s d e a t h a n d the b e g i n n i n g o f the s c h i s m i n 1490. p. a story o f corr u p t i o n mitigated o n l y b y the c o n t i n u e d existence outside the official b o d y o f a small and savagely persecuted remnant o f true Christians..

pp.3 7 . ' 3 0 T h e y w o u l d always. a n d patience. C f . so they believed. s o o n after e m i g r a t e d to M o r a v i a .. a n d here indeed they showed a remarkable historical sense.a s a result o f negotiations w i t h T o m á s . 5 4 5 . 52. l o v i n g one's enemies a n d d o i n g g o o d to t h e m . B u t the early U n i t y followed Chelcicky i n m a k i n g a d i s t i n c t i o n between the N e w a n d O l d Testaments. . I t w a s f r o m these c o m munities. T h e O l d Testament h a d preached physical warfare. u b i eis placet. i n short the law o f an eye f o r an eye. . cit. was ' t o live according to the scriptures alone (samym f o l l o w i n g the examples o f C h r i s t a n d H i s h o l y apostles i n quietness. 527. »• " *» B i d l o . et figura.. et q u o d perfeccio C h r i s t i et a p o s t o l o r u m est a t t e n d e n d a ' ( G o l l . . M U l l e r .w h o cannot distinguish between the t w o revelations. 5 3 . 3 4 3 . leaving the impenitent t o the last judgement. indeed. Ibid. q u o d sit i m p e r f e c t u m . h a d been one o f the / conditions i n the agreement for fusion w i t h the K l a t o v Brethren i n 1458-59. . w h i c h was absent i n their treatment o f the development o f the C h r i s t i a n church. severe p e r s e c u t i o n . w h o a l o n e h a d been able to p r o c e e d o n h i s j o u r n e y .s p e a k i n g frontier district. f o r m a 31 m i n o r i t y i n this w o r l d plunged i n unbelief a n d sin. Reliance o n the scriptures as the o n l y f o u n t o f m o r a l i t y . T h e s e W a l d e n s e s - The whole o f the U n i t y ' s p o l i t i c a l philosophy was. B u t C h r i s t h a d substituted f o r i t his new L a w o f Love.' I t is o n l y the false Christians . a t o o t h f o r a t o o t h . 'Nékteré p r a m e n y ' . pp. h u m i l i t y . The Jews h a d been justified i n f o l l o w i n g this law as they were then o n a lower plane o f development. 32 The early Christians h a d lived as an outcast m i n o r i t y w i t h i n a pagan empire. p.the Brethren w r i t e . that the founders o f the M o r a v i a n C h u r c h i n the e a r l y eighteenth c e n t u r y originated. pp. 4 2 3 . h i m s e l f o f G e r m a n o r i g i n . cit. a society o f p o o r men a n d w o m e n o f humble o r i g i n leading a f r u g a l and laborious existence. an attitude w h i c h divided them off n o t o n l y f r o m the w h o l e C a t h o l i c church b u t even f r o m the m a j o r i t y o f U t r a q u i s t s . 5 0 8 . formerly f o r m i n g the m a i n G e r m a n language g r o u p w i t h i n the U n i t y .86 T H E OLD BRETHREN The broad outlines o f their ideal c o m m u n i t y come o u t very clearly i n a passage i n the letter Rehor addressed i n their name to the Vice-Chamberlain (podkomofi) o f the K i n g d o m o f Bohemia i n 1461. writes. expecting at first the speedy r e t u r n o f C h r i s t i n his glory. and p r a y i n g for t h e m .B a r t o S . 6). n o r coerces anyone to fulfil its c o m m a n d ments. d i c u n t . T h e i r a i m . . ' N u l l a m pro- b a c i o n e m nisi ex evangelio vel epistolis a p o s t o l o r u m i n evangelio c a p i u n t a u t e x e m p l i s C h r i s t i vel a p o s t o l o r u m i n e v a n g e l i o et e p i s t o l i s c o n t e n t i s . he étením). b u t rather w i t h l o v i n g patience calls f o r repentance. vetus t e s t a m e n t u m . op. ubi n o n placet. op. shaped by parallel ! w h o h a d e a r l i e r been i n c o n t a c t w i t h the T a b o r where they i t e s . Ibid.. the execution o f sinners a n d other b l o o d y punishments. p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e . w h i c h 'neither condemns t o death . settled a r o u n d F u l n e k i n the G e r m a n .. 4 5 3 . p. w i t h an eye perhaps t o those o f their number who h a d come across f r o m theTaborites .

4 2 . see B i d l o . magnanimous. cit. pure. o f the early Brethren's d e t e r m i n a t i o n to order every aspect o f their lives i n accordance ' I f anyone w o u l d l i k e t o k n o w h o w we conduct o u r affairs [they were w r i t i n g at the end o f the sixties] let them enquire h o w things stood i n the early c h u r c h . 5 5 2 . simple craftsmen and peasants. 10. were practical men. p. the logical outcome w i t h the example o f Christ and the apostles. long-suffering. l o v i n g . f u l l o f p i t y and kindness. 5 7 9 . afflicted by the w o r l d w i t h m a n y tribulations a n d dangers. I n their i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the scriptures the w r i t i n g s o f Chelcicky. cit.. modest.may have been influenced i n part by such beliefs. who had neither the leisure n o r the freedom f r o m material cares a n d worries necessary for the c o m p o s i t i o n o f w o r k s elaborating their views f r o m a theoretical standpoint. As w i t h the early Christians the a d o p t i o n by the U n i t y o f its radical social and p o l i t i c a l doctrines . peaceable. i n c l u d i n g R e h o f himself.. M i i l l e r . op. 4 3 . 2 1 . i n t o a d m i t t i n g n o t o n l y the right o f the c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s to use force i n religious matters. meek. 56. as we have seen. The early Brethren. were their m a i n guide. op. cit. Theirs was a m i n o r i t y creed. F o r them the w o r l d was hopelessly c o r r u p t e d . 33 These doctrines were. b u t the c o m p a t a b i l i t y o f c o e r c i o n i n g e n e r a l w i t h Christianity. one o f the reasons p r o m p t i n g t h e m t o f o u n d an independent c h u r c h . op. Tapié. a U t r a q u i s t priest. ' M o d e l l i n g themselves o n the early Christians they were to be ' h u m b l e . They were a l l at first either the victims o r potential victims o f prolonged periods o f persecution. 1 9 1 . desirous o n l y o f the right. b u t one w h i c h t h r o w s an i l l u m i n a t i n g l i g h t o n the early U n i t y ' s ideal o f C h r i s t i a n v i r t u e . p p .. permeated by similar n o t i o n s . temperate. op. ' Sharing the widely-held view t h a t the end o f the w o r l d was then i m m i n e n t . f o r w h o m theoretical speculation held no attractions. 'These teachers. F o r the s o m e w h a t obscure story o f h o w .. w i l l i n g . w h i c h Chelcicky appears t o have possessed. c o m p l i a n t .and their later abandonment . a n d ready f o r every good a c t i o n .' F o r t h e m the a t t e m p t to practice m o r a l i t y i n everyday existence was more i m p o r t a n t t h a n any " B i d l o . i n Bidlo's o p i n i o n . M o s t o f t h e m were. r e t i r i n g . ' Certainly a counsel o f perfection. because i n their ideas [they] have separated themselves off f r o m this w o r l d . p. They pictured themselves as ' p i l g r i m s and guests here o n earth. d u r i n g h i s first i m p r i s o n m e n t i n 1461.THE O L D BRETHREN 87 conditions. the Brethren's desire to preserve their small circle o f believers intact i n a m o r a l l y fallen w o r l d soon t o be destroyed was indeed. . cit. therefore. p p . B r o t h e r R e h o f w a s t r i c k e d by a c e i t a i n J a n Vocásek. indeed.B a r t o S . M i c h a l the priest and R e h o f the tailor [the masters o f Prague University report w i t h some astonishment] derive salvation most o f all f r o m a v i r t u o u s life. 78.

I .T H E OLD BRETHREN abstract considerations a b o u t correct d o c t r i n e . d i d n o t interfere i n their subject's religion. 125. gave their demands f o r religious freedom a special urgency. B u t when t h r o u g h priestly guile y o u r sword is t u r n e d against people o n account o f their faith. ' A l t h o u g h y o u may b u r n a m a n . M . n o earthly ruler can p u t f a i t h i n t o people's hearts w i t h o u t their assent o r force them t o believe. since they have been instituted i n order t o punish the wicked and help the good to prosper. Even the Romans and T u r k s . . and t o direct i t against those w h o d o evil against the c o m m o n good. when the first a t t e m p t was made to destroy the i n f a n t church by force. I I .even a m o n g the Hussites . Variek Valecovsky. y o u w i l l o n l y increase thereby the numbers o f the f a i t h f u l .. They w o u l d defend y o u also. w h o stood however .almost alone i n his a t t i t u d e . B r o t h e r Rehof had w r i t t e n an impassioned appeal f o r religious liberty f r o m his p r i s o n at Teplice i n an open letter addressed t o K i n g George's adviser. the moderate U t r a q u i s t . y o u too w o u l d o b t a i n the help [ o f the c i v i l authorities]. As early as 1461. 84 Although in fifteenth- century Bohemia n o religious c o m m u n i t y c o u l d o f course escape being involved i n technical discussions o f abstract theological problems. Ibid. was held responsible by them f o r the persecution o f w h i c h they were the victims. . the p r o b l e m o f religious t o l e r a t i o n . The interference o f the c i v i l authorities i n matters o f f a i t h h a d . ' 35 Disagreement o n this question o f religious t o l e r a t i o n was one o f the causes o f the Brethren's estrangement f r o m Rokycana w h o . w h i c h f r o m the beginning h u n g over the Brethren's heads even w h e n active measures were n o t being taken to suppress t h e m . . the bulk o f early Brethren literature nevertheless has a decidedly u t i l i t a r i a n character a n d was w r i t t e n w i t h a definite practical a i m i n view. . 548. cit. pp. as we have seen. as head o f the state church. This comes o u t i n the f o l l o w i n g exchange. I t is natural. F o r G o d has given this s w o r d t o the kings o f the e a r t h [writes R e h o f ] only i n order that the w o r l d m i g h t be preserved according t o H i s w i l l . w h i c h t o o k place between the A r c h b i s h o p and M a r t i n o f K r c i n d u r i n g their disputation (hddka) i n 1463: Rokycana: I f y o u became reconciled w i t h us. M B i d l o . i t is acting against G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t . been condemned u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y by Chelcicky. he goes o n . . The constant threat o f persecution. i n the circumstances under w h i c h they lived. that a m o n g the political problems w h i c h l o o m largest i n their writings is t h a t o f the relationship between c h u r c h and state.. since . therefore. p. 545. op.

s e d séniores fratres. p. o f magistrates. This a t t i t u d e resulted. op. cii.. 7 ) . u t a s s e r u n t . B u t their pleas were to be w i t h o u t effect. indeed. They were permitted neither to take oaths themselves. true Christians . was to be. ideas w h i c h have f o u n d widespread acceptance i n the m o d e r n w o r l d . cit. incorrigibilis. b u t the aid o f the temporal a r m was n o t t o be i n v o k e d even i n defence o f the f a i t h . i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f government. C f . 5 1 4 . N o members o f the U n i t y m i g h t occupy any p o s i t i o n . however humble. op. a congregacione sua tanguam s u m u n t ' ( G o l l .THE OLD BRETHREN 89 M a r t i n : I n that case the way o f Christ w o u l d no longer be the n a r r o w one and his cross w o u l d have been i n vain (Nebyla by cesta kristova úzká a kHz jeho by! by vyprázdnéri).were to suffer m a r t y r d o m rather t h a n t o call i n the 'pagan' authorities t o their defence. i t e r u m e u m a d e c c l e s i a m r e a s - . as R e h o f himself remarks. t o repel attacks made by those w h o d i d n o t share their tolerant attitude. B i d l o . For C h r i s t sent o u t his apostles i n t o the w o r l d to preach the gospel w i t h o u t the help o f the c i v i l power. 36 F o r not o n l y d i d the Brethren condemn the almost universally accepted practice o f the forcible conversion o f heretics. 3 7 recommended. ' to renounce the p r o t e c t i o n o f the state for his church as inconsistent w i t h true C h r i s t i a n i t y . 4 6 2 . expulsion f r o m the U n i t y . 589. R e h o f w r i t e s : ' N o t only are [the c i v i l authorities] n o t entitled to use force i n matters o f faith. n o r m i g h t they become masters i n a g i l d . gives a n a b l e a p o l o g y for R o k y c a n a ' s attitude. n e c leges n e c cañones a d v e r t u n t . p p .. A n y recourse to the state i n such matters was The early U n i t y f o l l o w e d Chelcicky^ n o t only i n his advocacy o f c o m plete religious toleration a n d o f the separation o f church and state. n o r t o accept any office where they m i g h t have to demand oaths o f others. b u t they should also refrain f r o m defending the f a i t h by the s w o r d . n u l l a m i u r i s d i c c i o n e m inter se f a c i u n t . 4 6 3 .like sheep a m o n g wolves . 5 5 3 . K r o f t a Listy z náboíenskych déjin íeskych. These considerations alone w o u l d have excluded " *' Ibid. si c a u s e v e l c a s u s e m e r s e r i n t . q u o d si se r e c o g n o s c i t et p e n i t e n c i a m petit. p. i n part f r o m their rejection o f oaths.1 9 . 4 7 1 . as Chelóicky h a d firmly ruled o u t . o f hangmen o r o f armies. w h i c h forms the most distinctive feature o f their social and p o l i t i c a l ideology. ' I n e c c l e s i a . c o n v e n i u n t et pie et f r a t e r n a l i t e r c o m p o n u n t .. 2 3 8 . q u o d s i q u i s e o r u m est e x c e s s i v u s et anathematizatum et excommunicatum c x c l u d u n t . they also t o o k over f r o m h i m i n its entirety the negative attitude towards the state and the whole social order.' U n l i k e the m a j o r i t y even o f the radical Hussites. p p . Five years later the Brethren were once m o r e to call u p o n Rokycana to take 'the n a r r o w p a t h . w h o remained impervious to a d m o n i t i o n and rebuke. The final sanction for e r r i n g brethren. s u a n u l l u m j u d i c i u m s a n g u i n i s p e r m i t t u n t dicentes fore c o n t r a e w a n g e l i u m .

cit. p. ' L i k e Chelcicky. were also obliged t o b o y c o t t the courts o f law. have been kept i n prison many weeks because they prefered t o bear m u c h pain a n d suffering rather than swear konselstvi pfisahati). M. w r i t i n g t o Rokycana. C i v i l a u t h o r i t y w i t h its coercive power was t o t a l l y unchristian.o f f o f limbs. op. and other physical torments. r e v i l ing. They equated the essence o f government w i t h 'fear. Sometimes the r i g h t t o reside i n towns a n d villages was refused them because o f their unwillingness t o accept office. was at least closely connected w i t h the U n i t y f r o m the eighties 3 8 B i d l o . ' C. m u r d e r . ' I n later years. as newly-elected a l d e r m a n (v 38 thus breaking God's c o m m a n d m e n t . So long as the members o f the U n i t y were d r a w n m a i n l y f r o m c o u n t r y people there was less occasion for conflict. 506. the early U n i t y considered that the task o f governing a state c o u l d n o t be carried out w i t h o u t the i n f l i c t i o n o f cruelty. even had the Brethren n o t possessed further weighty arguments i n favour o f their standpoint. op.' T r u e Christians therefore. i n a d d i t i o n to non-cooperation i n the machinery o f government. 3 0 9 . beating. Indeed. cruelty. C. o n t h e o t h e r h a n d . as w i t h Chel5icky. 4 6 9 . rozdiele.K r o f t a . B i d l o believes that the B r e t h r e n began to c o l l i d e w i t h the state o n this issue e v e n before the o u t b r e a k o f p e r s e c u t i o n i n 1461. whatever the p r o v o c a t i o n . tak ze jedni sou pravi factions (roty). B a r t o S . ' N e z n a m a d i l a J a n a 1919. i m p r i s o n m e n t .. specifically rejected the theory o f 'the threefold people. For. 5 3 4 . p. fluence reject o a t h s . t h o u g h n o i m p a r t i a l w i t ness. fighting. violence. . B u t w i t h the extension o f the U n i t y d u r i n g the seventies and eighties a m o n g the small craftsmen o f the towns the p r o b l e m became increasingly urgent. d e n s i a n influences. the offspring o f A n t i c h r i s t . 4 6 4 . t o o . they were to endure fines and imprisonment for their refusal t o co-operate w i t h the state. k i l l i n g . since the executive and j u d i c i a l powers o f village officials were strictly l i m i t e d .. A s early as 1463 M a r t i n o f Kr£in. are a druzi falesni] n o t subject to the H o l y S p i r i t . c o n s i d e r s R o k y c a n a ' s i n Walto h a v e been a m o r e p o w e r f u l factor t h a n C h e l c i c k y ' s i n l e a d i n g the U n i t y to G o l l . 3 9 6 . . ' A l l those placed i n offices according to r a n k and d i g n i t y [they w r i t e i n 1469-70 i n their tract O kterej jest mezi bratriemi. N a t u r a l l y t o o .4 3 . b u t flowed f r o m their whole p o l i t i c a l philosophy. pp. 12.. i t is n o t clear how far even at the beginning all U n i t y members consistently refused to take up office. cit. 5 6 4 .' w h i c h attempted t o square the social order w i t h the demands o f C h r i s t i a n i t y . c u t t i n g . they.a l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state. reports that 'certain Brethren . 510. Brother L u k a s w h o . A collision w i t h the state c o u l d scarcely have been avoided i f the Brethren were to attempt to p u t theory i n t o practice. attributes this to R o k y c a n y v m u s e j n i c h r u k o p i s e c h . . this refusal was not based simply o n a literalist i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the scriptural i n j u n c t i o n against t a k i n g oaths.

members o f the U n i t y attempted t o remain true to their p r i n c i p l e s . still c o n t i n u e d among m o d e r a t e U t r a q u i s t s d u r i n g the last few decades o f the fifteenth c e n t u r y . w r i t t e n p r o b a b l y by Rehof between the years 1468-71. since m a n y Brethren c o m i n g f r o m these classes were liable t o be forced to serve i n the a r m y . asserts indeed that t h r o u g h o u t the U n i t y ' s existence. w h i l e " " Muller-Bartos". and the Brethren's new edition makes n o o r i g i n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the theoretical g r o u n d w o r k .. I V . cit.' Evidently. some members h a d become aldermen and magistrates. even i n Brother Rehof's t i m e . c o m i n g t o the Brethren o n such occasions f o r counsel. e v e n i f n o t u n c o n d i t i o n a l . then. 2 0 0 . had taken over w i t h o u t change Chelcicky's argument against war and a l l forms o f This comes o u t very clearly i n the only a t t e m p t made b y the neb o mod early Brethren t o deal systematically w i t h this subject. hotovost). was also forbidden to a member o f the U n i t y . . a n d their testimony against war. p p . Some t o o k the o a t h . p r o b a b l y c o m p o s e d after h i s m a s t e r ' s d e a t h . as well as the infliction o f any f o r m o f punishment i n v o l v i n g an element o f coercion. wherever possible. 204. many peasants a n d townsmen were called u p f o r m i l i t a r y service. Some stood their g r o u n d and u n d o u b t e d l y suffered severe penalties. a s is s h o w n b y the s t r o n g l y w o r d e d p r o t e s t a g a i n s t c a p i t a l p u n i s h m e n t c o n t a i n e d i n the m a n u s c r i p t s e r m o n s o f a n u n k n o w n d i s c i p l e o f R o k y c a n a . therefore. is for the most p a r t merely a t r a n s c r i p t i o n o f Chelcicky's O trojim lidu. others were imprisoned and fined f o r their refusal b u t later gave i n . i n w h i c h even the latter's w o r d i n g often remains unaltered. see S i m e k . their tract o n the civil power and the power o f the s w o r d (Psani o mod svetske mecove). 4 0 Rehof. . q u o t i n g L u k a S i n A . Some brethren went i n t o h i d i n g . ' W h i l e regarding i t as an evil [writes L u k a s . t h o u g h undoubtedly. describing the situa t i o n at that time] m a n y were yet forced t o c o m p l y . n o passages o f importance f r o m Chelcicky's w o r k are o m i t t e d . op. 156. w o u l d be likely to b r i n g them i n t o conflict w i t h the law. 2 8 v . p. indeed. there was n o u n i f o r m practice i n face o f the demands o f the state. O b j e c t i o n to the d e a t h penalty. J .T H E OLD BRETHREN 91 onwards. B .. ' U k d z k y k a z a t e l s k e c i n n o s t i n e z n a m e h o h u s i t s k e h o k n S z e . ' C. p r o b a b l y r e t i r i n g i n t o the forests and mountains as they had done d u r i n g the first p e r i o d o f persecution. W i t h the outbreak i n 1467 o f war against K i n g M a t t h i a s C o r v i n u s o f H u n g a r y and the king's decision t o c a l l o u t the m i l i t i a (vefejnd obligation o f w h i c h they were n o r m a l l y free. Their additions consist m a i n l y o f a number o f observations relating t o the probable results o f the application o f theory i n the existing s i t u a t i o n . an T h i s at once presented a serious danger for the U n i t y . f o l . violence. 39 A further source o f potential conflict w i t h the authorities lay i n the fact that a l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n war. even o f a defensive nature. C 1933. M. Indeed.

pp. *. rn.-p.5kSc.«.11 \ (i t u n c . pp. however. MM I I I I I n n i l I n I I I > | i . a.g the grievances o f those s^cdeni o f the population for s h o r n s_c.. Palacky and Goll. ii.^'-ity * 2 i i-ccessfuily defended f r o m invasicr. • > ..2 3 . 122.z t-. T e x t . " sf Zui. j Bidio w h o first established that it w a s written between 1 4 6 8 .i .0 - - ^ > . ^ S c e t r r n .-d the Brsihrss do not appear to L r » e had their pacifist principles p u t to ir. 5 0 4 . . (Mi .il K * soldiers out o f simple peasants and craftsmen. To-\i-*?. „ • v .. \ . e.». . p r o b a b l y b y I n t r o .-. 'whoever is capable o f bearing arms is reckoned the w a r r i o r class (kdoi jedne nwo:e bran nesti..-r. iM i llli'lll'V)! '|>i>OI n l • i l l l . 'V IP ltAU$xV\xSl ti tUxt N'\I>U\1 v-\C:vw>V. . . >\\.i tV. i r u r i i ^ . at. op.v>.¡2. Aira.1 i l i ' l i l l k H l I I I I ' l m i l l ll>|>m . Fighting was the buM?*?* <l < IS* n o b i l i t y .g. .4 3 . tea.r". and o f hired mercenaries.l <i»\i f u i.•. saesssrss * r r ? i b t i v .. i : * a . T h e u n c o n d i t i o n a l rejection o f w a r a n d the state w h i c h it c o n t a i n s ...:>.7 1 .. •Mil . >• n l i l l * M M t t t r f M »f p#*jll%. s <*t * • . I c a n n o t .:\V . agree w i t h B i d l o .r< . I n n iiliiniili In ilu ll n |n.. v . ' ll\> lliiihuti I uiu * >v. vie rytifsky Ud) Brethren forscc that heavy punishment w i l l fall upon those who o f f the poor w i t h such burdens as compulsory service in the armies. l i n . the Brethren -err.tp. formerly assigned MS. ||„. I n their protest against \tt conscription o f these classes by the state. F o l l o w i n g the date given in the historians (e. who received temporal power w i t h the dues and w labouring people i n exchange. n I .r.. m e m b e r o f the future M a j o r P a r t y w o u l d h a v e been able to give h i s a s s e n t to t h e theoretical principles expressed in it.V -. i n Bohemia. "pJoughfrma thus snatched away f r o m their labours. the t r a c t ' * r.p il wiimiiioit. tying up its origin with the beginnings o f the s c h i s m i n the U n i t y .position to 1435. p. and t o u n o i a r.» | u v U i u ill'linil i i l ..illinj| CI \.".*.v' mKOK'-iWi now in other laiuls. is a c o m p l e t e denial o f the validity o f the latter's s t a n d p o i n t . that a n y R e h o f himself..iu.>t ccr-.. m ( u I l u I D M l | i n III MI . ar jtisz. 1 1 9 . ever.

'.». . .rw. allegentes E t C h r i s t u m : 'Diligite inimicos' ( G o l l . q u o d Uceat a l i q u e m interficere s i v e i n bello j u s t o .i r 1 p a n h e h a d p l a y e d i n it till t h e n . i f t h e y > • ¡ . i l v i u r . T h e ^ a . q u o d s i T u r c i p r o s e q u e r e n t u r eos a u t q u i c u n q u e i n i m i c i .o r-.oicct t h e m s e l v e s w i t h o u t k i l l i n g o r w o u n d i n g . 4 j r . 4 0 1 .. w h i c h t h e y h e l d i n 1 6 0 4 a n d 1605.¿: TTcr. pp.v. sive s e n t e n c i a .•*• " ' ^ r v . Ideologja v h.^ " . ' cii.. 95.^ m s t a . " D i c u n t . g puzzísd :hc pro~:r.ns. . . q u o d ni:que p r o i u s t i c i a a u t p r o fide üceat b e l l a r i . 6). n e c e x s c r i p t o n e c e x e m • K huxii h . to n e t s that the s y n o d s . . »>.d a q u a r t e r v.í " ¿ a i r r t s t m '.:cn to fice f r o m i h e t h r e a t e n e d p r o v i n c e s a n d settle e l s e w h e r e .-írr. p. C f . p.er..Aó3 ' c a s i o r ..-.r. s e d s i m p l i c i t e r m a l a p a t i . See K o t . 94.. .'.-. 5 4 6 .!'>»*. : w Braci Pohkúh. a p o s t o l u m : " N o n v o s m e t ipsos defendentes. 6 2 4 . s e d p o c i u s m o r i i n s i m p l i c i t a t e s u a . r> u « Tina i n v a s i o z i oí Poland's eastern • • !'• * l -. noüeni se defenderé.:. 2 S 2 .' <V. T h e P o l i s h A r i s e s a b e s a c e c t u r y ar. et e x h o c c o n c l u d u n t . E t h o c d i c u n t . 115. pp. c » .

4 2 . C. I t is likely. .. Even more had its b o l d defiance i n 1467 o f the whole Christian w o r l d i n f o r m a l l y establishing its o w n priesthood. a n d demands their expulsion f r o m the k i n g d o m . made i t suspect i n the eyes o f the authorities. This w o u l d explain w h y M a r t i n was passed over at the time o f the establishment o f the U n i t y ' s priesthood i n 1467 and his complete disappearance f r o m their records. by Barto§ i n the N a t i o n a l M u s e u m i n Prague o f a h i t h e r t o u n k n o w n manuscript dating f r o m about the beginning o f 1470 has offered a possible explanation o f the mystery. H e calls o n the c i v i l authorities to take forcible action against monks a n d secular priests.THE O L D BRETHREN possibility o f his having died before 1467 could n o t entirely explain the complete silence w i t h w h i c h the U n i t y surrounded his name henceforth.' H e taunts those priests w h o hung back f r o m accompanying the armies i n the field. ' L e t [the K i n g ] offer a h u n d r e d talents o f silver o r g o l d to whomsoever shall b r i n g i n a h u n d r e d G e r m a n o r H u n g a r i a n noses. therefore. ' is characterized by m a n y features peculiar to U n i t y doctrine. 1 5 (VetSi T h e early U n i t y ' s attitude to the state. There had been defections f r o m its ranks. however. z K r c i n a . Later B r e t h r e n t r a d i t i o n seems t o have lost a l l recollection o f h i m . t h a t i t was composed by someone w h o had been closely associated w i t h the Brethren.and i t has n o t been contested by later historians . recalling something o f the m i l i t a n t social radicalism o f the Taborites. I f Bartos's hypothesis is correct . therefore. T h e discovery. The reasons f o r its continued g r o w t h m u s t certainly be sought p a r t l y i n external circumstances. 1917. the a u t h o r takes u p a diametrically opposite standpoint f r o m that o f the early Brethren. A t the same t i m e . w i t h M a r t i n o f K r c i n . addressed ' t o the Czechs and the whole Christian w o r l d . i n n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l politics. a call t o repentance and inner r e b i r t h . Nevertheless. w h i c h h a d aroused b o t h Chelcicky and the early Brethren to vehement protest. H e accepts the division o f a Christian society i n t o classes. H e is filled w i t h hatred o f the Germans.we can see i n M a r t i n o f K r d i n the neglected forerunner o f the M a j o r Party strana) i n the U n i t y . p p . w h i c h he w o u l d obviously have been glad to do himself. i n his attitude to war a n d violence. h a d b r o u g h t d o w n severe persecution o n the heads o f its members. 2 8 0 . w h o m l o n g years o f i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d the subsequent period o f war had led t o abandon the U n i t y ' s o p p o sition to war and violence. B u t the " B a r t o S . calls them 'snakes and scorpions i n the bosom o f the Czechs'. Bartos goes on to identify the a u t h o r o f this fiery pamphlet. He calls o n G o d for revenge against the enemies o f the f a i t h .8 6 . despite severe persecution. 1 3 7 . M. ' C. This manuscript. as well as its theological u n o r t h o d o x y . the U n i t y c o n t i n u e d to thrive. ' K n S z M a r t i n z v .

whose increasing power meant u n d e r the prevailing a n a r c h i c social conditions that the r o y a l mandates against the Brethren remained a dead letter. Ibid. 135. . p. any connection w i t h the m u c h feared Taborites a n d A d a m i t e s . V . 5 4 9 . t o have dealt exclusively w i t h theological problems. ' W e w i s h [they w r i t e i n a t y p i c a l passage f r o m the Zprdva bratfi kunwaldskyich] f r o m a l o v i n g spirit to be submissive. i n order a m o n g other reasons that they may i n f o r m those responsible f o r government ' h o w we t h i n k about the o r d e r i n g o f the w o r l d by the power o f the a u t h o r i t y o r d a i n e d by G o d . bratya v svoikh kon/essi- yakh. w i t h their subversive doctrines o n the r e l a t i o n ship o f subjects to rulers. given a chance to p u t t h e m before the authorities. social as w e l l as theological. 9 4 . . p p . Cheshkie I . p a r t I . ' 48 They were confident t h a t . t o o . 2 8 8 . p.. The acceptance i n t o the U n i t y o f a n u m b e r o f former members o f these sects h a d given rise to apprehension on the part ** " 4 6 A k t a J e d n o t y B r a t r s k i . A . they state t h a t : ' I n a l l j u s t .. t o o . 5 1 . a n d h o w t r u e Christians should be o b e d i e n t . fols. q u o t e d i n P a l m o v . w h i c h doubtless l o o m e d largest i n the m i n d s o f b o t h parties.T H E OLD BRETHREN 95 doctrines held b y the U n i t y themselves c o n t r i b u t e d t o this g r o w t h b o t h i n membership a n d influence.' t h o u g h they add the characteristic p r o v i s o : 'so l o n g as n o t h i n g be done c o n t r a r y to G o d a n d o u r o w n conscience. 2 6 3 . cit. however. They demand i n 1470 'a peaceable hearing (slyseni pokojne)' for their views. each i n his o w n place a n d station. op. c o n d i t i o n a l l y justified its f u n c t i o n i n g for the purpose o f establishing good order a m o n g the ' p a g a n . b o t h U t r a q u i s t and Catholic. proper a n d honest matters . J . 2 2 4 . their social a n d p o l i t i c a l doctrines w o u l d appear as harmless as they believed their theological ones were. ' 49 The p u b l i c hearings w h i c h they obtained t h r o u g h the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f their p o w e r f u l protectors i n 1473 a n d 1475 appear. a n d helped i t to find powerful protectors a m o n g the great magnates o f Bohemia a n d M o r a v i a . a n d t o hearken t o all those placed i n a u t h o r i t y . B . The Brethren repeatedly stressed that they were against any f o r m o f armed rebellion. . whether i n spiritual o r secular offices. 261 v . They vigorously denied. B i d l o . t h a t they were o n principle good and submissive subjects and tenants. 47 F o l l o w i n g Chelcicky they a l l o t t e d the c i v i l power w i t h all the paraphenalia o f coercion a n d k i l l i n g a place i n the divine w o r l d order. we are taught t o obey and be subject i n a l l h u m i l i t y as to taxes and l a b o u r services a n d t o be l o y a l i n a l l things a n d to pray t o G o d f o r ' such a u t h o r i t i e s . under whatsoever a u t h o r i t y any o f us may be placed.' 48 I n the famous Decree o f Rychnov o f 1464. 2 6 1 . " . I I I .

Such fears had been p a r t l y responsible for the t w o outbreaks o f persec u t i o n d u r i n g the sixties. 398. t o o . their supposedly loose morals and their hypocrisy i n n o t m a k i n g an open break w i t h the r u l i n g c h u r c h . ' whose w i l l i n g ness ' t o further the f a i t h b y material warfare' was t o t a l l y inconsistent w i t h the way o f Christ and his apostles.' 'legions o f d a m n a t i o n . . so the. Such a course o f action has never entered our m i n d s . was always fiercely contested. h a r d . indeed. Just as later certain R e f o r m a t i o n sects. some o f them even f r o m practical considerations sincere advocates o f religious toleration. b u t we w o u l d never sanction i t even unto death. ' p a r t l y because o f their theological radicalism i n propagating a purely commemorative view o f the eucharist. The peaceable attitude o f the Brethren. were to obtain f r o m the ruler privileges exempting them f r o m demands w h i c h they c o u l d n o t conscientiously fulfil. the Brethren retort. 5 8 6 . n o t o n l y w o u l d we n o t seek such an outcome. 50 I t is n o t surprising that m a n y secular lords for w h o m the returns f r o m their estates were o f greater interest than nice theological differences. p. I t is w e l l . pp. T h e y A l t h o u g h i t is suspected and spread a b r o a d t h a t we have banded together and gathered forces to o v e r t h r o w this k i n g d o m w i t h bloodshed.96 THE OLD BRETHREN o f the powers that be t h a t the Brethren were p l a n n i n g a r m e d rebellion. . yet i t is not true. i n contrast t o the r e v o l u t i o n a r y propensities o f the Taborites. . m a i n l y belonging to one o f the branches o f the Anabaptists. . T h e Adamites o r Picards. b u t also p a r t l y because o f their readiness to take part i n war. P a l a c k y . were often o p p r o b r i o u s l y termed by the Brethren 'the very worst p e o p l e . welcomed the settlement o f the Brethren o n their estates as d u t i f u l and obedient subjects. comes o u t clearly i n the statement made i n June 1461 before Rokycana by those Brethren arrested i n Prague f o r assert: supposedly conspiring t o take arms t o restore T a b o r i t i s m . 'murderers. 4 7 3 . 157.. the Taborites were. Brethren by their way o f life recommended themselves f r o m the beginning to the attention o f the magnates. w h o do n o t consider sin as s i n . sometimes i n exchange f o r the discharge o f some economic task f o r w h i c h their frugality and diligence peculiarly suited t h e m . applied to the U n i t y b y its enemies t h r o u g h o u t its history. a submissive spirit the e x p a n s i o n o f the U n i t y c o n t r i b u t e d indirectly to the d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f the p e a s a n t s ' status. The appropriateness for the Brethren o f the name Picard.w o r k i n g and frugal tenants.k n o w n t o a l l those w h o have associated w i t h us t h a t o u r one a i m has been t o please G o d a n d be h u m b l y obedient to o u r Elders. even believed that by its i n c u l c a t i o n o f Ibid. 6 0 4 . I n their o p i n i o n . Dejiny narodu ceskeho. " 5 1 51 A m o n g their earliest protectors were Jan V .

The conversion o f a noble landowner t o the U n i t y m i g h t mean. b u t the education o f his heir i n the Brethren's faith. the U n i t y c o u l d never feel quite certain o f their lasting support. were indeed required to f o l l o w 'the n a r r o w p a t h ' t o the same extent as members f r o m The custom prevailing i n the U n i t y at t h a t time is w e l l summarized i n the report preserved o f the examination o f f o u r leading Brethren at K l a d z k o i n 1480. 2 1 . V i l e m o f Pernstejn freed a l l new settlers at his t o w n o f Pferov i n M o r a v i a f r o m the obligations o f m i l i t a r y service and service i n public offices. pressure f r o m U t r a q u i s t o r Catholic clergy. p. . u t i u d i c i u m sanguinis n o n a d m i t t a t neque intersit. m i g h t entirely alter their previously privileged s i t u a t i o n . a u f i h r e k l e i n e n L a n d e s h e r r l i c h k e i t V e r z i c h t z u l e i s t e n . ' I n the existing c o n d i t i o n s the p a t r i c i a n s w e r e n a t u r a l l y a less p o w e r f u l factor i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e U n i t y t h a n t h e l a n d e d n o b i l i t y . Cetera vero bona temporalia sicut agros et piscinas potest et debet retinere vel dimittere secundum c o n s i l i u m r e c t o r u m ecclesie. Jan K o s t k a o f Postupice. 52 A s l o n g as their protectors belonged t o another religious c o m m u n i t y . a l i q u i resignant o m n i a . op. cit. h a s thus c h a r a c t e r i z e d the m o t i v e s o f the U n i t y ' s p o w e r f u l p r o t e c t o r s : ' E s w a n d e l t e n u n w e d e r die a d e l i c h e n H e r r e n n o c h die P a t r i c i e r der Städte die L u s t a n . cit. w h i c h made t h e m demand i n some cases that nobles s h o u l d renounce their property. a u f alle M a c h t u n d Grösse. then. treue u n d a r b e i t s a m e S i n n d e r Brüder A c h t u n g selbst w o h l w o l l e n e i n .. a b e r es flösste i h n e n g l e i c h w o h l d e r g e h o r s a m e . therefore. I . G i n d e l y .. a n d m a n y other leading noblemen. 30. . however. as we have seen. op. m i g h t lead once more to the i m p o s i t i o n o f j u s t those obligations w h i c h their o r i g i n a l settlement had been designed to escape. A n owner o f an estate was indeed u H r e j s a . the t w o brothers C t i b o r a n d Jan Tovacovsky. super o m n i a p r i m u m oportet iurisdiccionem temporalem resignare . pp. G ö l l . was always v o l u n t a r y and soon became confined t o the priesthood. I n 1475. p. C h a n g i n g p o l i t i c a l conditions. 54 I t was.. a move obviously made t o attract the B r e t h r e n . 7 . those i n a u t h o r i t y . W h a t . 5 5 . " . was the attitude t a k e n u p b y the U n i t y d u r i n g this p e r i o d t o p o t e n t i a l recruits f r o m the nobility? H a v i n g ascertained the applicant's sincerity i n wishing t o j o i n their c h u r c h . cit. w h a t further demands d i d the U n i t y make o n him? other classes. b u t their anarchism and pacifism. 53 The n o b i l i t y . The section dealing w i t h the acceptance o f members o f the n o b i l i t y i n t o the U n i t y runs as f o l l o w s : Quicunque d o m i n u s aut potens m u n d i e o r u m fraternitatem petit et u n i o n e m . Similiter et castra. Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. p. the succession o f an heir unsympathetic t o the Brethren. op. I V . n o t only reasonable security d u r i n g his lifetime. for instance. M B i d l o .T H E O L D BRETHREN 97 RychnovskjJ o f R y c h n o v . 2 1 0 . therefore. übertänige. n o t the U n i t y ' s c o m m u n i s m w h i c h . A l i q u i ex eis tenent p r o p r i a bona.

U r b a n e k .1498 i n M o r a v i a . indeed. free f r o m the shackles o f intellectualism. therefore. N a t u r a l l y such a system o f education was extremely p r i m i t i v e and imperfect. 1500 at M l a d y Boleslav i n Bohemia . 6 2 .2 8 . tit. u p o n simple peasants a n d artisans. 2ivot stoleti. Since d u r i n g its early years the authorities precluded the U n i t y f r o m openly establishing its o w n schools. Possibly here a n d there a more enterprising b r o t h e r may have The gathered together under his care the c h i l d r e n o f his neighbours. a p p . B u t even here L a t i n was n o t taught. Das Schulwesen bratrskä a vySsi vzdilani. w h i c h impressed its m a r k o n the early U n i t y and had caused the m a i n emphasis t o be l a i d o n simple faith. w i t h the Bible as the o n l y text-book. op. wherever the patronage o f some p o w e r f u l landowner protected t h e m f r o m the envy and malice w h i c h the generally high standard o f education a m o n g U n i t y members aroused i n their U t r a q u i s t a n d Catholic rivals. the fathers o f the families.. A t the end o f the century . 2 6 . a n d its l o c a t i o n at Brandys n a d O r l i c i . Certainly some Brethren remained illiterate a n d more mastered alone the a b i l i t y to read. aby 6 0 skrze B i d l o . therefore. pioneers i n the field o f p r i m a r y education. T h e early Brethren became.5 4 . m a i n onus o f p r o v i d i n g a basic education f o r the c h i l d r e n o f the U n i t y fell. Rehof himself h a d always s h o w n a certain suspicion o f learning. Jednota uieni p p . a n d as religious scruples prevented the Brethren f r o m sending their c h i l d r e n t o U t r a q u i s t o r Catholic schools where they existed. A t first there were o n l y t w o types o f Brethren schools. 4 9 .* 0 T h o u g h university m e n a m o n g the Brethren h a d played a p r o m i n e n t role f r o m the very beginning. 8 0 . The first report o f the establishment o f a proper school by the U n i t y dates back t o 1482. at least d u r i n g the fifteenth century.6 4 . I t can seldom have advanced beyond the i n c u l c a t i o n o f reading a n d w r i t i n g . B a l l . pp. 4 0 9 .more schools were officially set u p under the U n i t y ' s d i r e c t i o n . d i d n o t hesitate to spread the most absurd r u m o u r s a b o u t the satanic o r i g i n o f the o r d i n a r y Brethren's proficiency i n letters. 2 1 7 . der Böhmischen Brüder. a XVI na partikularnich Skolach v Cechäch v XV. 4 3 0 . B u t scarcely any details are k n o w n b e y o n d the name o f its founder. I n view o f the presence already w i t h i n the U n i t y o f a number o f university bachelors a n d masters. and henceforth their educational system c o n t i n u o u s l y expanded. W i n t e r .3 9 . O n l y i n the priests' houses were the more advanced stages o f education given t o the brighter lads specially picked to enter the priesthood. Rehof's death-bed adjuration to Bishop MatSj ' t o beware o f educated a n d learned persons w h o m i g h t c o r r u p t the f a i t h (aby moudre a ucene meli na peci. the obligation o f teaching the y o u n g fell u p o n the heads o f each household. The latter. Master H a v e l o f Zatec. p p . .100 T H E OLD BRETHREN state religion.

A m b r o i S k u t e i s k ^ (later a b i s h o p o f t h e U n i t y ) . T u m a the S c r i b e . T h e direct source o f the U n i t y ' s social and p o l i t i c a l ideology. e t c . defenders o f the o l d social order. Afeter Rehor's death.. p p .K r o f t a .. i n the writings o f Petr ChelCicky. t o endure persecution f o r their new creed. w i t h a l l its cross-currents o f native a n d foreign influences. cit. b o t h learned a n d unlearned were o u t w a r d l y at one i n u p h o l d i n g the U n i t y ' s special testimonies i n social and political matters. 1 1 .. 16v. however.4 5 . J a n T a b o r s k y .1 3 . cit. w h i l e the social o r i g i n o f the b u l k o f the membership explains w h y he so easily f o u n d a large n u m b e r o f converts ready t o accept a n d . the educated members o f the U n i t y increased i n significance and numbers. I n a d d i t i o n to those m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r a s m e m b e r s o f the U n i t y a t its f o u n d a t i o n . as this chapter has attempted to show. 14. 2 4 1 . K r a s o n i c k y h i m s e l f w a s a t y p i c a l ' l e a r n e d ' m e m b e r o f the U n i t y o f this second generation. O n d f e j ( f o r m e r l y a b b o t o f the U t r a q u i s t m o n a s t e r y na Slovanech). M a s t e r H a v e l o f Z a t e c . See a l s o G o l l . also left its m a r k o n the U n i t y i n this as i n other aspects o f its doctrine. b y the academic w o r l d o f his day. the establishment i n power Taborite o f the moderate U t r a q u i s t s .2 5 . i f necessary. h a d f o l l o w e d Chelcicky closely i n his p o l i t i c a l and social theories. whose fathers h a d p r o v i d e d the chiliastic preachers w i t h their most enthusiastic audiences a n d the T a b o r i t e armies w i t h their most determined fighters. pp. whatever i n t e r n a l strains may have existed beneath the surface. a m o n g w h o m K r a s o n i c k y m e n t i o n s the f o l l o w i n g : J a n K l e n o v s k j i . attracted by the genuine religious life w h i c h the y o u n g c h u r c h displayed. U r b a n e k . however. cit. w h i c h made such a n appeal to these sections o f the p o p u l a t i o n i n t o w n and c o u n t r y . They owed somet h i n g indeed to the radical R o k y c a n a o f the fifties as w e l l as to the W a l densian sectaries. These peasants and artisans. nevertheless. T h e leadership o f Brother Rehof was another i m p o r t a n t factor shaping the theory as w e l l as the practice o f the U n i t y . 41 T h e O l d Brethren.THE OLD BRETHREN 101 ne* nepfiSla skdza viry a Idsky)'. had n o w become disillusioned by the t r e n d events h a d t a k e n w i t h the destruction o f the movement. lies. i n his " K r a s o n i c k ^ . T h e general atmosphere o f Hussite Bohemia. that once more the B r e t h ren had followed Chelcicky w i t h his contempt f o r the superiority claimed b y the erudite. fols. a n u m b e r o f o t h e r e d u c a t e d p e r s o n s j o i n e d d u r i n g the f o l l o w i n g decades. cannot be taken as a t o t a l rejection o f a l l university e d u c a t i o n : i t indicates. J a n T u r n o v s k ^ . and a progressive d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f their economic status. . 1 7 . under the weak leadership o f the 'unlearned' B i s h o p M a t S j . op. 2 2 . T h e story o f the p a r t they were t o play i n the momentous changes w h i c h occurred w i t h i n the U n i t y d u r i n g the nineties w i l l be t o l d i n the next chapter. L u k d S a n d his brother J a n C e n t f (famous as a doctor). op. op. B u t d u r i n g the preceding decades.

N o t only w o u l d he have t o c o m m i t w r o n g himself. comprising agriculture. 2 4 4 . cit. 7 3 . disagrees w i t h G o l l t h a t J a n K o s t k a w a s o n e o f the t w o n o b l e m e n m e n t i o n e d later b y B r o t h e r L u k a S in h i s ' O o b n o v e n i . J .K r o f t a . op. b u t he w o u l d be obliged t o force others to do so. One o f these was p r o b a b l y a certain M e t h o d i u s Strachota. cit. a n d a m i l i t a r y leader. even f r o m the report cited above. p. However. 155. p p . c i r c a 1486) w a s the brother and from of heir 6 5 " Krasonicky's O that y e a r . expressly states that h i s s o n s o b t a i n e d h i s estates o n l y o n h i s d e a t h .. J a n K o s t k a (d. I t continued to be suspicious o f u r b a n life. situation is obscure. T h e s t o r y o f S t r a c h o t a c o m e s Vienych. op. cit.B a r t o S . since T u m a Pfeloucsky in his ' C e d u l a p a n u J a n o v i K o s t k o v i . 95 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . show clearly that at this t i m e the Brethren f r o w n e d u p o n most forms o f commerce. 56 D u r i n g the p e r i o d o f the O l d Brethren the U n i t y retained its agrarian character. despite the m i g r a t i o n o f an increasing number o f Brethren i n t o the towns and a vigorous propaganda a m o n g those already resident there. op. ' fol. and also that at least t w o members w i t h large estates were obliged to renounce them before being accepted i n t o membership. The U n i t y ' s decrees. i t w o u l d seem that noble members m i g h t retain at least p a r t o f their former possessions. 174. a n d industry. 2 1 7 . T h e life o f the c o u n t r y m a n . B . .. a judge. w e l l versed i n godly matters. a nobleman o f w h o m i t is related that ' o n j o i n i n g the Brethren he gave u p his castle at Orlice [near Kysperk. B i d l o . Z d e n g k (d.. especially u p o n those connected w i t h the p r o d u c t i o n o f luxuries and the satisfaction o f man's carnal desires o r associated i n any way w i t h usury and immoderate gain. op. p.K r o f t a . p. where his family h a d their seat] and lived i n poverty as a nobleman's secretary' and later as a miller. especially among the small craftsmen. . H e is described as 'a wise m a n .' and seems to have enjoyed great respect among the Brethren. The other nobleman mentioned has sometimes been identified as Jan K o s t k a o f Postupice. 55 Even so the exact We k n o w that there were members o f at least the m i n o r n o b i l i t y w i t h i n the U n i t y f r o m the beginning.98 ipso facto T H E OLD BRETHREN an administrative official.. trade. Probably practical considerations led to an a m e l i o r a t i o n o f the stringency o f t h e o r y . ' t h o u g h n o t very m a n y ' even as late as 1470. t h o u g h h o w i n this case they avoided a l l connection w i t h the machinery o f government is n o t clear. ' A . 201) a s h a v i n g r e n o u n c e d their estates o n j o i n i n g the Unity. 1468). I l l . t h o u g h scarcely a n y t h i n g is k n o w n f o r certain a b o u t this attractive figure. He was inevitably involved i n carrying o u t actions w h i c h were contrary t o the U n i t y ' s principles. G o l l . cit. w h o h a d b e e n r e s p o n s i b l e for s a v a g e r e p r i s a l s a g a i n s t the U n i t y i n M i i l l e r . although they have come d o w n t o us i n a f o r m d a t i n g f r o m a later p e r i o d . 5 7 . w h o j o i n e d the U n i t y p r o b a b l y i n the early eighties. p r o b a b l y largely due to the sacrifices he had made f o r their cause.

w h o f o r m e d their r a n k a n d file. cit. Fine clothes. 8 0 . as ChelSicky h a d taught.k n o w n a c c o u n t o f t h e v i s i t o f the p a p a l *• r e p r e s e n t a t i v e A e n e a s S y l v i u s (the future P o p e P i u s I I ) t o T i b o r i n J u l y 1 4 5 2 . sweet music. despite t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l r e j e c t i o n o f s c h o o l l e a r n i n g . The B r e t h r e n . made an i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the spread o f p o p u l a r education i n the Czech lands as. M a t e j . T e s t i m o n y to the h i g h s t a n d a r d o f e d u c a t i o n a m o n g the T a b o r i t e s w a s a l s o b o r n e by t h e c o n s e r vative Utraquist. 126-31.Rehof. E v e r y t h i n g needful f o r salvation was. his poverty. i n order t o be able t o dispense w i t h the mediacy o f 'learned' priests a n d challenge securely the claims o f the " 5 8 Dekrety. f r o m p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the culture reserved f o r his masters alone. M a n y even o f their leaders .T H E O L D BRETHREN 99 fishing. 59 W h i l e rejecting the learning o f the universities as an i n s t r u m e n t o f class a n d religious oppression. even the allowable forms o f commerce a n d industry were hedged a r o u n d w i t h numerous restrictions a n d qualifications. a reflection o f the p r e d o m i n a n t l y peasant character o f its m e m b e r s h i p . . indeed. pp. p p . r e p o r t s the f u t u r e P o p e . is present t o o i n the a t t i t u d e o f the Brethren t o the c u l t u r a l refinements usually produced o n l y b y a n u r b a n c i v i l i z a t i o n . E v e n the w o m e n . objects o f beauty were o n l y hinderances i n f o l l o w i n g 'the n a r r o w w a y . I n short.were entirely self-educated m e n . r u n n i n g t h r o u g h ChelSicky a n d H u s back t o the latter's predecessors i n the second h a l f o f the f o u r t e e n t h century. and the crafts w h i c h supplied the modest needs o f those engaged i n these occupations. ' 58 There is i n their whole social philosophy something o f the o u t l o o k o f the d o w n t r o d d e n peasant excluded b y his lack o f education. J a n of Pribram. . a federation o f r u r a l communities. op. a peasant 'stateless state' remained its ideal. cit. h a v e a s o u n d k n o w l e d g e o f the B i b l e . Elias Chfenovicky. g i v e s s o m e i n t e r e s t i n g details a s t o the e x c e p t i o n a l l y h i g h s t a n d a r d o f e d u c a t i o n e x i s t i n g there a m o n g a l l s e c t i o n s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n . a few m o n t h s before its final o v e r t h r o w . f o r instance. despite their a n t i p a t h y t o certain aspects o f c u l t u r a l life. must master at least the a r t o f reading.. w h i c h we have already observed i n ChelSicky. i t is true. They inherited the hatred w h i c h such a class c u l t u r e inspired i n their master. 4 2 7 .. t o be f o u n d . ' 5 T h e asceticism so often associated w i t h movements o f this type. B i d l o . p. before t h e m the Taborites w i t h their similar views h a d also d o n e . 7 9 . op. I l l . however. a n d his toilsome existance. T h e w e l l . Here the Brethren were the heirs o f a l o n g line o f t h o u g h t . w h i c h is q u o t e d b y H r e j s a . H r e j s a . ChelSicky. w i t h i n the covers o f the B i b l e . r i c h f o o d . etc. the Brethren l a i d great emphasis o n the spread o f the r u d i m e n t s o f education a m o n g the simple peasants and craftsmen. was the o n l y safe c a l l i n g f o r the true C h r i s t i a n . B u t every believer should have easy access t o this u n i q u e f o u n t o f w i s d o m . F o r U n i t y members.

Grégoire e n est l ' o r g a n i s a t e u r . D e n i s . b u t rather i n the c o n sistency w i t h w h i c h they t r i e d to p u t the ideas o f their master i n t o practice. p. cit. fifteenth-century •* " C f . m a i s K h e l t c h i t s k y e n est le théoricien.. B u t the importance o f the O l d Brethren i n the history o f p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t does not lie i n the o r i g i n a l i t y o f any o f their theories.102 T H E OLD BRETHREN t o t a l rejection o f the state f o l l o w i n g f r o m an u n c o m p r o m i s i n g acceptance o f the example o f C h r i s t a n d the early c h u r c h as the sole guide t o the conductor o f societies as well as o f i n d i v i d u a l s . P a l m o v . p. cit. 302 : ' R o k y c a n a est le père i n v o l o n t a i r e et r e p e n t a n t d e l ' U n i t é . 82 P a l m o v has remarked t h a t the i n t e r n a l development o f the U n i t y 43 showed most independence o f outside influence d u r i n g the first p e r i o d o f its history before its contacts w i t h the G e r m a n R e f o r m a t i o n .. op.' . 5 2 . the U n i t y was n o w attempting to live o u t i n countless small i communities under the disturbed conditions o f life i n Bohemia and M o r a v i a . op. W h a t the village philosopher had expounded to the n a r r o w circle o f his disciples.

der Geistlichkeit der Böhmischen Brüder. b u t n o match against superior w i l l . ' V .III THE GENESIS OF THE SCHISM T h e years o f freedom f r o m outside interference. Todtenbuch . pp. T h e roots o f the schism w h i c h rent the U n i t y i n the last decade o f the century should be sought. T h e typical B r o t h e r was still f o r the most p a r t an obscure peasant sectary l i v i n g i n rustic seclusion f r o m the affairs o f the w o r l d . the leadership o f the U n i t y was taken over by the well-meaning. 24. i t is p r o b a b l y t h a t the 1 merely approximations. ' S b o r o v e J e d n o t y b r a t r s k 6 . h o w e v e r . This g r o w t h . Vavfinec O r l i k called h i m . o f the educated and even the t i t l e d member. D u r i n g the lifetime o f B r o t h e r R e h o f the v a l i d i t y o f the b o d y o f social doctrine taken over f r o m Chelöicky remained unquestioned. and a m o n g the H o s t i l e a c c o u n t s h a v e t e n d e d to exaggerate the figures. B u t . a m a n o f simple piety. w h i c h i n a n y c a s e w e r e B y the e n d o f the c e n t u r y .p o w e r o r intellectual capacity. B u t the importance o f the t o w n s m a n . at the same t i m e b r o u g h t w i t h i t the seeds o f disunity. i n the changes w h i c h t o o k place i n the character o f its membership d u r i n g the t w o previous decades. t h o u g h a sign o f health and v i t a l i t y . ' as a later U n i t y chronicler. after his death i n 1474. Reformaini * sbornik. The r e v o l u t i o n i n its p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines was a reflection o f the u n d e r l y i n g changes resulting f r o m those new social elements w h i c h were slowly gaining predominance. h a d resulted i n a r a p i d expansion i n membership. 2 Rehof's p o s i t i o n as the founder o f the U n i t y . 2 1 9 . b u t weak a n d vacillating M a t e j .was sufficient t o override any latent opposition. F i e d l e r . see H r e j s a . was beginning t o weigh more a n d more i n the affairs o f the U n i t y . therefore. respected t h r o u g h o u t the U n i t y . p. 23.000 a d h e r e n t s . w h i c h the U n i t y enjoyed d u r i n g the seventies and eighties o f the fifteenth century. 1 Its influence n o w began t o reach o u t t o new classes o f the c o m m u n i t y w h i c h had previously been u n t o u c h e d by its teachings. w h i c h m i g h t exist. U n i t y n u m b e r e d w e l l o v e r 10. therefore. t o the r i g i d application o f the U n i t y ' s social tenets.its ' p a t r o n a n d p a t r i a r c h .

were t o j o i n the opponents o f the o l d doctrines. is k n o w n o f his early career. I t is clear f r o m the letter (psani) 5 he addressed to K i n g George's son. little. cit. he may even have j o i n e d the U n i t y at the t i m e o f its f o u n d a t i o n . 2 2 0 .. . for to St. possibly f r o m the very beginning o f the controversy. Prince J i n d f i c h . 232. n o t o f one's o w n w i l l . op. a m a n w h o was always happy t o give place t o others i n the affairs o f the U n i t y . t h a t is n o excuse at a l l . Peter i n his necessity i t was s a i d : ' P u t u p they sword i n t o the sheath. had followed Christ's gospel as a servant does his master.. p p . ' w h i c h could be extremely b i t i n g at times. and the shadowy Elias Chfenovicky . 590. devout. Cheliicky a Jednota v XV. however. p. J a n C h e l c i c k y 4 does not a p p e a r to h a v e been related b y b l o o d to h i s n a m e s a k e P e t r . M i c h a l . to be f o u n d a m o n g those w h o were later to provide the leadership i n the struggle t o m o d i f y . Jan Klenovsky\ A l a y m a n . too. Jan Chelcicky. 4 The strongest personalities i n the U n i t y d u r i n g the t w o decades f o l l o w i n g Rehof's death were. amiable. appears t o have taken little active p a r t at this time i n the m a i n stream o f U n i t y life. Augustine Klenovsky writes there w i t h i n d i g n a t i o n : ' I f y o u . F a i t h f u l t o G o d . T h o u g h y o u may say that fighting a n d w a r should o n l y be undertaken f r o m necessity. he underwent m u c h self-denial and m a n y hardships d u r i n g his l i f e . op. ' 3 H i s later career was t o show. 2 3 3 . indeed. I .Tüma Pfelouösky. ' H e d i d m u c h i n his time [ O r l i k wrote]. was o f a l i k e character t o M a t e j . w h o . Matej's t w o colleagues elected w i t h h i m i n 1467 as the first priests o f the U n i t y . 2 2 0 . 2 1 9 . p.. Referring to St. busy at Pferov i n M o r a v i a . o r indeed w i l l i n g . Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder." s 6 Ibid.104 T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM other leading Brethren w h o h a d been i n the U n i t y since its f o u n d a t i o n . w h e n finally these were t o be openly challenged. probably springing f r o m a wealthy M o r a v i a n family. T h o u g h w i t h o u t a university degree he was well-educated: 'a learned m a n [writes O r l i k ] f u l l o f w i t .K r o f t a . cit. that he was i n no way fitted to be leader o f a losing cause. a member o f the Inner C o u n c i l (Üzkd radd) and a f o r m e r disciple o f Petr Chelcicky. p. however. the U n i t y ' s attitude to society.. w h o m i g h t have been expected to c h a m p i o n the o l d ideas. there was none w h o was capable. There was. died i n 1484. * ' F i e d l e r . G o l l . G o l l . stoleti. b u t l a c k i n g i n resolution.K r o f t a . p. a n d finally completely to t r a n s f o r m . A n o t h e r influential B r o t h e r o f the early years. first. Müller. 80. t o come f o r w a r d as the c h a m p i o n o f the o l d ideas. p. the first priest to j o i n the Brethren. Ibid. y o u w o u l d not have a d m i t t e d the sword and wars i n t o the u n i t y o f the holy church. i n 1471 that at first he still shared f u l l y the U n i t y ' s attitude to war a n d the c i v i l authorities.

2 1 9 . 1 5 9 . indeed.. P r o k o p was a university m a n . ' 8 He. G o l l . T h e exact date o f his j o i n i n g the U n i t y is u n k n o w n . were first d r a w n i n t o the U n i t y . t h o u g h the first reliable m e n t i o n o f his name i n connection w i t h the U n i t y occurs only i n 1478. B a r t o S . 1921. ' N S k t e r e p r a m e n y k n a b o z e n s k y m d e j i n d m v 15. cit. I I . whose learning was to be second i n the U n i t y only to the younger L u k a s . b o t h men have left accounts o f the circumstances i n w h i c h they were led w i t h such epochmaking consequences t o j o i n the Brethren. F i e d l e r . w h o were b o t h t o play a decisive p a r t i n the c o m i n g schism. rather b e n t .5 2 . Rukovit k dijindm literatury ieske. p. I n 1467 he became bachelor o f arts at the university i n Prague. • 1 0 F i e d l e r .. B a r t o s identifies T a b o r s k y w i t h J a n V i t a n o v i c k y . L u k a s o f Prague and Vavfinec K r a s o n i c k y .. op. I I . finally h i m s e l f j o i n e d the B r e t h r e n after C h e l c i c k y ' s disciples h a d split u p i n t o s e v e r a l m u t u a l l y c o n f l i c t i n g groups. t o o . U n l i k e K l e n o v s k y . B u t J a n . p r o b a b l y j o i n e d the U n i t y d u r i n g Rehof's life-time. 'for a o f the B r e t h r e n . p. led b y A m o s . 8 W i t h the names o f K l e n o v s k y and T a b o r s k y t h a t o f P r o k o p o f J i n d f i c h u v Hradec was also later t o be associated d u r i n g the controversies o f the nineties. 1 5 0 . 2 0 3 . C. a n d the p a r t y o f T a b o r s k y a n d his friends. b u t t r a d i t i o n puts this before 1467.T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM 105 Second only t o K l e n o v s k y at this t i m e i n the counsels o f the U n i t y came Jan V i l i m e k T a b o r s k y . I n his y o u t h he came under the spell. ' O u c e n y c h . 2 2 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . w h e n he was one o f the three Brethren t o take p a r t i n the discussions (hdddni) Prague masters. op. was a person o f some education. cii. I t is i n t e r e s t i n g to n o t e the r e n e w e d c o n f l i c t i n the nineties b e t w e e n elements w i t h i n the U n i t y o f p a r t l y A d a m i t e o r i g i n . ' Taborsky. w h o h a d once been U t r a q u i s t priest at T a b o r after the suppression o f its radicals i n 1452.. 1895. cit. describes These t w o men. t h o u g h he d i s a g r e e d with R e h o f ' s a c c e p t a n c e o f f o r m e r T a b o r i t e s a n d A d a m i t e s i n t o the U n i t y . 3 .. . ' fols. G o l l . ' Z p o c a t k u J e d n o t y b r a t r s k e . T a b o r s k y o r P r o k o p . J i r e c e k . p p . S e e C h a p . M. 10 their opinions after they had been intercepted at K l a d z k o o n their way t o I t was i n the early eighties that t w o y o u n g university men. ' C. op. Lukas" was b o r n shortly before 1460 i n Prague. s t o l e t i . t h i n m a n . Vistnikkrdlovske p. 8 5 . t h e l e a d e r o f a g r o u p o f C h e l c i c k y ' s disciples w h o still c o n t i n u e d after t h e i r m a s t e r ' s d e a t h to s h a r e h i s r e l u c t a n c e to b r e a k entirely w i t h the official U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h . w e l l acquainted w i t h the w o r k s o f the c h u r c h fathers and later theologians. cit. p. 2 2 2 . ' ceske spolecnosti nduk.1 0 . ' 7 n u m b e r o f years held the leadership (prednost) He T a b o r s k y as 'a small.2 0 6 . p p . op. 2 0 8 ) . O r l i k specially mentions 'his extremely penetrating w i t . where he spent his c h i l d h o o d a n d student years. says K r a s o n i c k y .K r o f t a . as d i d ' 4 K r a s o n i c k y . 2 1 v . n o t e 2 9 . p. pp.K r o f t a . Two held i n t h a t year w i t h the of years later b o t h he a n d T a b o r s k y u p h e l d the accepted U n i t y v i e w p o i n t o n the state d u r i n g the e x a m i n a t i o n (yyslech) visit the Waldensians i n B r a n d e n b u r g .

V i k t o r i n K o r n e l . was to be o f u n d o u b t e d service to the Brethren i n many respects: ' E r ist der erste M a n n der Unität gewesen [writes Gindely] der eine systematische B i l d u n g genoss. discontented w i t h official U t r a q u i s m . ' As a result o f Polak's sermons 'about c o r r u p t i o n and a b o u t t r u t h . the U n i t y had only a few isolated adherents at this time i n the c a p i t a l . were later either to j o i n the U n i t y o r at least to become its w a r m friends a n d admirers. w h o i n 1497 was t o became K o randa's successor as a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f the U t r a q u i s t consistory. Lukas was led o n t o discover the w o r k s o f Petr Chelcicky. to read. der heiligen Schrift. t h a t had d r a w n L u k a s i n the first place t o seek o u t the Brethren. then a centre o f Brethren activity. however. p. his brother Jan Cerny. Krasonicky". M i c h a l Poläk.' 11 The same Vojtech w h o had introduced h i m to Chelcicky's writings n o w t o l d h i m o f the existence o f the U n i t y . Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder.' A t first. whether a m o n g any people w i t h w h o m I c o u l d share i t . i n w h i c h the heritage o f the early Hussites had become to a large extent merely a lifeless t r a d i t i o n . w i t h w h i c h LukasS had previously had no contact. ' I r o n i c a l l y enough. were seeking some more satisfying creed. however. w h o died i n prison i n 1480. o f the fiery radical U t r a q u i s t preacher. a l l these men. as he relates. ' a n d t h r o u g h the intermediacy o f a fellow student. they served o n l y to increase his spiritual unrest. ' O f w h a t use is such t r u t h t o me [he cried o u t ] since I a m ignorant as t o where i t is t o be f o u n d . eine hinreichende Kenntniss der alten Klassiker. which increased w i t h the years a n d was later t o be such a bone o f contention among the Brethren.106 THE GENESIS OF THE SCHISM Krasonicky a n d the famous humanist. Lukas evidently felt Polak's death keenly since. t h a t L u k a s n o w G i n d e l y . 63. i n religious matters. V i k t o r i n K o r n e l o f VSehrdy. besides Lukas himself. A b o u t this time Lukas belonged to a small circle o f y o u n g university graduates and students w h o . so i t was probably to L i t o m y s l . however. and gave h i m its writings. he was sensitive t o the lack o f spiritual d e p t h i n the U t r a q u i s t church o f his t i m e . He does n o t . i t was the latter w h o first made h i m feel 'the burdensome hunger after t r u t h . I . 1 1 . therefore. H i s considerable e r u d i t i o n . appear to have been an outstandingly b r i l l i a n t student. for i n this year he t o o k his degree as bachelor o f arts. whose influence o n the U n i t y he was later to d o his utmost to erase. Indeed. ' w h i c h I sought t o get to k n o w w i t h great diligence. and Master J a k u b Stfibrsky. A m o n g its members i t numbered. i t was the w r i t i n g s o f this man. Vojtech. der Kirchenväter u n d der mittelalterlichen D o k t o r e n besass. too. indeed. The year 1481 brings the first definitely ascertainable date i n Lukäs's career.

. ' O obnovení.' Teología U n i t y is n o t k n o w n . was also t o j o i n the U n i t y . M o l n á r . like Viktorín K o r n e l . 161). w h o h a d previously h u n g back f r o m closer acquaintance w i t h the B r e t h r e n . evangélica. ' the object o f his spiritual quest. i n the first place had h a d t o ask Vojtéch three times before he overcame his friend's suspicion o f his intentions. J i r e c e k . B u t once personally acquainted w i t h the Brethren. among t h e m Viktorín K o r n e l . lent h i m the w o r k s o f Cheléicky and the early Brethren. ' L u k á s ^ r a i s k y p i e d s v y m v s t u p e m d o J e d n o t y bratrské.3 2 . a n d still others. the desire t o make this personal contact w i t h a g r o u p o f people w h o m i g h t prove t o be those genuine followers o f Christ w h o m y o u n g Lukás" was seeking. Soon after 1482 K r a s o n i c k y . while some like Stfibrsky even reached the highest r a n k i n the official c h u r c h . came rather f r o m the latter t h a n f r o m Vojtéch. I .THE GENESIS OF THE SCHISM 107 went o n a j o u r n e y o f discovery.1 4 ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l i . 1.. A t t r a c t e d by the picture they painted o f the p u r i t y o f life i n the U n i t y K r a s o n i c k y . pp. op. . Lukás was t o recognise i n t h e m 'the people near t o t r u t h . B u t M o l n á r t h i n k s h e m a y h a v e v i s i t e d t h e m first to get a c q u a i n t e d w i t h t h e i r life before finally l e a v i n g P r a g u e t h r o w i n h i s lot w i t h the U n i t y . cil. were later to t u r n against the Brethren. nevertheless the eighties 1 2 LukáS.' fols. came to w o r k at the Bethlehem College i n Prague. 1948.. H i s college friend. p . a n d I l i k e d t h e m then as I d o n o w . t o o . Here several friends. 1 6 0 ) . a n d dates t h i s first v i s i t t o 1481 o r 1482. made the j o u r n e y t o L i t o m y s l . . 'Residing a m o n g t h e m [he writes later o f his first visit] I saw they were sincere and simple people . 1 3 ' O u c e n y c h . T h e i n i t i a t i v e . op. Vojtéch. a n d Lukás h i m self. 1 3 . b u t he also converted his elder brother. ' I n this way another y o u n g u n i versity graduate was led t o j o i n the despised and l o w l y B r e t h r e n . p p . giving h i m at the same t i m e their views o n the existing ' c o r r u p t i o n (zavedeni)' o f the c h u r c h a n d praising the way o f life practised a m o n g the Brethren. w h o i n t u r n b r o u g h t i n Master Havel. 4 6 7 . .K r o f t a . f o r the U n i t y was still o n l y half-tolerated i n the l a n d . a y o u n g U t r a q u i s t priest w h o had taken his bachelor's degree i n 1479. 2 1 . cit.5 5 v ( q u o t e d i n G o I I .K r o f t a .perhaps o u t o f fear o f the consequences. 13 N o t o n l y d i d Lukás w i n over K r a s o n i c k y . ' fols. Jan Cerny. later famous as a doctor. n o . t h a t once again i t was his w r i t i n g s t h a t b r o u g h t yet another future leader o f the B r e t h r e n i n t o the U n i t y . T h e e x a c t date w h e n LukáS j o i n e d the G o l l p u t s it i n the y e a r s i m m e d i a t e l y after 1481 a n d identifies to LukáS's first visit to the B r e t h r e n w i t h h i s j o i n i n g the U n i t y . op. J a k u b Stfibrsky. T h o u g h m a n y o f the U n i t y ' s sympathizers a m o n g the Prague intellectuals never actually t o o k the f i n a l step o f breaking w i t h U t r a q u i s m . Lukás. founder o f the U n i t y ' s school system. 12 I t is significant o f the p o w e r f u l influence w h i c h Chel&cky" exercised over e n q u i r i n g minds o f the younger generation d u r i n g the half-century after his death. p. 159. indeed. cit. 5 4 v .

6 6 . r e m a i n e d to the e n d ' a l o v e r o f the o l d s i m p l i c i t y ' ( F i e d l e r . 2 2 7 ) . I . indeed. v p p . made conflict at < some future date almost inevitable. 1 6 1 . I V ( O p i s ) . cit. and the justified can o n l y be f o u n d i n a state o f sin. strany 1882. T h e o l d U n i t y . the controversy does not appear t o have touched those outside the n a r r o w circle o f the U n i t y ' s priesthood a n d its lay leaders.. M u l l e r .free though i t m i g h t be o f personal a m b i t i o n . so different to that o f the simple. 160. for i n s t a n c e . the discussion began to cause considerable dissension.to see the U n i t y extend its influence and to make a stronger impression o n the affairs o f the l a n d . 1 4 A k t a J e d n o t y B r a t r s k 6 . the desire . n o .K r o f t a . " 'Psani jakghos (1496).B a r t o S . p . ' C h r i s t [they said] is n o longer o f any avail for those w h o wish to be saved t h r o u g h j u s t i f i c a t i o n b y w o r k s (z skutkuv spravedlnosti). s o o n after R e h o f ' s d e a t h . the personal ascendancy w i t h i n the U n i t y t h a t education b r o u g h t i n its t r a i n . the beginnings o f a more serious d i s u n i t y had. They blamed the p r i m i t i v e n a r r o w way f o r a l l t h a t was w r o n g . a n d . the priests a n d elders beginning t o take sides. Paul's w r i t i n g s i n 1 particular.5 5 . cit. after a l i t t l e . unlettered c o u n t r y Brethren o f Rehof's day content to live o u t their lives i n obscurity detached as far as possible f r o m the w o r l d a r o u n d t h e m . already appeared a m o n g the Brethren b y the eighties. op. W i d e r horizons. . T h i s r e p r i n t c o n t a i n s t h e s o . i t was said. t h a t 1 4 G o l l . p p .c a l l e d Zprdva Chlumci o rozmlouvdni H e r e M a t 6 j is r e p o r t e d as h a v i n g s a i d e a r l i e r that he b e g a n to have serious disagreements w i t h K l e n o v s k ^ ' s p a r t y i n the I n n e r C o u n c i l 'sixteen y e a r s a g o . Dljiny Jednoty bratrske. t h a t ' t h e i r f a i t h was bad. were sooner o r later l i k e l y to clash w i t h the views o f those w h o clung t o the t r a d i t i o n a l o u t l o o k o f the O l d Brethren. b u t their w o r k s g o o d . D i s h a r m o n y .. indeed.108 T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM saw a definite movement on the part o f the most s p i r i t u a l l y awake a m o n g the university students and younger graduates towards the U n i t y o f Brethren. ' 16 B u t n o w some members f r o m their study o f the Bible. h a d p u t l i t t l e value u p o n theological subtleties: their opponents among the clergy used t o c l a i m . 14 But their education. 2. ' Casopis menSl historicky. their whole b a c k g r o u n d o f univer- sity and capital city. knSze J a n a A p p o l i n a f s k i h o . a n d o f St. F r o m the c o n t e x t t h i s w o u l d s e e m to h a v e b e e n s o m e where between 1475 a n d 1480. 15 The points at issue were still i n the r e a l m o f theological d o g m a . ' that is. after h e h a d d i s a v o w e d h i s e a r l y s o c i a l r a d i c a l i s m . began t o feel t h a t this emphasis u p o n w o r k s was likely seriously t o endanger salvation. 131. E v e n K r a s o n i c k y . There is n o evidence t o show t h a t those w h o j o i n e d d i d n o t at t h a t time share t o the f u l l the prevailing views o f the U n i t y o n p o l i t i c a l a n d social m a t t e r s . fol. 6 4 . A few years after Rehof's death the age-old question as t o the relative merits o f justification by f a i t h o r by w o r k s had arisen a m o n g some o f the better educated B r e t h r e n . op. 1 5 3 . p.

' I n their view membership o f the U n i t y . ' w h i c h w o u l d help t o supplement the insufficiency o f w o r k s done.T H E GENESIS O F T H E SCHISM 109 f r o m an overgreat straitness . . w h a t G o d wishes h i m t o believe and to d o . they claimed. i n e m b r y o . A t last B r o t h e r P r o k o p came f o r w a r d w i t h a compromise s o l u t i o n . i t seemed t o t h e m . and thereby help the C h r i s t i a n i n his search f o r salvation. should be one w h o p u t i n t o practice the ideal C h r i s t i a n way o f life as portrayed w i t h a l l its r i g o r i s m i n the writings o f R e h o f and Chelcicky. indeed.' Those w h o held t o the o l d v i e w p o i n t o n the other h a n d . . T h r o u g h o u t . 'they d i d n o t condemn. w h i c h the U n i t y professed i n p o l i t i c a l and social matters. a n d t o d o f a i t h f u l l y . and i n those w h o urged j u s t i f i c a t i o n by w o r k s o n the o t h e r . as w e l l as a l l entailed strict those w h o h a d dealings w i t h t h e m . have the Romans and others been corr u p t e d . 'interpretated j u s t i f i c a t i o n immoderately and regarded i t f r o m t o o l o f t y a s t a n d p o i n t ' . b u t rather served each other. writes Brother L u k a s . P r o k o p urged the importance o f ' g o o d w i l l . i n the supporters o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n b y f a i t h . o n the one h a n d . allowed feeling t o rise t o such a p i t c h as later i n the years o f schism. those h a v i n g estates a n d trades. T h e t w o parties w h i c h were t o emerge d u r i n g the ensuing struggle were already present. . f o r i n this manner. ' F r o m a ' h i g h ' way o f t h i n k i n g a n d an immoderate i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the scriptures [Lukass goes on] they condemned i n the U n i t y m a n y f a i t h f u l and g o o d people. the personal salvation t h a t all were seeking. ' Prokop's f o r m u l a t i o n was welcomed w i t h j o y and relief by the contending parties w h o had n o t . a n d the consequences o f the compromise reached t h r o u g h P r o k o p ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n were to bear directly o n the doctrines. this dispute was t o f o r m a prelude t o the larger controversy i n the nineties w h i c h split the ranks o f the Brethren f r o m t o p t o b o t t o m .' T h o u g h remote f r o m everyday life and confined w i t h i n the n a r r o w l i m i t s o f the U n i t y leadership. 'began t o rise u p against the defenders o f this t r u t h . w i t h the pastors (zprdve) w h o ministered t o t h e m . . observance o f the U n i t y ' s various testimonies against that p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n The question h a d finally to be . t a k e n to the I n n e r C o u n c i l f o r guidance. According t o Lukas's account. came the great evils o f a v a i n religion. the n a r r o w w a y ' and saying ' t h a t reliance should n o t be placed o n the merits o f C h r i s t . w h i c h appears t o have satisfied b o t h sides f o r the t i m e being. says L u k a s . ' A member o f the U n i t y . . praising . appear at the same t i m e t o have held strictly t o the o l d v i e w p o i n t o n social doctrine. . according t o L u k a s . those i n positions o f a u t h o r i t y o r a p p r o v i n g o f such a u t h o r i t y . Those h o l d i n g to the doctrine o f justification by w o r k s w h o . o f trust i n oneself and c o n t e m p t f o r others. I n this spirit 'a m a n should wish t o believe simply. .

p r o v i d e d they had the requisite f a i t h or. . i n his o w n words still 'a c h i l d understandi n g little or n o t h i n g . as well as loose speech a n d licentious actions. Others recognized that G o d had granted g o o d w i l l . . I f . some began t o oppose i t [urging] t h a t . . w h o wished f o r the f u l l implications o f the d o c t r i n e o f justification by f a i t h t o gain acceptance w i t h i n the U n i t y . Once more we are dependent o n Lukas for o u r i n f o r m a t i o n as t o the ferment going o n a m o n g those at the head o f the U n i t y : W h e n there had been m u c h w r i t i n g and preaching concerning g o o d w i l l . promise w i t h o u t fulfilment.or c o u l d n o t . i n certain questionable (nebezpecnych) trades. equality. soon became equally perturbed by w h a t they considered a falling-away f r o m the o l d principles. they n o w claimed t h a t i t was f r o m conceptions about God's love a n d the merits o f Christ t h a t sins came. the necessary g o o d w i l l . but the time . w h o had j o i n e d the U n i t y and wished t o be instructed .' H i s o w n c o n v i c t i o n remained that i t was o n l y t h r o u g h ' G o d ' s love and the merits o f C h r i s t ' that salv a t i o n c o u l d be attained. . . good w i l l w i t h o u t w o r k s . was prepared to allow the possibility o f salvation t o those who d i d n o t . as before . t o o . . The other side. . a n d they spoke i n l i k e manner also about good w i l l . and to many. . equality i n goods and i n r a n k and i n characters d i d n o t exist. and i t seemed t o t h e m . Fearing f o r w o r k s and seeing the shortcomings o f some. . o n the one h a n d . t o o . L u k a s a n d those l i k e h i m . ' remained i n w a r d l y dissatisfied w i t h this s o l u t i o n . according to P r o k o p . L u k a s admits that this p o s i t i o n i n some cases led to a loosening o f the o l d m o r a l i t y : some o f its advocates 'went so far that they later strayed away i n t o sins and the w o r l d and earthly affairs. .110 T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM the affairs o f state w h i c h the duties o f citizenship were increasingly f o r c i n g u p o n the Brethren. Others. . i n the t i m e o f Christ and the apostles. h a d n o t come for this. . while still seemingly g i v i n g theoretical assent t o these testimonies. saw t h a t i n the early church. leads to d a m n a t i o n . however. i n their communities i n regard to the office o f alderman (konsel) and as t o c i v i l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and many other things.take the n a r r o w p a t h . i n like manner as to the p o o r . Some denied that c i v i l a u t h o r i t y c o u l d be exercised. t h o u g h a neophyte a m o n g the Brethren. . . that anyone i n a u t h o r i t y c o u l d become a Brother. ' A l t h o u g h I d i d n o t then k n o w h o w to speak u p [Lukas writes] i t indeed seemed to me as i f there should be something more than mere g o o d w i l l . These strove after simplicity. the other side. d i d n o t seem fargoing enough f o r y o u n g Lukas w h o . remained dissatisfied w i t h any half-way s o l u t i o n . . . . p u t t i n g f o r w a r d ' g o o d w i l l ' as a mere meeting-place between the exponents o f the t w o conflicting viewpoints. t o the noble a n d those i n a u t h o r i t y also. . and poverty. .' B u t even Prokop's compromise. .

THE GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM

111

as i f the scriptures, interpreted i n t o o exaggerated a manner (prevyseni nad to, nez vzneji), had been taken f r o m the exposition o f Petr Chelcicky a n d o f certain U t r a q u i s t (ceskych) priests, especially as regards the fifth chapter o f St. M a t t h e w .
1 7

Thus w h a t had originally been a theological dispute a m o n g the pastors and elders o f the U n i t y broadened o u t i n t o a controversy v i t a l l y affecting the lives o f the humblest Brethren. I t merged imperceptibly w i t h the larger issues. life? W h a t was t o be the a t t i t u d e o f U n i t y members t o the increasing demands w h i c h the state was m a k i n g o n t h e m i n their everyday W h a t , t o o , was t o be the a t t i t u d e o f the U n i t y as a whole to the p r o b l e m o f the influx o f new members f r o m classes o f society, w h i c h c o u l d n o t so easily adapt themselves t o a way o f life suited t o simple c o u n t r y f o l k o f an earlier generation? The development o f the controversy was s y m p t o m a t i c o f the fundamental changes i n the U n i t y ' s p o s i t i o n i n society t h a t had been t a k i n g place d u r i n g this period. U n f o r t u n a t e l y n o precise dates are available either as to when the diversity o f o p i n i o n first arose o r when P r o k o p first p r o p o u n d e d his doctrine o f ' g o o d w i l l . ' L u k a s , whose O obnovenl is o u r m a i n a u t h o r i t y , is more t h a n usually vague a b o u t the chronology o f the events he is r e l a t i n g ; n o r is his account t o l d i n strictly c h r o n o l o g i c a l order. T h a t the whole episode is contained w i t h i n the p e r i o d between Rehof's death i n 1474 a n d 1490, when the controversy over p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines first comes o u t i n t o the open, is alone n o t open to question. intervention, says L u k a s , came at an unspecified date after Prokop's Brother

Rehof's death {po smrti bratra Aehofe ne'ktere leto), when he himself h a d already been a member o f the U n i t y f o r f o u r or five years. This w o u l d place i t a b o u t the beginning o f the second h a l f o f the eighties. B u t the whole controversy m u s t have been b r e w i n g f o r a n u m b e r o f years before P r o k o p h i t u p o n his compromise f o r m u l a . T h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f the controversy, even after agreement had apparently been reached o n the basis o f ' g o o d w i l l , ' a n d its extension to p o l i t i c a l and social questions t h r o u g h the application o f the doctrine o f ' g o o d w i l l ' t o such matters Lukas merely says - lasted f o r 'several years' before 1490.
18

1 7

' O o b n o v e n l , ' fols. 8 9 v - 9 5 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l - K r o f t a , op. cit., p p . 1 9 8 - 2 0 2 ) . C f . G o l l -

K r o f t a , op. cit., pp. 1 6 5 - 1 7 1 ; M u l l e r - B a r t o S , op. cit., p p . 152, 153, 160. I t is n o t c l e a r w h o w e r e the U t r a q u i s t priests referred to h e r e b y L u k a S .
1 8

' O o b n o v e n l , ' toe. cit. B o t h G o l l - K r o f t a , op. cit., p. 169, a n d M i i l l e r - B a r t o S , op. cit., O n the o t h e r h a n d , M i i l l e r - B a r t o S ' s d a t i n g o f P r o k o p ' s i n t e r -

p. 152, p u t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f the c o n t r o v e r s y o n faith a n d w o r k s a b o u t 1480, w h i c h seems quite probable. v e n t i o n i n 1490 a n d the a c c o u n t there o f the t w o c o n t r o v e r s i e s , the t h e o l o g i c a l a n d the p r a c t i c a l , a s i f they t o o k p l a c e s i m u l t a n e o u s l y i n s t e a d o f the l a t t e r l e a d i n g o u t o f t h e

112

T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM

By 1490, indeed, 'the pastors were once again split i n t w o ' n o t o n l y n o w o n the subtle problems o f justification by f a i t h o r by w o r k s , b u t o n the whole question o f the U n i t y ' s attitude t o society.
19

I t was, therefore, t o a

deeply divided leadership, unable t o come f o r e w a r d w i t h a p r o g r a m m e acceptable t o a l l , t h a t the rank-and-file were t o appeal f o r help i n the solution o f the problems w h i c h they were h a v i n g t o face d a i l y i n their relations w i t h their neighbours a n d w i t h the c o m m u n i t y at large. I t was the L i t o m y s l Brethren w h o appear t o have been the first to have referred t o M a t e j and his I n n e r C o u n c i l for a clear directive as t o h o w they should meet the demands o f the authorities i n the numerous instances when these clashed w i t h the established principles o f the U n i t y . L i t o m y s l at that t i m e was i n the possession o f a p o w e r f u l noble family, w h o were for long t o be members o f the U n i t y a n d a m o n g its most staunch protectors. Jan K o s t k a o f Postupice was the first t o become a B r o t h e r ; a n d when i n 1486 his son, Bonus, w h o was also a member o f the U n i t y , succeeded to his estates, he continued to favour the Brethren t h r o u g h o u t his extensive demesnes. Soon after, Bonus founded a new quarter i n his t o w n of L i t o m y s l , the so-called N e w or U p p e r T o w n , t o w h i c h i n 1490 the king, on Bonus's request, granted the same privileges as those enjoyed by the O l d T o w n . T h e inhabitants o f the N e w T o w n were d r a w n m a i n l y f r o m members o f the U n i t y , attracted there by the favourable conditions w h i c h Bonus's p r o t e c t i o n p r o v i d e d for t h e m . A m o n g the privileges they then obtained f r o m their l o r d was freedom f r o m the o b l i g a t i o n o f m i l i t a r y service unconnected w i t h the defence o f the city itself a n d , i n 1491, f r o m all dues and taxes f o r a period o f seventeen years as well. T h e Brethren, too, w o u l d o f course be able to carry o u t their religious practices free f r o m outside interference.
20

A s a result L i t o m y s l became, i n the words o f

T u m a Pfeloucsky i n his Cedule to Jan K o s t k a the younger, 'famous f o r its inhabitants and its handicrafts; the e m p t y places i n the m a r k e t square were filled u p , a n d along the ditches and elsewhere [the Brethren] erected their houses.'
21

N o t only was the c o m m u n i t y o f L i t o m y s l Brethren enlarged by an
former, does n o t a p p e a r to be b o r n e o u t b y the m a i n s o u r c e , L u k a T s O T h i s w o r k is, h o w e v e r , r e m a r k a b l y o b s c u r e . mod svitske obnovent. o G o l l w a s l e d to a n t e d a t e the beginnings

o f the controversy o n the U n i t y ' s a t t i t u d e to the state b y a t t r i b u t i n g the t r a c t Psani

to a m e m b e r o f the M i n o r P a r t y , R i h a V o t i c k y , w h o w a s s u p p o s e d to

h a v e written i t i n 1485. I n a c t u a l fact, a s B i d l o h a s s h o w n , its r e a l a u t h o r w a s B r o t h e r R e h o f a n d its date 1 4 6 8 - 7 1 . See G o l l - K r o f t a , op. tit., p. 171. " " " ' O o b n o v e n l ' , fol. 95 ( q u o t e d b y G o l l - K r o f t a , op. tit., p. 2 0 1 ) . Muller-Bartos', op. tit., pp. 155, 1 5 6 ; G o l l - K r o f t a , op. tit., p. 174; M o l n a r , W i n t e r , iivot cirkevnl v Cechdch, I , p. 54. Boles-

lavStl bratfi, pp. 33, 3 4 .

T H E GENESIS OF THE SCHISM

113

influx o f fellow Brethren f r o m the c o u n t r y o r other townships. B u t a considerable number o f craftsmen, traders and merchants, previously unconnected w i t h the U n i t y , settled i n the N e w T o w n , attracted i n the same way by the favourable conditions offered t o newcomers; and some o f these non-Brethren i n t i m e came themselves to j o i n the U n i t y , w h i c h was undoubtedly the most live religious influence i n the neighbourhood. I n other cases i t was the r e p u t a t i o n o f the U n i t y as a v i t a l spiritual force that i n the first place b r o u g h t those dissatisfied w i t h the deadness o f official U t r a q u i s m to settle i n one o f its m a i n centres. A g o o d picture o f this process is t o be f o u n d i n the preface, w r i t t e n by A d a m Bakalaf, a later t o w n clerk (pisar) o f L i t o m y s l , f o r M a r t i n K a b a t n i k ' s account o f his visit t o the East i n 1491 i n company w i t h L u k a s a n d t w o other Brethren. D u r i n g the eighties, writes A d a m , K a b a t n i k w h o was a c l o t h m e r c h a n t : Came f r o m Prague t o L i t o m y s l , because he h a d been unable t o have a n easy conscience t h r o u g h the services o f the priests. H e sought t o see i f he c o u l d a t t a i n this w i t h the Brethren, w h o at t h a t time enjoyed the greatest freedom under [Bohus K o s t k a ] . The latter was, indeed, o f one m i n d w i t h them and protected t h e m so t h a t they were free f r o m oppression and injustice, f o r his father had been a Brother and his m o t h e r a Sister. A n d i t came to pass t h a t the above-mentioned M a r t i n also became a B r o t h e r .
22

A m o n g the Brethren i n L i t o m y s l , as i n other congregations o f the U n i t y , there were present m a n y o f the elements w h i c h were becoming restive at the constraints imposed by the n a r r o w way o f Brother R e h o f and the O l d Brethren. There was, first, the n o b i l i t y , several o f w h o m l i k e the l o r d o f L i t o m y s l , Bohus K o s t k a , were n o w either actual members o f the U n i t y or its close sympathizers. A l t h o u g h Lukas mentions, w i t h o u t giving their names, ' t w o i m p o r t a n t nobles, as w e l l as some o f the gentry
23

(zemane)

[ w h o ] , w i s h i n g to become Brethren, were required to give u p their estates,' there must have been comparatively few ready to make such a great sacrifice; a n d the example o f Bohus K o s t k a shows t h a t i n some cases, even, i t was already n o t demanded. F o r the y o u n g intellectuals, l i k e Lukas and K r a s o n i c k y , whose numbers were increasing a m o n g the Brethren, the w i n n i n g over o f p o w e r f u l protectors among the upper ranks o f society appeared as one o f the most urgent tasks before the U n i t y , w h i l e the r a n k and-file, as the r a p i d m i g r a t i o n o f Brethren to L i t o m y s l clearly showed, welcomed w i t h relief the advantages w h i c h their protectors were able to offer t h e m . I t was h a r d t o refuse t o accept the latter i n t o membership,
" " K a b a t n i k , Cesta z Cech do Jeruzalema a Kaira r. 1491-92, Bakalaf. Cf. Chap. I I , p . l . K a b a t n i k a p p e a r s to

h a v e b e e n illiterate a n d d i c t a t e d h i s s t o r y to A d a m p. 9 8 , n o t e 56.

' O o b n o v e n i , ' fol. 95 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l - K r o f t a , op. cit., pp. 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 ) .

114

THE GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM

i f they applied for a d m i s s i o n ; a n d , indeed, only t h r o u g h their f u l l membership could the U n i t y be certain that the next generation w o u l d be brought u p i n the faith o f its fathers, w h o had always been ready to befriend the Brethren. O n l y by complete association c o u l d there be a reasonable l i k e l i h o o d that the son w o u l d n o t reverse the policy o f the father o n succeeding to his estates. Secondly, among the o r d i n a r y Brethren the new arrivals f r o m the countryside were faced w i t h a different way o f life more difficult t o square w i t h the r i g i d principles w h i c h they had, w i t h varying success, attempted to p u t i n t o practice i n their villages. The new demands, therefore, led them to grope after new solutions o f their most urgent problems. A t h i r d element o f discontent, o f potential revolt against the accepted principles o f conduct, derived f r o m those new recruits to the U n i t y w h o , previously unacquainted w i t h its political and social doctrines, had been reared i n an u r b a n environment alien to the conditions w h i c h had given b i r t h to the U n i t y . But the loyalty o f the Brethren to their c h u r c h , the strong group coherence w h i c h welded the U n i t y together i n the face o f a hostile and persecuting environment, a genuine attachment to the o l d ideas, made them do their utmost t o a v o i d open disobedience to the U n i t y ' s principles. I t was i n this spirit, therefore, t h a t early i n 1490 the appeal for guidance was made i n the name o f the L i t o m y s l Brethren to the highest a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n the U n i t y , t o its bishop, M a t e j , and his Inner C o u n c i l . They demanded 'advice and help' i n t w o matters i n particular. T h e i r first difficulty arose, t o quote the later report o f the Inner C o u n c i l , 'when the aldermen s u m m o n certain o f you [i.e. L i t o m y s l Brethren] to the t o w n hall and face y o u w i t h some rather t r i c k y questions: perhaps that y o u should give y o u r advice o r state y o u r o p i n i o n o r confer w i t h the c o m m u n i t y . ' They were concerned, secondly, w i t h the fact ' t h a t already they make aldermen o f some o f the Brethren, and y o u foresee that there w i l l be more o f them. I f y o u wish to escape this, i t is n o t permitted, for seemingly i t is regarded as j u s t . . . since y o u live together w i t h them i n the community.' B u t the L i t o m y s l Brethren conclude i n their o w n w o r d s : 'Even i f we must suffer some material loss as a result, we intend to f o l l o w y o u r counsel as far as we are able.' The Inner Council considered the whole matter o f such importance t h a t they summoned a special 'conference o f the teachers [i.e. the priests o f the U n i t y ] , who came u p f r o m the provinces'; and this body issued a p r o nouncement (vypoved') Brethren's queries. w h i c h was to act as an answer to the L i t o m y s l This document, for the most part, avoided giving a

T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM

115

clear answer to the points at issue; i t was evasive, vague, and failed t o satisfy anyone. I t was evidently the result o f a compromise between those w h o held to the o l d doctrines and the Brethren w h o wished to see these modified. B u t , u n l i k e Prokop's earlier proposals to resolve the p r o b l e m o f justification by f a i t h or b y w o r k s , the conference's answer completely failed even t e m p o r a r i l y to carry c o n v i c t i o n . Its naivety, its failure to face the issues or to pronounce definitely f o r one or other course o f action, its evasive style, indicate that i t was n o t p r i m a r i l y the w o r k o f the reformers a m o n g the older or younger generations, for the i m p r i n t o f K l e n o v s k y , Táborsky, o r even P r o k o p , n o t t o speak o f Lukás o r K r a s o n i c k y , w o u l d surely have given the document a more decisive tone. I t may have been a composite effort o f the assembled priests, or i t may have come f r o m the pen o f Matéj o r one o f the older Brethren v a i n l y a t t e m p t i n g to reconcile the t w o conflicting viewpoints. The purpose o f the document is given i n its c o n c l u d i n g paragraph, w h i c h i n a d d i t i o n brings o u t the i n a b i l i t y o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l to t h i n k out a clear cut policy o n the issues at stake and its tendency to t h r o w the p r o b l e m back once more o n to the i n d i v i d u a l member for h i m to find his o w n s o l u t i o n . 'These articles ikusove) are given [says the edict] as they came to m i n d d u r i n g discussion, i n order that some o f them, or some p a r t o f t h e m , m a y be chosen o u t for the i n s t r u c t i o n o f those placed i n office by the authorities and i n t h a t o f alderman i n p a r t i c u l a r . ' I t m a r k e d , nevertheless, the first official recognition o f the new opinions. F o r the first time the leadership o f the U n i t y acknowledged n o t only t h a t i n practice some o f the Brethren h a d failed t o live u p t o the U n i t y ' s teachings i n their everyday life, b u t i t sought to find a p a r t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r such backsliding f r o m the o l d r i g o r i s m . Despite the hesitant terms i n w h i c h i t was expressed i t can, therefore, properly be regarded as a v i c t o r y f o r the opponents w i t h i n the U n i t y o f Cheldicky's and Rehof's teachings o n p o l i t i c a l and social problems. The edict dealt, first, w i t h the summonses received by certain B r e t h r e n t o attend the t o w n h a l l . L i k e y o u we, t o o , w o u l d be glad i f y o u c o u l d avoid these i n any way, b u t w h a t else we can advise y o u i n this matter we do n o t k n o w at the m o m e n t . W h i l e as f o r the matters they may face y o u w i t h , demanding an answer, some are easier, others more difficult, a b o u t w h i c h , indeed, advice cannot be given nisi generaliter. A s far as y o u can perceive justice i n any matter, declare i t . . . and d o n o t give way t o whatsoever is unjust. A n equally urgent p r o b l e m was the increasingly frequent election Brethren to the office o f alderman. of

Certain o f these newcomers even. but i t is mostly f o r material (telesne) reasons. despite a l l his efforts to escape.' I t was u n f o r t u n a t e ly very difficult t o counsel such Brethren 'since they t h i n k they k n o w best. J . yet i n this way they are soon led towards i t {se s nim potkafiy A l l this is n o t happening only i n L i t o m y s l . a B r o t h e r was forced t o take office. I f y o u should t r y t o get o u t o f i t as. B u t i t was ' n o t [they went on t o explain] that every u n r i g h t eousness had t o be destroyed by [the Brethren].' Some Brethren. Despite the fact t h a t office-holding was o n l y justified as a last resort after every effort had been made to a v o i d i t . Even t h o u g h they d o n o t seek the office o f alderman. fol. V . at the very least they should not w i l l i n g l y succumb to i t . .' 24 If. however. y o u have done i n previous years. i t is added. a n d . 'Blessed are they w h i c h are persecuted f o r righteousness' sake. their exalted p o s i t i o n makes them have an even better o p i n i o n o f themselves.' the I n n e r C o u n c i l q u o t e d f r o m the Beatitudes. this was indeed a big concession. are led to accept office t h r o u g h considering themselves wiser t h a n their neighbours. is u n c l e a r . instead o f a t t e m p t i n g t o avoid office as far as possible. the Inner C o u n c i l hope. again. 'open [their] eyes and give t h e m a l i t t l e understanding. wish to 'sit beside the foremost. it is h i n t e d . a s s o often. T h e use o f t o r t u r e d u r i n g the performance o f their duties may. the I n n e r C o u n c i l l a i d d o w n t h a t he should carry o u t his functions i n the same spirit as a g o o d member o f the U n i t y performed other and less controversial duties. b u t t h a t [they] s h o u l d attempt to destroy i t . once having accepted. w i t h divine assistance. . i n s e r t e d b y those o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l a n d the p r i e s t h o o d w h o still h e l d w i t h v a r y i n g degrees o f firmness to the o l d v i e w s . He was t o seek justice a n d to a v o i d the snares o f the unrighteous. w h i c h the Brethren had taken over f r o m ChelCicky. 33 l v ) o f these o v e r w i s e m e m b e r s o f the L i t o m y s l c o m m u n i t y . a n d it is p a r t l y t h r o u g h this k n o w l e d g e . A n d they are c o n t i n u a l l y c r o w d i n g i n f r o m other places and the lords o r their officials accept t h e m and refuse none. " ' T h e y have c o m e to a c e r t a i n a m o u n t o f k n o w l e d g e t h r o u g h c e r t a i n B r e t h r e n .e. t h o u g h n o t indeed everywhere. ' Even the obscurity o f the o r i g i n a l Czech cannot hide the fact that the spirit o f such a passage is far removed f r o m the simple negation o f the state as an unqualified evil. but it is possible that we h a v e h e r e a n o b l i q u e a t t a c k o n the p r o t a g o n i s t s o f greater p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the affairs o f the w o r l d . i n L i t o m y s l ] . the burghers w i l l n o t often suffer this now. T h e w h o l e passage. Some may say perhaps t h a t they come o n religious grounds. A still bigger concession was to follow. B . since there has been a considerable increase i n the number o f Brethren there [i.116 T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM I t is difficult to give advice as t o w h a t y o u should do i n this matter [replied the Inner C o u n c i l helplessly]. ' s a y s the edict ( A . that they a r e l e d to refuse a l l advice a n d a d m o n i t i o n i n the m a t t e r o f t a k i n g office. b u t 'they are also d r a w n i n t o other towns f o r l i k e things.

' B u t further difficulties. as regards business. one o f the signs o f v i r t u e i n the t o w n s m a n .' A l r e a d y i n such cases. t h a t any further concessions i n this question 0 1 the acceptance o f the alderman's office w o u l d give i t new m o m e n t u m . whether h u m b l e j o u r n e y m a n o r prosperous trader. B u t this alone w o u l d b r i n g 'a greater possibility o f preserving a g o o d conscience. the Inner C o u n c i l advised the Brethren to be careful. ' n o t t o be f o r w a r d i n g i v i n g counsel a n d displaying their w i s d o m . better than others perhaps. should be able t o realize that w o r l d l y people get little p r o f i t f r o m y o u i n their affairs. ' o r p e r m i t t i n g kneeling . they claimed. These difficulties. m i g h t easily arise f o r those Brethren w h o had accepted the office o f alderman. there were m e m bers o f the U n i t y .' The I n n e r C o u n c i l . w h i c h i t was neither a sin t o a v o i d nor a virtue to p e r f o r m . condemned the m o v e m e n t o n the part o f the Brethren towards the towns. suited t o a peasant c o m m u n i t y . The accumul a t i o n o f wealth was. however. t o o . I f the C o u n c i l were n o w to make such acceptance still easier. i t argued. the Inner C o u n c i l was content t o leave t o be dealt w i t h as they m i g h t arise. was n o t content w i t h the meagre subsistence o f a peasant. T h e townsman. i t was recognized. their trades prosper everywhere a n d their earthly comforts are n o t greatly l a c k i n g . for i t is a difficult enough matter for a B r o t h e r i n a t o w n t o advise h o w the c o m m u n i t y s h o u l d be administered so t h a t its earthly affairs should prosper a n d endure. indeed. resulted i n effect i n the pathetically indecisive terms i n w h i c h the edict was couched. trusting that they c o u l d preserve a clear conscience i n the performance o f their duties. f o r y o u indeed. I n a l l d o u b t f u l cases the I n n e r C o u n c i l h a d only one clear recommen- d a t i o n : let those w i t h tender consciences r e t u r n t o the countryside. The r o o t o f the t r o u b l e lay i n the g r o w t h o f a new type o f U n a y member. 'either w i t h the t a k i n g o f the o a t h o r w i t h o u t . content w i t h more modest needs. T h e reconciliation o f theory and practice. w h i c h the I n n e r C o u n c i l was s t r i v i n g for. a n d t h a t at the same time they may enjoy a g o o d conscience and a certain assurance o f salvation. They a d m i t t e d that such a change w o u l d p r o b a b l y b r i n g m a t e r i a l loss a n d that there w o u l d be some Brethren either unable o r u n w i l l i n g t o make such a sacrifice. w h o h a d 'changed their place [ o f residence] a n d accepted a d i m i n u t i o n i n trade. B u t i t is difficult t o give advice i n every instance and for every contingency. B u t this inevitably led t o conflict w i t h the principles o f conduct w h i c h embodied the o l d relationship t o society. i n w h i c h the c o u n t r y element was still strong.THE GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM 117 I n indifferent matters. i n cases where an element o f personal gain m i g h t enter i n . This is clearly b r o u g h t o u t i n the f o l l o w i n g passage: Sometimes something m a y be [done] for such as wish t o make sure b o t h that. I t was apprehensive.

either t h r o u g h incompetence o r unawares.e. something to their m a t e r i a l disadvantage. then likewise they have n o difficulty i n laying the blame and the sin o n us. come n o w only t o gain riches than ever abandoned the cities over the preceding years for the purpose o f attaining what is g o o d . 3 3 1 . . J .persons w h o had not previously had their l i v i n g there.9 8 ) . .have b r o u g h t u p o n themselves the sins they have i n c u r r e d Indeed. for 'they c o u l d escape all this i f they wished to listen' t o the advice o f their spiritual leaders.' The Inner C o u n c i l does n o t appear to have been impressed by this l i n e .. 'the weaker people a m o n g the Brethren. for the same reasons] we have done or allowed to be done something to their spiritual disadvantage. pp. B . w h i c h was also often demanded o f aldermen. ' " I t is significant that the question o f the v a l i d i t y o f o a t h . the rank-and-file o f the U n i t y appear t o have lost m u c h o f their earlier enthusiasm f o r the radical negation o f the w o r l d a n d its allurements that was embodied i n their church's p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines. Such persons. w h o have been . the I n n e r C o u n c i l ] who have sanctioned i t . may n o t have been t y p i c a l o f the average U n i t y member. ' A l l those. since 'a great evil cannot be set aright by a little good. I t was.attracted to the t o w n s . Whenever [i. however. being able t o gain a l i v i n g elsewhere. who c o n t i n u e d to live o u t his life i n the village o f his b i r t h according to the o l d principles. op. V . T h e I n n e r C o u n c i l c o m p l a i n : Whenever we have done. and there take u p o n themselves such dangerous offices as the alderman's or the sexton's (kostelnicl) i n this way. fols.t a k i n g a m o n g Christians. the I n n e r Council adds. ' According t o the evidence p r o v i d e d by the edict. then more Brethren ' w o u l d be enticed i n t o the towns . at any rate.and are n o w . one o f the reasons f o r issuing the edict. those inclined t o w o r l d l y things and to bodily licentiousness and c o m f o r t above the measure o f their o w n needs. Those i n favour o f t a k i n g office had used w i t h the I n n e r C o u n c i l the argument that. such persons . i f only i t be o f material benefit. was to a i d such persons.e. 1 9 6 . ' t h r o u g h i t . does not arise directly i n the edict. others m i g h t be directed towards righteousness (v spravedlnostech opravovati). they have l o n g blamed us a n d continue to blame us. ' w h o may settle i n the towns o f their o w n free w i l l .118 T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM before the consecrated wafer. around w h i c h so m u c h controversy i n the U n i t y was later t o centre.i t may be said . for there are few Brethren w h o w o u l d have the o p p o r t u n i t y for t h i s . says the Inner C o u n c i l .' etc..3 3 3 ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l . saying: i t is the Brethren [i. I t is not clear f r o m the w o r d i n g *» A .K r o f t a . cit.

because o f the offices o f alderman and judge a n d o f o a t h . writes t h a t : Everywhere. B r o t h e r L u k a s . t h o u g h even here the p r o b l e m m i g h t present itself f o r solution. I . t h o u g h one w h o . 6 5 7 . the Brethren were being placed i n offices. i t was n o t by any means confined to the L i t o m y s l Brethren. w h i c h had n o t appeared before 1490.e. 26 O p p o s i t i o n t o oaths a m o n g some o f the members o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l was. indeed. as the edict's advice t o the L i t o m y s l Brethren t o remove t o the c o u n t r y shows. F i r s t . f o r instance.5 9 . or whether certain members were more nearly affected than others. B u t i t is difficult to see h o w the acceptance o f the alderman's office c o u l d be approved. I f they d i d n o t w i s h t o d o so. they had t o pay fines. cit. p. T w o points alone are certain. even t h o u g h o n l y i n certain exceptional circumstances. one w h i c h weighed more heavily o n the t o w n communities t h a n o n the village groups. .. pp. however. Kulturni obraz (eskych mist. K r a s o n i c k y . gestion.t a k i n g . w h i c h were imposed o n them f o r n o t testifying to the t r u t h according t o the custom o f the l a n d w i t h the c o n f i r m a t i o n o f a n o a t h . was also hostile t o the o l d views. 18v ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . as a c o m m u n i t y . op. p r o b a b l y still strong enough to prevent more than tacit assent being granted to so r e v o l u t i o n a r y a step. nor was i t an entirely novel issue.K r o f t a . l i v i n g together i n the c o m m u n i t y as fellow citizens. for the Brethren] t h r o u g h o u t the Czech lands and i n M o r a v i a . confirms the widespread nature o f the p r o b l e m w h i c h the U n i t y was facing at the time. T h e documentary evidence gives n o i n d i c a t i o n o f precisely w h a t sections a m o n g the L i t o m y s l Brethren were responsible f o r the appeal to the Inner C o u n c i l : whether. and they were made t o take the o a t h o n the boundaries. R . i t was nowhere permitted that. 730.THE GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM 119 how far i t actually sanctioned the o a t h . w i t h o u t similar approval being given t o t a k i n g the o a t h w h i c h was demanded o f everyone entering u p o n office. ' fol. even i n the villages. i n t h a t o f judge or alderman o r some other. 731. w i t h i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d t o r t u r e and " 2 7 W i n t e r . 2 0 6 ) . B e t t s for t h i s s u g - b o u n d a r i e s p r o b a b l y refers to the j u r y m a n ' s o a t h a s t o the b o u n d a r i e s defined o n l y by c u s t o m a r y l a w . Secondly. like K r a s o n i c k y . of holdings ' O u c e n y c h . the problems under discussion touched a l l the Brethren equally. they should escape their d u t i e s . Likewise i n regard t o the alderman's a n d other offices. the p r o b l e m o f accepting office and o f the attitude to be taken u p towards the state i n general was. 27 A n o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r y witness. T h e o a t h o n the I a m grateful to P r o f e s s o r R . He writes that 'when countless troubles f r o m the n o b i l i t y arose [i.

7 6 . . fol. between the educated a n d the simple Brethren. pp. (cechmistr) 29 The grandmaster o f a g i l d on c o m i n g i n t o office was required t o take an o a t h . as w e l l as by communities f r o m other towns. ( were much the same i n regard to other m u n i c i p a l offices. began to chafe more and more at the restrictions imposed b y the o l d ideology a n d . . v Cechdch v XIV a XV stoleti. 592. n o t by a l l the members o f the g i l d . 4 5 v ( q u o t e d ibid. a v i r t u a l burgher aristocracy grew u p . 'In Since the r e t i r i n g alder30 Conditions m e n always had influence o n the election o f the new ones. 6 6 6 . that is. responsible. a n d his duties included various j u d i c i a l and administrative functions o f a semi-public nature. 2 1 2 ) . 661. m&stke). f o r c a r r y i n g o u t the death penalty o n occasion. can t h e origins o f the t w o parties i n the ensuing controversy concerning the U n i t y ' s p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines be traced back n o t o n l y t o the division between the t o w n a n d c o u n t r y membership. w h i c h was indeed demanded i n offices o f every k i n d . t o o .120 T H E GENESIS OF THE SCHISM fines. 664. B u t the g r a n d masters were elected. 593. Odpisproti W i n t e r . w o u l d n o t have the same incentives to t h r o w over the t r a d i t i o n a l viewpoint? I n other words. b u t o n l y by the masters. w h o " " " L u k a i . by the more influential and affluent c i t i z e n s . those w h o ..at least i n the same degree . finding the burden o f c o n t i n u a l refusal o f the demands o f the authorities insupportable. femesel a obchodu pp. n o t being liable . H e c o u l d even i n some cases sentence persons to i m p r i s o n m e n t . w h i c h were r a p i d l y g r o w i n g i n numerical strength? D u r i n g the fifteenth century artisans were almost always obliged t o become members o f their respective g i l d s . o f w h o m there were usually 12 i n larger t o w n s forming the t o w n c o u n c i l i n charge o f m u n i c i p a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d jurisdiction w i t h i n the city boundaries. odtriencom. Dejeny Ibid. 28 The question as to the source o f inspiration f o r the appeals made b y the L i t o m y s l Brethren. m i g h t theoretically be appointed f r o m almost all townsmen possessing f u l l citizen rights (prdvo fact [writes Winter] many such were excluded. d i s t i n c t f r o m their poorer neighbours. . Was the whole c o m m u n i t y equally liable for those duties and obligations demanded b y the authorities w h i c h ran contrary t o the religious principles o f the Brethren? Was there a division w i t h i n the t o w n c o m m u n i t y between those Brethren w h o . o n the other h a n d . s h o u l d perhaps be approached f r o m another angle. a n d the elders advised t h e m t o remove f r o m t h e cities i n t o the s u b u r b s . .f o r such services.. 663. Aldermen o n the other h a n d . p. b u t also to the existence o f social differences w i t h i n the new Brethren communities i n the towns. they often sent u p f r o m the provinces to the elders o f the Brethren f o r advice as to w h a t t o d o .

There were. 7 5 .T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM 121 were n o t elected t o the c o u n c i l a n d represented. 3. property ownership being an essential qualification f o r f u l l citizenship. p p .the grand-masters o f the gilds. the t o w n p o o r a n d the dwellers i n the suburbs. peasants a n d village artisans. . 6 4 7 . 840. therefore. arose m a i n l y a m o n g those B r e t h r e n belonging t o the richer a n d more prosperous sections o f the u r b a n c o m m u n i t y . at least. 7 5 6 . the desire f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the o l d principles. T h e p o s i t i o n o f alderman. o n l y open i n effect t o the richer a n d m o r e influential citizens.. obraz ieskych mëst. 33 T h e m a i n offices i n the city . F o r the e c o n o m i c . the aldermen. I V . that the appeals f o r advice f r o m the L i t o m y s l a n d other Brethren communities were m a i n l y concerned. see F r a n t i s e k G r a u s . there also existed i n most towns a class o f inhabitants w i t h lesser rights or n o rights at a l l . was reserved for the very highest layer o f u r b a n society. 7 4 . as i n L i t o m y s l . 6 5 . pp. a n d d u r i n g the e a r l y stages of. i n a d d i t i o n t o his j u d i c i a l functions. outside the ranks o f the citizens privileged t o a greater o r lesser degree. 6 4 3 . I I . a n d l e g a l p o s i t i o n o f the místská v dobípfedhusitské (Prague. 6 3 3 . I I . was responsible f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the p r i s o n a n d was a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the t o r t u r e o f accused persons a n d convicted c r i m i n a l s . o f accepting t h a t o f alderm a n i n particular. therefore. p o o r e s t m e m b e r s o f the t o w n c o m m u n i t y before. I t was w i t h the v a l i d i t y o f t a k i n g u p office. c h a p s . A m o n g those Brethren w h o had settled i n the towns. 4. t o o . esp. those w h o d i d n o t possess their o w n house. the better sort are sum¬ " " ** W i n t e r . Kuhurni Ibid. w h o d i d n o t enjoy any legal rights at a l l w i t h i n the u r b a n c o m m u n i t y . These consisted m a i n l y o f the poorest i m m i g r a n t s f r o m the countryside. police and executive functions. 757. a democratic element w i t h i n the c o m m u n i t y . A t the same t i m e . writes the I n n e r C o u n c i l i n its edict. exercising extensive a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n the t o w n s h i p a n d c o m b i n i n g j u d i c i a l . 32 I n a d d i t i o n t o the f u l l citizens. first. T h e judge. fishermen a n d others w h o were unable o r u n w i l l i n g t o bear the full burden o f citizenship. a n d i t was these appeals t h a t ushered i n the controversy w h i c h was finally t o t r a n s f o r m completely the U n i t y ' s p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines.were. Ibid. Chudina 1949). Secondly came the numerous inhabitants o f the suburbs w h i c h grew u p a r o u n d most t o w n s . there existed w h o l e groups o f inhabitants. s o c i a l .. These facts w o u l d seem clearly to indicate t h a t the i n s p i r a t i o n f o r such appeals. those w h o had their houses o r shacks outside the c i t y gates. ' 31 Judges. 9 . a n d the judges . 637^4-0. I . 7 0 . 6 4 4 . t h e H u s s i t e r e v o l u t i o n . m i g h t be a p p o i n t e d f r o m the ranks o f almost a l l those possessing f u l l citizen rights. B u t practice once again confined this choice t o a n a r r o w e r circle. 'sometimes. I .

3 0 6 . I V . op. that the Inner Council's edict failed to set at rest the doubts entertained b y many Brethren concerning the attitude they should take u p i n such matters. pp. Dljiny sehkeho stavu. I I . 6 5 9 . Those w h o attempted t o p u t its injunctions i n t o practice f o u n d t h a t its precepts d i d not b r i n g relief f r o m hardship and persecution.).. A n d t h a t . too.K r o f t a . B. i f chosen for service i n the general levy (yerejnd hotovost). therefore. 75. J . t h o u g h . 143v ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . B. p. m i g h t have 37 to appear as a witness i n court where the t a k i n g o f an oath was o b l i g a t o r y .. 660. [acted] against their consciences. m i g h t o n occasion be liable f o r m i l i t a r y service. * 3 A n y o n e . peasant and t o w n s m a n . 4 5 v ( q u o t e d loc. pp. rich and poor. K r o f t a . fol. 2 9 9 .. being p u t to torture. cit. Kulturni Odpis. cil. V . ' 34 I t was to be 'the better' Brethren w h o were to carry t h r o u g h the internal r e v o l u t i o n w h i c h succeeded i n t r a n s f o r m i n g the U n i t y w i t h i n a few decades. still others were faint-hearted and.. cil. aldermen. even i f o n l y i n the event o f a direct threat t o their o w n township or village. obraz.K r o f t a . M a n y indeed were quite unable to take this step. their competence was m u c h narrower and their functions less likely to conflict w i t h the Brethren's p r i n c i p l e s . J . the p r o b l e m o f the relationship o f the U n i t y t o the state was one which. and judges as i n the t o w n s .e.. pp. p. .4 1 . 38 39 M A . t a k i n g unchristian oaths [i. oaths by the V i r g i n M a r y or the saints] and accepting such like t h i n g s . 35 M o s t fit male inhabitants o f the c o u n t r y . and i t was n o t possible for many people to [escape] this w a y . fol. f o l . p p . 198). 280. 76. op. ' ' A n d when even that was sometimes o f no avail they [i. op. W i n t e r . I . For even the suburbs and the village c o m munities had their o w n officials. 6 5 4 . cil. for other persons also were t r y i n g to do the same t h i n g . I . 136. he w r i t e s : I t s t i l l d i d not help at a l l . Dejiny W i n t e r . Nevertheless. A . even t h o u g h t o a lesser degree. op. M a t e j a n d the Inner Council] advised them to buy themselves o u t or take some other employment. was o f no avail. p p . cit.. 1 3 9 . touched a l l its members. p. to move i n t o the suburbs or to remove altogether f r o m the towns and r e t u r n t o the simple life o f the village.. 137.e. and i t w o u l d be rather the poorer inhabitants o f t o w n and c o u n t r y w h o w o u l d be unable to buy a substitute. femesel a obchodu. W h e n some had exchanged the t o w n for the suburbs or the c o u n t r y . I t was this that made so futile Brother Matej's advice to those t o w n Brethren t r o u b l e d as to h o w t o square the demands o f the authorities w i t h their consciences. " " " " " op. W i n t e r . 2 1 2 ) . cit. Lukas has painted a d a r k picture o f the situation at this p e r i o d . K r o f t a . i t is true.122 THE GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM moned to take office o r their help i n counsel is r e q u i r e d . however. too. 333 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . I t is not surprising.

then. The agenda o f the first The proceedings had been circulated a m o n g the Brethren before the F o u r questions were to be debated at the assembly. 41 This. o n learni n g o f Matëj's advice t o retire to the c o u n t r y . 8 7 .. i n w h i c h at least a m a j o r i t y seems n o w to have become convinced o f the need to relax the strict code o f conduct h i t h e r t o prevailing a m o n g the Brethren. Odpis. siècle: L'Unité des Frères. cit. 18v ( q u o t e d ibid. w i t h prayers and fasting. fol. F r o m this they reasoned that such things were n o t everywhere and i n a l l cases f o r b i d d e n by the holy scriptures.K r o f t a . p. even i f this should mean continued hardship and suffering. 4 6 ( q u o t e d G o l l . t o one o f potential revolt. between 1467 a n d 1490 an assembly o f this k i n d does n o t appear t o have been called at all. cit.T H E GENESIS OF THE SCHISM 123 T h e m o o d among m a n y o f the t o w n Brethren was r a p i d l y changing f r o m willingness to f o l l o w the counsel o f the leaders o f the U n i t y . therefore. Indeed. was the position when i n the same year the I n n e r C o u n c i l . a L i t o m y s l Brother. a measure o f the concern w h i c h the g r o w i n g dissension a m o n g the Brethren was evoking t h r o u g h o u t the whole U n i t y . soudci ipomocnikuov). session opened. 2 1 2 ) . 42 Odpis. Lukás writes : T h e y held m a n y meetings and sessions a n d discussions o n this matter. o f openly expressed dissatisfaction. decided to call a general assembly o f ' a l l the priests. the nobles a p p o i n t aldermen and judges there t o o . divided between the protagonists o f the o l d p r i n ciples and those wishing their m o d i f i c a t i o n . 'Cows w o n ' t give soap and. seeking God's w i l l . 4 3 Tapié. Secondly. according t o the scriptures. ' O u c e n y c h . p. Une église tchèque au XVe . p a r t l y because o f the difficulties o f travel at that date. 4 3 The Inner Council's present decision t o convoke a general assembly was. A n d t h r o u g h the h o l y scriptures they came to realize that some believers i n Christ h a d exercised c i v i l power a n d taken oaths. Preceded by p r e l i m i n a r y prayers a n d fasting a m o n g the congregations the assembly was held at Brandys nad O r l i c i . p. 2 0 6 ) . ' 4 0 T h e Inner C o u n c i l . 4 0 Its precise date is n o t k n o w n . seems the m o s t p r o b a b l e f r o m the context.. was t h o r o u g h l y perplexed as to the r i g h t course t o be pursued. ' fol.i2 Such gatherings had been held only very rarely d u r i n g the early years o f the U n i t y ' s history. op. anyhow. I t is n o t c o m p l e t e l y c l e a r w h e t h e r these w o r d s refer o n l y to the B u t s u c h a n interpretation 41 p e r i o d i n 1490 between the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l ' s reply to the L i t o m y S l B r e t h r e n a n d the g e n e r a l a s s e m b l y h e l d later i n the y e a r . loc. deacons. . they realized t h a t such p r o h i b i t i o n s arose f r o m an unmeasured and ' h i g h ' way o f t h i n k i n g as well as f r o m t w i s t i n g and misusing the scriptures. assessors and assistants {ysech knezíjáhnuov. a well-established centre o f Brethren activity. K r a s o n i c k y has preserved f o r us the apt comment o f one F i l i p the Soapmaker.

19 ( q u o t e d ibid. see J i r e c e k . w h i c h faced the Brethren when they gathered together at B r a n d y s . they participated fully i n the proceedings o f the conference.. cit.124 THE GENESIS OF THE SCHISM first o f these. op. N o t h i n g is k n o w n for certain as to the identity o f Liska.were t r y i n g t o live out the Christian gospel i n every detail i n their daily lives. p. . w h i c h concerned the degree o f a u t h o r i t y a member o f the U n i t y was t o exercise w i t h i n his o w n family. p p . 176. Otttiv slovnik 1904). his lack o f principle made h i m a strange adviser f o r the devout Brethren and. 45 But Rendl o f Ousava is a w e l l . 2 0 6 ) .7 6 . was o f secondary importance. concerned the m u c h debated p r o b l e m o f the v a l i d i t y o f oath-taking for those w h o . He asked the assembled Brethren to give their f r a n k o p i n i o n as t o h o w far civil a u t h o r i t y was consistent w i t h the U n i t y ' s principles. 48 H e was a capable m a n . since. op. all concerned w i t h the b u r n i n g question o f the attitude o f the U n i t y t o the state and its demands. he was yet t o rise t o h i g h office i n the land. even t h o u g h they were almost certainly n o t at t h a t t i m e actual members o f the U n i t y . naucny. was the i n v i t a t i o n extended t o t w o noblemen.' fol. and i n n o circumstances.K r o f t a .. 552-54. gaining a bad name i n history as the protagonist o f the n o b i l i t y against the towns i n their struggle f o r power d u r i n g the early years o f the sixteenth c e n t u r y . cit. as w i l l be seen. weighing the scales i n favour o f a s o l u t i o n favourable t o the new demands. 1 6 9 . 'For [he h a d to admit] we simply do n o t k n o w to what degree we should a l l o w 4 4 ' O ufienych. h i t h e r t o officially f o r b i d d e n . 44 A significant feature o f the conference. o r t o the c a r r y i n g o u t o f the demands o f the powers t h a t be.k n o w n and rather sinister figure i n Czech history. c o u l d one swear?' These were the k n o t t y problems awaiting s o l u t i o n . closely connected w i t h the first two. however. W h a t was to be the U n i t y ' s attitude to the acceptance o f a u t h o r i t y by its members. Klenovsky opened the proceedings o n behalf o f M a t e j a n d the I n n e r C o u n c i l . T h e i r presence m u s t have considerably influenced the discussions. w h i c h i n so m a n y cases conflicted w i t h the o l d rigorism? Were the Brethren t o p e r m i t w o r l d l y p o w e r a m o n g t h e m selves 'actively and passively'? A further question. p p . disillusioned they were eventually t o sever all connection w i t h h i m . 4 * 4 4 F o r R e n d l . ' w h o were i n sympathy w i t h the U n i t y ' : A l b r e c h t R e n d l o f Ousava and Liska. The m a i n discussions were to centre a r o u n d the other three items. p. ominous indeed for the future o f the O l d Brethren's p o i n t o f view. X X I (Prague. Sprung f r o m the m i n o r gentry.l i k e the early Brethren . b u t a m b i t i o u s a n d unscrupulous.. I I . S e e G o l l . 18v. ' D i d the L o r d f o r b i d the oath i n every shape so that never.

R e n d l a n d Liska. a b e r die U b e r z e u g u n g e n h a t t e n n o c h i m m e r i h r e K r a f t a u f i h m n i c h v e r l o r e n ' . i t w o u l d seem that the result was a forgone conclusion even before the u r n with the Brethren's opinions was opened: otherwise Matéj's hesit a t i o n w o u l d have been pointless.' were agreed o n assigning a legitimate place t o c i v i l a u t h o r i t y ' a m o n g the faithful. b u t n o t i n his h e a r t . b u t the s u p e r i o r w i l l .. B . I V . B u t the influence o f such members as Táborsky a n d P r o k o p . w h i c h even o u r fathers were T h o u g h n o t expressly stated. p. op. ' H e d i d n o t dare [ K r a s o n i c k y writes] to remain alone a n d he.' Those k n o w i n g h o w to write. . f o l . 4 8 A .K i o f t a .is i n c o r r e c t . Matéj's i n n e r m o s t c o n v i c t i o n s l a y r a t h e r w i t h the d o c t r i n e s o f R e h o f a n d the o l d B r e t h r e n . even where his o w n convictions r a n contrary t o theirs.i n c l u d i n g the t w o noble sympathizers. as w e l l as o f the non-member 1 7 R e n d l . b o t h actively a n d Klenovsky is said t o have expressed himself d u r i n g one o f the we shall be placing an unbearsessions even more f o r c i b l y : ' I f we f o r b i d the Brethren to take p a r t i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f justice (aby se nesoudili). cit. op. his fear o f g o i n g against the o p i n i o n o f the educated members o f his C o u n c i l .' s e i n e i n n e r s t e seines M e i s t e r s G r e g o r N e i g u n g gait d e r gemassigsten P a r t e i . A n d they earnestly urged h i m t o come d o w n o n one side or the other i n this matter o f a u t h o r i t y : either t h a t i t c o u l d be a d m i t t e d a m o n g the faithful. . Those w h o were illiterate were t o get someone k n o w i n g h o w t o write t o take d o w n their o p i n i o n f o r t h e m . and his i n a b i l i t y t o give a lead i n times o f crisis.. therefore. T h e n a l l those present . J . too. i t is probable nevertheless t h a t some o f the o r d i n a r y Brethren present came o u t against any w a t e r i n g d o w n o f the U n i t y ' s previous doctrines.handed i n their opinions (cedulki).p o w e r a n d l e a r n i n g o f the o p p o n e n t s o f s u c h v i e w s a m o n g h i s n e a r e s t a d v i s e r s w a s to g a i n a n i n c r e a s i n g influence o n h i s p o l i c y .T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM 125 o r p r o h i b i t these things. gave way. ' 17 A l l the members o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l (starsi) passively. ' 48 able yoke u p o n the necks o f o u r followers. ' H e was fearful [writes K r a s o n i c k y later] lest t h r o u g h the acceptance o f a u t h o r i t y the U n i t y w o u l d be c o r r u p t e d . 2 2 6 ) .' F r o m Krasonicky's account. w i t h the exception o f Brother Matéj. cit. were to p u t d o w n their views o n pieces o f paper w i t h their names and place t h e m i n an u r n . unable to b e a r . w h o were n o t indeed strictly entitled to d o so . showed themselves at this critical m o m e n t . p. Once again Matéj's lack o f decision. i f i t had n o t already been f a i r l y certain t h a t some degree o f approval w o u l d be given to a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the o l d viewpoint. 66 . as at the beginning they had accepted f r o m Petr Chelcicky's treatise. whose S u c h passages s h o w t h a t G i n d e l y ' s v e r d i c t o n Matéj. 51v ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . the o n l y one left us o f the actual course o f the conference's proceedings. o r that i t c o u l d n o t .

Then the delgates were t o l d that. Prokop's statement was read o u t to the assembly o n the recommendation o f Brother M a t e j and his c o u n c i l . o b l i g a t o r y for a l l true C h r i s t i a n s . p p . proved o f greater weight than the force o f t r a d i t i o n . extant. they w i l l be dealt w i t h i n their t u r n w i t h kindness.. . ' fols. as exemplified i n his treatment o f the controversy o n j u s t i f i cation by w o r k s or f a i t h . Cross-questioning a gathering o f Brethren a b o u t certain articles o f their faith. op. made effective use o f a clever argument to counteract the tendency to regard the opinions o f Rehof and the O l d Brethren as b i n d i n g o n the U n i t y f o r ever. to save time (abych krdtkosti pozivaT) the conference accepted as a basis for the edict the exposition o f the Brother ' w h o had w r i t t e n well o n good w i l l . and finding they held diverse opinions. ' O obnoveni. t h o u g h neither o f the w o r k s mentioned are any longer Prokop's gift f o r finding a compromise solution b r o a d l y acceptable to both sides. w a s s e r i o u s l y u n d e r m i n e d . differentiation w a s m a d e between C h r i s t ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s (pfikizdni) a d v i c e (radd). cit. makes his authorship o f the edict most probable. 2 0 2 ) . which w o u l d i n order contain the decisions arrived at d u r i n g the conference and a justification for the changes i n doctrine. 1 9 .. they should make these k n o w n . 50 This c o u l d only have been Brother P r o k o p . p p . since ' i t is not a matter i n v o l v i n g a loss of life or h o n o u r a n d . where they had condemned a lack o f u n a n i m i t y i n matters o f f a i t h w i t h i n any Christian congregation.K r o f t a . he had then gone on to quote passages f r o m the writings o f the early Brethren. He had already. P r o k o p ' s in which a mere and his t r a c t p r o b a b l y c o n t a i n e d a c o m m e n t a r y o n the S e r m o n o n the M o u n t . and i f they " 4 0 ' O u c e n y c h . A c c o r d i n g to G o l l . ' and whose ' w r i t i n g and commentary o n the fifth chapter o f St. Matthew concerning the higher righteousness' had seemingly also been read out and approved d u r i n g the conference. 2 0 7 ) . 175.' 49 The I n n e r C o u n c i l was entrusted by those present w i t h d r a w i n g u p at once before the delegates dispersed a new edict (vypoved). i f they do i t o u t o f a sense o f d u t y and w i t h love.2 0 ( q u o t e d G o l l . 'Therefore [ P r o k o p concluded t r i u m p h a n t l y ] I tell y o u i n a l l sincerity that I d o n o t k n o w h o w t o justify these passages. i n the period immediately before the conference at Brandys. 9 5 v ( q u o t e d ibid. 2 0 6 . A c c o r d i n g t o Lukas's O obnoveni.' fol. T h e f o r m e r w a s to be o b e y e d i n all cases. the latter m i g h t to s o m e e x t e n t b e a matter of c h o i c e : i n this w a y the s e v e r e code o f b e h a v i o u r o f the e a r l y U n i t y .126 T H E GENESIS OF THE SCHISM statements a l l came o u t definitely i n favour o f the acceptance by the U n i t y o f a more positive attitude towards the state. h o l d i n g that such diverisity was the m a r k o f damnation and had advocated that such people be shunned by all true believers. i f they had any objections t o the contents o f Prokop's statement.

as to whether U n i t y members should accept office. I t is again a d m i t t e d that i t is a difficult p r o b l e m . They therefore recommend. 2 1 3 ) . posed d u r i n g the conference. p r e s e n t e d i n the n a m e o f all the m e m b e r s o f t h e I n n e r C o u n c i l . B u t necessity had forced t h e m to come t o some decision i n the matter.. fol. C f . do n o t leave us. Odpis.' fols. ' fols.THE GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM 127 really are true.. the passing o f the edict] i n order t h a t i t should n o t be said that the wise and the learned had b r o u g h t t h e m about. answered: ' D e a r B r o t h e r P r o k o p . i t w o u l d be r i g h t to depart f r o m y o u and provide f o r oneself i n some other way. a n d the other has been_ identified by G o l l as most p r o b a b l y Prokop. or grandmaster o f a g i l d . 9 7 ( q u o t e d ibid.d o i n g . was a prelude t o the I n n e r Council's t a k i n g under serious consideration the whole question o f the U n i t y ' s attitude to the c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s . o r become a tavern-keeper. . " ' O o b n o v e n i .' One o f these t w o men was definitely K l e n o v s k y . refers back i n its very first sentence to the question. i n view o f the countless temptations involved. Nevertheless. P r o k o p . that provided basis f o r the e d i c t . p.e. and that the Brethren are most anxious t o avoid a n y t h i n g that m i g h t be against G o d ' s w i l l o r against their o w n consciences. first postulated by the L i t o m y s l Brethren. p. T h e edict o f Brandys.. 2 0 6 ) . . that no Brother should ' o f his o w n free w i l l ' accept office as an alderman. says K r a s o nicky w h o relates the story. we very m u c h want t o listen t o w h a t y o u recommend i n this as i n other matters a n d . L u k a s .. Though it p r o b a b l y exaggerates the degree of u n a n i m i t y . ibid. 52 comthe and n o t Prokop's.' The Brethren. ' m a k i n g their excuses. t o o . indeed. p. ' o r ever be i n s t r u m e n t a l i n t o r t u r i n g o r p u t t i n g to death a fellow-man accused o f w r o n g .' The incident. 18 ( q u o t e d ibid. 53 B u t whoever may have been most reponsible f o r the d r a w i n g u p o f the actual text. . ' fol. This. as this momentous document was called. w a s t h e n u n a n i m o u s l y a c c e p t e d b y the w h o l e assembly as their o w n . 17v. I 9 v . 4 6 ( q u o t e d ' O u c e n y c h . 2 0 7 ) . and Taborsky. w o u l d seem t o be more i n line w i t h Lukas's statement that t w o o f the Brethren opposed t o the o l d doctrines. 2 1 2 . i n everything. 51 A l l this w o u l d seem t o indicate t h a t the actual c o m p o s i t i o n o f the edict o f Brandys was the result o f Prokop's d r a f t i n g . w h e r e it is m e r e l y stated t h a t the a s s e m b l e d B r e t h r e n left it to the elders to d r a w u p the e x a c t w o r d i n g o f the e d i c t . its contents m u s t almost certainly have been agreed u p o n beforehand a m o n g such leading figures as K l e n o v s k y . alarmed at the thought that their leaders m i g h t desert them. 2 0 ( q u o t e d ibid. a n d t h a t the final v e r s i o n . o r go to the wars. t h i s a c c o u n t c o n t a i n s a l l t h a t c a n be r e g a r d e d a s c e r t a i n c o n c e r n i n g t h e a u t h o r s h i p o f the e d i c t . judge. ' " " A 'O ucenych. 2 0 3 ) . Krasonicky's narrative later implies that i t was Taborsky's statement (cedule). d i d n o t take p a r t i n these matters [i. p p .

or. i n all professions.' d i d n o t go far i n defining exactly w h a t tasks undertaken at the c o m m a n d o f the powers that be were w r o n g for the Christian to perform. scarcely provided an answer t o these questions. 19] and 'Let h i m eschew evil and do g o o d ' [1 Peter I I I . Those Brethren. to accept any o f these things. repeating the words o f the L o r d ' s Prayer: 'Lead us not i n t o t e m p t a t i o n . But what was t o happen i f a l l their efforts were i n vain and the a u t h o r ities demanded acceptance o n pain o f the most serious penalties? plete reversal o f the U n i t y ' s official standpoint h i t h e r t o . . F o r i n such matters as these. and the responsibility o f M a t e j and the Inner C o u n c i l t o give a definite r u l i n g i n difficult cases is expressly stated. i t is n o t impossible.e. and persons. a l t h o u g h i t is difficult to preserve a g o o d conscience a n d shun evil. o n account o f the divergence o f cause. t h r o u g h o u t the w h o l e c o u n t r y . I n the trickier cases the decision is left once again t o the p r o v i n c i a l congregations and the i n d i v i d u a l Brethren t o make. at every time a n d i n every place. t i m e . . The general advice that ' i n every class and i n every r a n k . i f taken literally. . as t o h o w they should behave.. . Nevertheless. indeed. G o l l has p o i n t e d o u t Here the edict was to make a concession. where these cannot be avoided. 11]. We cannot give u n i f o r m i n s t r u c t i o n and teaching as t o h o w one should conduct oneself [i. and the i n j u n c t i o n t o comply w i t h the demands o f the authorities. t o discover whether a certain line o f action previously condemned by the U n i t y was not i n reality quite consistent w i t h Christ's teachings. The i n j u n c t i o n t o accept the duties o f office i n so far as these d i d n o t conflict w i t h God's w i l l . t o w h o m the task o f oversight is entrusted. being unable to escape either t h r o u g h humble pleading o r i n any other way. This perhaps is n o t f o r m a l l y a great advance o n the reply sent earlier i n the year to the L i t o m y s l Brethren. A n d wherever the Brethren cannot agree o n any matter. I f a Brother should be forced by the c i v i l a u t h o r i t y . .128 T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM Brother should a v o i d as far as possible such occupations. there is Brother M a t e j i n R y c h n o v to appeal to i n the m o r e difficult a n d perplexing questions. the tone o f the new edict is more forceful. . ' i n whatever is not against G o d ' is extremely evasive. i n other words. he s h o u l d according t o [ o u r ] counsel submit t o the authorities i n whatever is n o t against G o d . T h e p o i n t at issue was to determine exactly w h a t was and what was not against God's w i l l . ' So far. the edict followed closely the v i e w p o i n t o f the O l d Brethren. let the scripture be f u l f i l l e d : ' L e t every one that nameth the name o f Christ depart f r o m i n i q u i t y ' [2 T i m o t h y I I . w h i c h constituted i n essence a c o m - . place. against his conscience. should consider the matter and discuss amongst themselves w h a t counsel and teaching should be given those placed i n such situations. more authoritative. i n such cases].

. 54 By the edict o f Brandys. fols. i n a d d i t i o n . etc. 2 0 2 ) . u n d e r c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . t h a t it dealt w i t h the subject of o a t h s a n d t h e t y p e s o f e m p l o y m e n t p e r m i t t e d a m o n g the B r e t h r e n .. t o o . t h a t the e d i c t e x p r e s s l y a l l o w e d ' n o b l e s a n d t h o s e i n a u t h o r i t y ' to be a c c e p t e d i n t o the U n i t y . Whoever w o u l d rather suffer should have the l i b e r t y t o d o so. 55 5 4 G o l l . cit. I t is m o s t l i k e l y . p p . w i t h o u t r e n o u n c i n g t h e i r p o s i t i o n s . 1 7 7 . a n d . vêtit pismy strany bez o T h e edict appears rozmlouvâni in several and se v e r s i o n s .' a p o i n t w h i c h does not figure i n t h e o t h e r v e r s i o n s . I t was l a i d d o w n t h a t n o t only were office a n d a l l forms o f state service t o be avoided i f h u m a n l y possible i f exemption were n o t t o be obtained. A t the same t i m e a conscientious objection clause was inserted i n the edict for those a m o n g the Brethren w h o held to the o l d principles. 2 1 4 ) . a p a r t f r o m the o n e g i v e n b y Lukââ i n h i s Odpis. were the Brethren t o c a l l i n the a i d o f the state i n matters concerning U n i t y members alone. A n y o n e f o r w h o m i t w o u l d be against their conscience to become an alderman. or. . h o w e v e r . 4 6 v . h o w e v e r . even here the edict gave a loophole f o r a further m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the rule later o n since. at least those duties w h i c h directly conflicted w i t h C h r i s t i a n m o r a l i t y s h o u l d be refused. a n d that he should n o t consider himself better t h a n those who d o n o t suffer. t h e Zprava samymi pp. 1 7 6 . 2 1 3 . LukâS i n h i s ' O o b n o v e n i . therefore.' Nevertheless. a l t h o u g h the Brethren were urged t o resist any attempt t o have recourse to the law a n d the state i n their o w n affairs. j u d g e . 9 6 ( q u o t e d ibid. a positive answer was i m p l i c i t i n its decisions. a more positive attitude to the demands o f the state. p . chtëji. Under no circumstances. 4 7 ( q u o t e d ibid. T h e r e is a l s o a s h o r t e n e d v e r s i o n i n O obnoveni. [the edict states] should n o t be constrained b y the fact t h a t the Brethren allow this w i t h fitting reservations. t h a t this a c c o u n t w a s n o t s o m u c h a précis o f the e d i c t ' s c o n t e n t s a s a s u m m a r y o f the inferences d r a w n f r o m it o v e r the n e x t few y e a r s . t h a t the e d i c t also p e r m i t t e d m e m b e r s o f the U n i t y to c a l l i n the a i d o f the l a w ' f o r t h e i r o w n defence. 9 5 v . A l l t h a t was t o be demanded o f such persons was tolerance o f those Brethren whose consciences directed t h e m otherwise.K r o f t a . t h o u g h such recognition was s t i l l hedged a r o u n d w i t h numerous provisos a n d restrictions.T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM 129 t h a t .K r o f t a p r i n t s the m o r e v Chlumci zpravovati zprâvcùv neb knëïi see n o t e 54. states. ktefii G o l l . was officially recognized as being consistent w i t h the U n i t y way o f life.. ' W e should n o t p e r m i t c i v i l a u t h o r i t y w i t h a l l its laws a n d punishments a m o n g ourselves. ** Odpis. either. their o p p o s i t i o n was t o be carried o n 'moderately u n t i l a further understanding' had been reached. op. ' fols. the h o l d i n g o f office. a l t h o u g h neither the question o f the v a l i d i t y o f oaths n o r t h a t o f the admission o f members o f the n o b i l i t y i n t o the U n i t y was expressly dealt w i t h i n the edict. important variations from Lukâs's Psani proti tent. o n c o n d i t i o n o n l y t h a t he does n o t vilify those w h o have approved this. H e states h e r e .

T h r o u g h the edict their opponents ' h a d let the looseness o f the w o r l d ' i n t o the U n i t y . Nevertheless the assembly h a d b r o k e n u p i n a conciliatory atmosphere. They were n o t light decisions b u t such as were forced u p o n t h e m by dire necessity. indeed. ' 56 T h e demand f o r this h a d come f r o m below. a quite understandable desire t o p u t an end to the suffering i n v o l v e d i n resistance was n o w i n fact the m a i n reason f o r justifying c o n f o r m i t y i n the final instance. a source o f bitterness a n d hatred between one B r o t h e r and another. t h a t i t was n o longer t h e i r attitude t o the state w h i c h gave rise t o such persecution. t o the fact that they h a d n o w regained 'the true i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the h o l y s c r i p t u r e s . J . B . n o t accepting office etc. h a d n o t been reached i n a h u r r y . b u t over a period o f several years. a n d i t is. 2 8 .. I f objection were taken o n l y t o those actions involved i n carrying o u t such duties 'as were against G o d . T h e recent changes were due. was a desire to escape persecution. f r o m the beginning the rigorists h a d n o t been consistent. they said. Either o n the same day as the edict was approved by the delegates o r o n the day f o l l o w i n g . were s t i l l t o be avoided at almost any cost.Lukas's account is n o t clear o n this p o i n t .130 THE GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM F o r a decade a n d more the edict o f Brandy s was t o be a bone o f content i o n between the t w o factions w i t h i n the U n i t y . 143v. as a result o f lengthy consideration by B r o t h e r Matej and his Inner C o u n c i l o f the problems involved. h a r d to a v o i d the conclusion that. The leadership o f the U n i t y . fol. going t o the wars. a n d the other actions h i t h e r t o officially f o r b i d d e n to the Brethren. i t was claimed. The o n l y motive for these changes. . ' why still advise U n i t y members t o avoid the other a n d less reprehensible duties altogether i f this were a t a l l possible? The logic o f the situation was finally to drive the U n i t y still further o n the r o a d towards c o n f o r m i t y . I V . B u t f o r some years the opponents o f the O l d Brethren continued flatly to deny any t r u t h i n such assertions. ' 57 The call t o preserve m u t u a l t o l e r a t i o n was t o remain only a pious hope. The decisions j u s t taken. this said. Ibid. f r o m the rank-and-file B r e t h r e n . F o r those w h o remained l o y a l to the o l d p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines i t meant a betrayal o f their dearest principles. since h o l d i n g office. 'Those w h o advocated not swearing. anyhow. t h o u g h they h a d t o a d m i t . i n reality were n o t themselves constant i n this m a t t e r . a n d . T h e y claimed that the Brethren h a d n o t ceased t o be persecuted after the passing o f the edict. fol. . condemning criminals to death a n d p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n their t o r t u r e and execution. i n their view. h a d done its u t m o s t t o show *• " A .a further resolution was read o u t a n d likewise accepted b y those present. indeed.

s h o u l d be u n w i l l i n g t o accept correction. w h i c h was f o r t h w i t h passed u n a n i m o u s l y : If. . I f .t o B r o t h e r M a t e j and his Brethren. especially when i t is realized that b o t h A m o s a n d J a k u b .'' L u k a s calls t h e m . were they t h a t as m o t i v a t e d b y a c o m b i n a t i o n o f b o t h these reasons. and arrange t h a t w i t h o u t disturbance things should either r e m a i n as they are o r something i n t h e m be changed. feeling things h a d t u r n e d o u t the best p l a n was t o bide their time and w a i t u n t i l they h a d returned a m o n g their o w n people. 59 Were they t e m p o r a r i l y appeased b y the recognition still accorded the o l d doctrines i n the edict? O r were they perhaps overawed by the weight o f o p i n i o n o n the side o f a change i n doctrine a n d b y the superior learning o f their opponents? Or.. shall he first be excluded f r o m the body and b l o o d o f the L o r d a n d . b u t c o m i n g i n person . were delegates to the assembly. however. 2 1 4 . . 'Therefore. ' There is m u c h that is h a r d t o understand i n the story as related by Lukas.' B u t 'they a l l said that they approved and w i t h o u t 58 more ado accepted everything as g o o d . A n d Brother M a t e j and his Brethren should take the matter i n t o consideration. let h i m make them k n o w n before y o u depart. 4 7 v ( q u o t e d ibid. should he remain obstinate c o r r u p t i n g others. then . . ' O o b n o v e n i . B u t i f anyone. h a v i n g first been admonished. he shall be expelled f r o m " " Odpis. great or small. . W h a t is clear. is t h a t even t h o u g h n o one came f o r w a r d to voice their objections to the edict. the leadership o f the U n i t y was still apprehensive t h a t the seeming u n a n i m i t y w o u l d prove illusory.e. B u t i t is h a r d t o see w h y they ' h i d (zatajili)' their opinions at this c r i t i c a l moment. the t w o future leaders o f the o p p o s i t i o n M i n o r Party. b u t s h o u l d cause disturbances and dissension.o r w r i t i n g . ' fol. i f anyone has any objections [i. anyone should still find any objections [ i t stated] he s h o u l d neither speak n o r act openly or i n secret against this edict . n o t o u t o f weakness b u t f r o m stubbornness and wilfulness. anyone should n o t observe w h a t is here ordained . after t h i n k i n g things over o r f o r any other reasons. he s h o u l d then be corrected. since they n o w b r o u g h t f o r w a r d still another supplementary resolution. fol. m e n w h o appear later as remarkably outspoken i n the defence o f their views. I t is certain t h a t there were opponents o f the v i e w p o i n t expressed i n the edict present at the assembly: 'certain persons o f the p r i m i t i v e ' h i g h ' way o f t h i n k i n g (nekteri z prvniho vysokeho smysleni). p.T H E GENESIS OF T H E SCHISM 131 tolerance o f a l l points o f view. he should i n f o r m t h e m o r that B r o t h e r w h o is i n charge o f the province. . 2 1 5 ) . even m o r e l i k e l y . . p p . before opening the attack against the innovations? I n view o f the absence o f documentary evidence these can o n l y r e m a i n suppositions. t o the decisions taken]. however. 9 6 v ( q u o t e d ibid. .. 2 0 2 ) .

6 0 This resolution was t o figure p r o m i n e n t l y i n the f o r t h c o m i n g controversy. They had given their opponents the o p p o r t u n i t y to b r a n d t h e m as destroyers o f the U n i t y ' s discipline. They had made i t harder f o r themselves to act as i f they were martyrs o f conscience. n o t o f their o p p o s i t i o n t o the new regulations . suffering o n account o f their religious beliefs and penalized by their opponents f o r r e m a i n i n g f a i t h f u l t o the o l d doctrines o f the U n i t y . says that neither A m o s n o r J a k u b gave t h e i r f o r m a l agreement to w h a t been e n a c t e d d u r i n g the a s s e m b l y . for indeed they k n e w quite well that w h o e v e r h o l d s h i s tongue i n s u c h m a t t e r s i n fact gives h i s c o n s e n t to w h a t is being e n a c t e d .. fols.f o r h a d n o t b o t h viewpoints been granted t o l e r a t i o n i n the edict o f Brandys? . 4 7 v .b u t because o f their 'stubborness a n d wilfulness' and 'the disturbances and dissension' they were to i n s p i r e . 2 1 5 ) . cit. 61 The protagonists o f the o l d doctrines h a d . c o m m i t t e d a tactical blunder i n n o t immediately c o m i n g o u t i n t o the open w i t h their o p p o s i t i o n t o the recent changes. 2 0 7 ) . I t was to provide theoretical justification f o r the expulsion o f the leaders o f the M i n o r Party o n the grounds. ' fol. opposition. with their a c c o u n t . indeed. i n l i n e w i t h L u k a S ' s had open T h i s is n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t . i f he continue i n his wickedness. p. rebels against the properly constituted leadership.. h a v i n g given tacit assent to t h i s p r o p o s a l t h r o u g h refraining f r o m a n y sign o f A s L u k a S w r i t e s i n h i s Odpis. h o w e v e r .132 T H E GENESIS O F T H E SCHISM his congregation a n d . 4 8 ( q u o t e d ibid. even t h o u g h this may n o t have been so very far f r o m the t r u t h . f r o m the U n i t y as w e l l . * l K r a s o n i c k y i n h i s ' O U c e n y c h . be.: ' B e i n g s u m m o n e d to t h i s a s s e m b l y a n d h a v i n g objections. they k e p t t h e m to themselves a n d thus s h o w e d a l a c k o f l o y a l t y . ' . Odpis. 20 ( q u o t e d ibid. p.

as the medieval monastic orders had done . m a r k e d by a l l the bitterness and rancour and verbal slander. B u t the victory o f the reformers was bought at a great price. B u t i t was n o t u n t i l after the assembly o f Brandys was over t h a t a well-defined p a r t y arose a m o n g the Brethren. is associated i n particular w i t h t w o names: A m o s a n d 1 Jakub (or K u b i k ) StSkensky. however. however ill-defined its provisions may seem i n comparison w i t h the p o s i t i o n the Brethren were later t o take up i n f o r m u l a t i n g their new approach t o society. as these Brethren are usually k n o w n . indeed.apart f r o m the w o r l d . The r e v o l u t i o n . ' etc. was n o t carried t h r o u g h w i t h o u t a struggle.. b u t w i t h i n society. b o t h participants i n the conference of 1 T h e i r o p p o n e n t s w h o . The history o f the M i n o r Party (Mensi strand). W h e r e v e r p o s s i b l e I have avoided such terms. . w h i c h quarrels i n the realm o f theology o r politics seem almost inevitably t o arouse. marks the first stage i n the i n t e r n a l r e v o l u t i o n w i t h i n the U n i t y . f o r m e d the m a j o r i t y o f t h e U n i t y a s the M a j o r P a r t y (VetSi strand). This r e v o l u t i o n was to t r a n s f o r m i t f r o m an obscure sect o f semi-literate peasants and h u m b l e artisans i n t o a religious c o m m u n i t y . The controversy w h i c h ensued was. T h i s h a s l e d to s o m e c o n f u s i o n a n d i n d e e d begs the issue. i n w h i c h the aristocracy o f b i r t h a n d wealth as well as o f learning a n d literature were t o play their part i n m a k i n g i t one o f the most v i t a l forces i n the history o f the Czech lands d u r i n g the century preceding the battle o f the W h i t e M o u n t a i n . 'conservative. T h e epithets. it w a s s o o n to b e c o m e c l e a r . w h i c h was eventually prepared t o split the U n i t y and go i n t o the wilderness rather than sanction any adulteration o f the o l d doctrines. parties. They were ready t o abandon the attempt to live o u t the ideal o f the early C h r i s t i a n church n o t . T h e y were prepared t o t h r o w over almost a l l those doctrines o f the early Brethren w h i c h signified their distinctive c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the history o f p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t .' both ' r a d i c a l . h a v e b e e n u s e d by m o d e m h i s t o r i a n s to d e s c r i b e w e r e often k n o w n 'progressive'.I V THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MINOR PARTY The edict o f Brandy's.

however. his lifelong opponent.. and against the recently p r o m u l g a t e d edict i n p a r t i c ular.134 T H E BEGINNINGS OF T H E MINOR PARTY Brandys w h o n o w went back t o their home district o f Prachefl i n s o u t h Bohemia and immediately began a vigorous campaign against the new trends i n the U n i t y . i t was rather J a k u b the M i l l e r f r o m Steken i n 4 the district o f Pracheri. Rukovit k dijinam literatury ceske. J a n a B l a h o s l a v a h i s t o r i e b r a t f i c e s k y c h . 2 This was. C. I n later controversy i t is A m o s w h o figures most p r o m i n e n t l y . says L u k a s . I . ' fol. K r a s o n i c k y . Safarik. proti odriencom. 207. 2 0 . L u k a s " . p. I l l v. ' O o b n o v e n i . quite i n accordance w i t h the provisions o f the edict o f Brandos. a k i n d o f he led. w o n over by A m o s f o r the cause o f the o l d doctrines about a year before the h o l d i n g o f the assembly o f Brandys. 9 6 v . fols. . O f Jakub's early career almost n o t h i n g is known. 2 1 5 . 5 Lukas. A m o s had originated f r o m U h e r s k y B r o d i n M o r a v i a and later became a trader i n wax. 4 3 0 . J . I V . moreover. 1862. 107. always a somewhat difficult character to handle. 145v ( q u o t e d G o l l . ' p r o m i n e n t i n the B a n d o f L o v e (v rote milovney before he j o i n e d the B r e t h r e n : by w h i c h statement L u k a s meant that A m o s had been one o f those converted by Brother R e h o f to the U n i t y f r o m the Adamites. B . 145. Odpis a Jednota v XV. fol. has preserved several details a b o u t the activities o f Amos. b u t the accusations o f personal dishonesty and i m m o r a l i t y are u n p r o v e n . 4 8 .K r o f t a . I t is at the assembly o f Brandys that the names o f the t w o future leaders o f the M i n o r Party are met w i t h for the first time. ' A m o n g a l l the schismatics he was first and foremost [writes Lukas i n 1527] being the source (puvod) o f them a l l . I V . relating t o the period before 1490. B u t L u k a s goes o n t o give some further bits o f i n f o r m a t i o n o f a scurrilous nature. ' C. This may w e l l be true. ' O u c e n y c h . they d i d n o t then wait for MatSj's answer. H e was probably. stoleti. Soon after their r e t u r n home the t w o composed a tract i n defence o f the o l d d o c t r i n e w h i c h they then sent t o Brother M a t e j . L u k a s claims. i t is true. 2 0 3 . M. pp. ' fol. indeed. Chelcicky 3 4 fol. had been f r o m the beginning a secret fifth-columnist a m o n g the B r e t h r e n . an occupation permitted to its members by the strict social code o f the early Brethren and one w h i c h must have brought h i m i n t o contact w i t h a wide circle o f acquaintances i n * L u k a s . A k t a J e d n o t y B r a t r s k e . w h o at first assumed the leadership. the t r u t h o f w h i c h is more t h a n doubtful. A m o s . However. 2 1 6 ) . ' B r . a n i m m o r a l life and had amassed a large fortune t h r o u g h various shady dealings. enemy o f Brother Rehof. He h a d been. whereby they made themselves liable t o disciplinary action f r o m their church authorities. p. • . ' 3 Nevertheless. J i r e c e k . b u t began agitating among their fellow Brethren against the decisions taken at Brandys. A .

. b u t were t o be f o u n d elsewhere a m o n g the U n i t y congregations a r o u n d Beroun. 10. . fol. 2 2 2 . K r o f t a . 1 5 .. whose inhabitants were f a m i l i a r w i t h the most radical traditions o f the Hussite movement. 1 lOv ( q u o t e d ibid. 129. and t h a t i t was here that their m a i n strength lay. A . p p . I V . 2 2 2 ) . fols. as w e l l as f r o m the c o u n t r y Brethren a n d the poorest members i n the towns. J .T H E BEGINNINGS OF T H E MINOR PARTY 135 different parts o f Bohemia a n d M o r a v i a . 110v. w h i c h so strongly characterized the way o f life o f the Brethren d u r i n g the first t w o decades o f the U n i t y ' s existence. K l a t o v . They certainly had quite a n u m b e r o f supporters a n d sympathizers among the delegates at the assembly. 6 A .. I V . The rigorists were especially strong i n south Bohemia. M i i l l e r . p. as well as i n Moravia. This is certainly a gross exag- geration. being an assistant I t is impossible t o say w h a t measure o f support A m o s a n d J a k u b possessed either before or after their r e t u r n f r o m the assembly o f Brandys. C f . ' P s a n l p r o t i K a l e n c o w i o p u o w o d u o d t r z e n c u w . b u t i t may be t r u e t h a t they were at first the o n l y ones ready to take an active lead against the innovators. H e n o w made his home at 4 V o d n a n y i n south Bohemia. and Lukas expressly states t h a t ' A m o s was present at this assembly some o f his supporters (s svymi nekterymi). f o l . as the whole course o f the proceedings clearly shows. 8 K r a s o n i c k y says t h a t ' o f the schismatics there were at the 9 beginning only t w o . despite the increasing hardships entailed i n c a r r y i n g them i n t o practice. B . I t is n o t then mere chance t h a t i t was also f r o m south Bohemia t h a t the t w o leaders o f the p a r t y w h i c h strove to m a i n t a i n the t r a d i t i o n o f social radicalism i n the U n i t y came. I V . Odpis. p. H r e j s a . bratrske. .B a r t o s . ' A m o s and J a k u b . L a n s k r o u n . m a n y o f w h o m retained something o f the u n c o m p r o m i s i n g t h i r s t after r i g h t eousness unsullied b y contact w i t h the w o r l d . J . w i t h their roots i n these parts stretching back t o the obscure Waldensian sectaries o f the p e r i o d before H u s .' 10 with D e v o t i o n to the ideals o f Brother R e h o f and the O l d Brethren must have been widespread a m o n g U n i t y members t h r o u g h o u t the c o u n t r y . 168. ' fol. Dejiny krest'anstvi v Ceskoslovensku. 3 5 7 v . op. T h e followers w h o m they were t o gather a r o u n d t h e m d u r i n g the next few years were n o t . cit. the country o f Chelfcicky and the Taborites. B . p p . n o t far f r o m ChelCicky's native village. J i r e t e k . p. 4 5 ( q u o t e d ibid. according t o M i i l l e r . o f the U n i t y clergy. confined o n l y to their o w n province o f Prachen. p. 2 1 2 ) . Dejiny Jednoty I . . p. 112v ( q u o t e d ibid. and f r o m here carried o n a successful business a c t i v i t y . • 1 0 K r a s o n i c k y .. O bratrskem 7 8 d(jepisect\i. L i t o m y s l . I . S u p p o r t f o r them was f o r t h c o m i n g expecially f r o m the older generation. 7 H e was also p r o m i (pomocnik) nent locally i n the c h u r c h life o f his province. 14. 2 2 3 ) .

w h o knew h i m well. b o t h C h e l c i c k y a n d R e h o f were to e m p h a s i z e the s u b o r d i n a t e p l a c e w h i c h . Only t w o names are k n o w n o f these first disciples enlisted by A m o s a n d Jakub f o r their cause. ' fol.' is mostly abuse. writes i n some detail. VodiSka.' 12 Despite attempts o n the p a r t o f K r a s o n i c k y and the Brethren to convince h i m o f the wrongness o f his general position " " K r a s o n i c k y . 172. about w h o m K r a s o n i c k y . M a t o u s t o l d K r a s o n i c k y after the latter had used a q u o t a t i o n f r o m the O l d Testament i n his address: ' W h a t are you daring to assert? W h a t have we t o d o w i t h the Jews? We have the New. not O l d Testament. a t a i l o r i n Chlumec. an even more u n r u l y character s t i r r i n g u p dissension wherever he went. 11 Once more this B u t i t seems t r u e that some o f the m o r e restless a n d fractious spirits i n the U n i t y were d r a w n i n t o the M i n o r Party. They seem t o have also been connected w i t h disputes over such points o f U n i t y belief as the attitude t o be adopted by Brethren towards the state. i n the c o u n t r y a r o u n d their native Prácheñ that A m o s and K u b i k n o w began t o r a l l y their supporters i n defence o f the o l d doctrines. K r a s o n i c k y writes t h a t 'these t w o then sought t o o b t a i n the help o f anyone they c o u l d persuade. and he disputed p u b l i c l y as w e l l w i t h Krasonicky. There was. Prior to his expulsion he t o o k an active p a r t i n the controversy over justification by f a i t h o r by w o r k s . B u t the exact reasons f o r his expulsion are somewhat obscure. therefore. allegedly f o r causing d i s t u r b ances among the Brethren and for denying Christ's divine nature. first. ' P s a n i . b r o u g h t b y opponents such as Lukás and K r a s o n i c k y . i n t h e i r o p i n i o n . b u t apparently as early as 1488 he h a d been expelled f r o m the U n i t y . H e was n o t one o f those w h o . V . S e e C h a p .136 T H E BEGINNINGS OF T H E MINOR P A R T Y I t was. H e was evidently o f an argumentative a n d self-assertive disposition. o n the weight to be put o n the O l d Testament. changing his religious allegiance several times. w h o seems t o have steered a rather erratic course i n his spiritual life. the O l d Testament should hold in Christian dogma. 358. must be treated w i t h the greatest c a u t i o n . A s h a s been seen. M a t o u S w a s to m a k e a s i m i l a r r e m a r k s o m e y e a r s later d u r i n g t h e conference (rozmlouvání) at C h l u m e c i n 1 4 % . . b u t w i t h an interest i n theological and ethical problems unusual i n a simple layman. T h e sources give scarcely any personal details about those w h o m they w o n over t o f o r m the nucleus o f the future M i n o r Party. like A m o s h i m self. t h o u g h the charges o f loose l i v i n g and i m m o r a l i t y . chiefly such as the Brethren were to expel o n account o f their sins and their wilfulness and other evils. w h o was then v i s i t i n g preacher i n L a n s k r o u n . A n o t h e r supporter A m o s a n d Jakub were soon to find i n M a t o u s the Weaver f r o m L a n s k r o u n . p. had j o i n e d the U n i t y i n its very first days.

' 13 ' H e was eloquent [ K r a s o n i c k y adds] and was B u t the o l d ideology must also have h a d its followers w i t h i n the Inner C o u n c i l . o f Brandys]. 20v ( q u o t e d ibid. " ' O u c e n y c h .e. C f . decided. op. giving place t o 'the good o l d Brethren. b u t o n l y create t r o u b l e . after seeking G o d ' s w i l l .o v e r i n 1492 is i n c o r r e c t .3 5 9 v ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l . 2 0 7 ) . T h e d a t i n g here o f the c h a n g e . p.. i t seems. gave over the reins t o Brother M a t e j . so t h a t those w h o imagined they knew [i. . 15 " Ibid. a n d those w h o w o u l d f o r w a r d i t should be elected i n their stead. therefore. p p .h e a r t e d a s s i s t a n c e ' i n c a r r y i n g o u t the edict o f B r a n d y s s h o w s t h a t the l a t t e r still h a d p o t e n t i a l s u p p o r t e r s a m o n g U n i t y m e m b e r s at t h a t t i m e . a n d when i n 1490 A m o s a n d J a k u b appeared o n the scene. was. ' fol. 1 8 7 ) .. f o r m e r writes t h a t Klenovsky and his party w i t h i n the I n n e r C o u n c i l : Seeing that assent h a d indeed been given.e. ' fols. 1 8 5 .. 4 8 ( q u o t e d ibid. 2 0 3 ) . . I t s h o u l d be b o r n e i n m i n d that a l m o s t a l l the b i o g r a p h i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h h a s c o m e d o w n a b o u t the m e m b e r s o f the M i n o r P a r t y o r i g i n a t e s f r o m e x t r e m e l y h o s t i l e s o u r c e s .K r o f t a . and retired f r o m the council. 14 Krasonicky's version adds several further details t o this p i c t u r e : T h e o l d c o u n c i l . realizing t h a t they w o u l d n o t achieve a n y t h i n g i f they wanted t o give practical effect t o this edict [i.' The circumstances i n w h i c h the changeover t o o k place are I n his O obnoveni most the difficult t o ascertain. Odpis. Brother M a t e j . w h a t was g o o d ] should discover f r o m practical experience t h a t i n fact they d i d n o t k n o w . 'he immediately j o i n e d them a n d soon became one o f the leaders' o f their party. a change i n the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l was made. There are three accounts left b y contemporaries: t w o by L u k a s a n d the t h i r d f r o m K r a s o n i c k y . saying that they were w i l l i n g t o obey Brother M a t e j . A n d this greatly pleased h i m and he appointed a new c o u n c i l f r o m the g o o d o l d B r e t h r e n . . p. A n d that those w h o felt unable t o participate i n this task should retire f r o m the I n n e r C o u n c i l . and afterwards be m o r e peaceable and c o m p l i a n t . The many w h i c h is m u c h briefer.THE BEGINNINGS O F T H E MINOR P A R T Y 137 he continued o b d u r a t e . Probably already i n the very same year as that i n w h i c h the assembly o f Brandys was held. as has been seen. having come to their decision. s t a t e m e n t t h a t m a n y o t h e r B r e t h r e n besides A m o s a n d J a k u b ' g a v e v e r y f a i n t .. fol. . 2 0 . himself i n close sympathy w i t h the o l d doctrines enunciated by his master. Brother Rehof. fols. 2 1 6 ) . whereby those members favourable t o the recent changes retired. 3 5 8 . . p. . . that the edict o f Brandys should be rescinded and a r e t u r n made t o the p r i m i t i v e doctrine (prvni smysl). cit. . A n d i t was a l l b r o u g h t a b o u t w i t h good i n t e n t i o n a n d i n the spirit o f m u t u a l service. and each o f t h e m f o u n d himself a trade. fairly well educated. " ' O o b n o v e n i . its head. 97 ( q u o t e d ibid. a n d l o o k e d w i t h considerable misgiving o n the new tendencies i n the U n i t y w h i c h aimed at setting these aside.. b u t that there was little realization and small understanding o f its contents.

w h i c h f o u n d Müller 19 and Tapié. 6 6 . 159. G i n d e l y . 3 4 7 : ' L e récit de L o u k a c h est u n a p o l o g i e ' P s a n i jakéhos knëze J a n a Appolinafského. Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. having swept aside one c o u n c i l . I . 160.' Casopis M M l e r . t o o . n i c h t h e r . that a n o t h e r a s s e m b l y w a s h e l d later i n 1490. appointed i n its place another.. a n d . w r i t t e n t w e n t y years after the events described.. U n d e r Klenovsky's guidance Matëj h a d given somewhat hesitant a p p r o v a l to the changes i n the U n i t y ' s p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines t h a t h a d recently been enacted.K r o f t a . w h i c h was able t o oust its opponents f r o m office a n d r e t u r n to the status quo ante. w i e a l l e sonstigen B e r i c h t e zeigen.. 18 . op. 2 . op. I . is n o t consciously misleading. p p . cit.' M a n y 1 4 G i n d e l y . held t h a t the changes i n the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l a n d the rescinding o f the edict o f Brandys were due rather t o the strength o f the party s u p p o r t i n g the o l d doctrines. is the version given b y the M i n o r Party. visiblement arrangée d a n s le b u t d e rejeter t o u s les torts s u r les rigoristes.B a r t o S . 6 7 : ' A l l e i n s o f r i e d l i c h g i n g es bei dieser V e r a n l a s s u n g . ' H i s Statement. w h o h a d been his close adviser for some years. 20 however.. 21 One such element was. historicky. as he later confided to the leaders o f the M i n o r Party. besides the n a t u r a l desire h i n t e d at i n K r a s o nicky's account t o a v o i d creating dissension a m o n g the Brethren. 66. p. t h o u g h Lukás's account. line église tchèque au XVe G o l l . die frühere Z e i t v o r j e d e m grellen L i c h t e z u b e w a h r e n . cit. at w h i c h a s t r o n g r e p r e s e n tation of the O l d B r e t h r e n w a s present. take Lukás's a n d Krasonicky's statements m o r e at their face value. * f o r instance. indeed. i n view o f the lack o f positive evidence the t r u t h can o n l y be surmised. is definitely i n c o r r e c t . according to w h i c h Matëj removed K l e n o v s k y and his supporters ' f r o m office as u n w o r t h y people favour' i n his eyes. p. B u t he remained at heart attached t o the o l d ideals. n o . and. a n d that d u r i n g the c o u r s e o f t h i s a s s e m b l y Matèj dismissed the m o d e r a t e s f r o m h i s c o u n c i l . p..' 1 8 " 1 0 " . and even before 1490 he seems to have been apprehensive that. L u k á s selbst hält s i c h i n eine a b s i c h t l i c h e U n k l a r h e i t bei Erzählung d e r g a n z e n B e g e b e n h e i t e i n u n d w a r z u sehr bemüht. 101. nevertheless other factors overlooked by Lukás were present i n the decision t o resign. Fin de l'Indépendance Bohème. the further fact t h a t B r o t h e r Matëj at this t i m e made a successful attempt to escape f r o m the d o m i n a t i n g influence o f K l e n o v s k y . siècle: L'Unité des Frères. as well as D e n i s 1 17 later. T h e most probable explanation is perhaps the one given b y G ö l l : that. Tapié. p. p. T h i s . 178. 1 7 D e n i s . ibid. p. A t the same t i m e his fears increased that the new tendencies w o u l d c o r r u p t 'the t h o u g h t and action o f the Brothers a n d Sisters.138 T H E BEGINNINGS O F T H E MINOR PARTY D o these accounts tell the whole story? O r was there a greater degree o f involuntariness a b o u t the resignations? M o d e r n historians are divided o n this p o i n t . factors o f a m o r e i n v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e . ' t h r o u g h Klenovsky the U n i t y w i l l become t a i n t e d ' by contact w i t h the w o r l d . 1882.

historlcky. p. even t h o u g h he h a d n o t always h a d the courage t o c h a m p i o n them. was by n o means easy. t h o u g h i t is unclear whether immediately p r i o r t o . K l e n o v s k y was 'well versed i n m a n y matters. T h i s b r o u g h t a definite break w i t h K l e n o v s k y . I n a private interview between the t w o m e n . ' Perhaps j u s t because o f these differences the t w o m e n t o some extent complemented each other. Matej's c h i l d l i k e simplicity p r o v i d e d a n element l a c k i n g i n his o w n character. T h e i r c o l l a b o r a t i o n . historicky. f o r the latter. op. feeling himself now strong enough to stand o n his o w n . Cas. that o f the O l d Brethren o r the new doctrine.. 6 4 . p. .K r o f t a .K r o f t a . ' fols. " " . ' B u t he was hedged a r o u n d b y K l e n o v s k y as w i t h a fence a n d s u r r o u n d e d as w i t h a w a l l and bestrown as w i t h stones and arguments.' M a t e j later claimed that he had defended the o l d doctrines against their attacks. whose convictions o n the controversial issues o f the day he shared to the f u l l . 24 S h o r t l y after the assem- bly. w i t h the one possible exception o f f i g h t i n g i n matters o f religion. according t o M a t e j . cit.' was the verdict o f some one w h o knew b o t h w e l l .THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MINOR P A R T Y 139 o f the members o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l f r o m Klenovsky's p a r t y had at t h a t t i m e . p. .. op. B r o t h e r M a t e j [said that Klenovsky] u n t i l y o u have said w h i c h doctrine (smyst) y o u h o l d . G o l t . 'They are as alike as heaven and earth. w h i l e . w o r l d l y a u t h o r i t i y is pressing i n t o the U n i t y and has indeed already gained admittance w i t h a l l its rights. 2 3 4 . 24v. 177. * Indeed. cit. 25 This incident p r o b a b l y t o o k place i n 1490 after the assembly o f Brandys. indeed. 2 5 . w h i l e 2 3 Brother M a t e j is a simple. 'scornfully abused the o l d teaching and the o l d doctrine. differed enormously f r o m each other b o t h i n temperament a n d character. however. 6 4 . M a t e j entered once more i n t o alliance w i t h the O l d Brethren. guous position. as w e l l as i n b a c k g r o u n d a n d education. ' O u c e n y c h . p. f o r y o u s h o u l d realize . the latter demanded f r o m M a t e j a clarification o f his still somewhat a m b i ' Y o u shall n o t leave the r o o m . o r j u s t after the change-over i n the I n n e r C o u n c i l . very little is k n o w n at a l l 2 about the whole period between the r e t u r n to power o f the O l d B r e t h r e n " " 4 1 Cas. F o r reasons w h i c h remain obscure K l e n o v s k y had stayed i n the b a c k g r o u n d t h r o u g h o u t most o f the proceedings o f the assembly o f B r a n d y s . Cert a i n l y M a t e j relied greatly o n Klenovsky's superior education a n d k n o w ledge o f the w o r l d .' I n reply M a t e j f r a n k l y avowed his allegiance to the o l d doctrines o f ChelCicky a n d R e h o f . G o l l .' 22 T h e t w o men. guileless m a n .

.6 6 . c o m p l e t e d i n 1607 a n d p r i n t e d b y J i r e c e k . Táborsky and P r o k o p . strongly criticizing the previous council for its attempts t o adulterate the p u r i t y o f U n i t y doctrine and f o r the first time m a k i n g p u b l i c the doubts w h i c h h a d for long existed i n his o w n m i n d as to the w i s d o m o f their policy. w h o to some extent represented the t r a d i t i o n a l viewpoint. pp. may also have continued i n office after the more m i l i t a n t protagonists o f the revised doctrine. His suspicions o f K l e n o v s k y and his associates had started.. GoliàJâv. M.. O f the members w h o m Matëj n o w appointed to seats i n the Inner C o u n c i l i n place o f the resigning 27 members. and several o f the members o f the previous council.' One o f his letters was n o w 'read o u t before an i m p o r t a n t 29 congregation composed o f b o t h sexes. only the names o f t w o are k n o w n definitely: J a k u b and Matëj U h l i r . " " Ibid. Cas. The reversal o f the decisions taken at Brandos. and he went himself t o Stékeñ a n d the Práchen area o n a friendly visit t o confer w i t h A m o s a n d Jakub a n d the other members o f their p a r t y . almost entirely i m a g i n a r y . and he 'condemned the recent innovations a n d decreed t h a t they should return unanimously t o the o l d doctrine and base their actions o n i t . 6 4 . however. C. had given his blessing t o the changes. ' B .140 THE BEGINNINGS OF T H E MINOR PARTY and their final replacement by those representing the new tendencies at the assembly o f Rychnov i n 1494. 2 8 that Brother M i c h a l w h o followed Matëj i n a somewhat hesitant l o y a l t y t o the o l d principles was also a member o f the council d u r i n g this p e r i o d .' C. he wrote.. T h e list o f m e m b e r s given b y the later U n i t y h i s t o r i a n . B r o t h e r Jafet. ' i m m e diately after Rehor's death when [he] succeeded t o the leadership and dissension had b r o k e n o u t among the Brethren. o r d a i n i n g t h a t 'whoever t o o k the oath should be excluded f r o m the sacraments. I t is probable. 2 4 5 . D u r i n g this visit Matëj 'reached complete agreement (smlouvu s námi délai)' w i t h the latter o n the attitude w h i c h the U n i t y should adopt towards the demands o f the state. w h o later went over t o Klenovsky's p a r t y . n o w seemed complete. is p r o b a b l y i n his Meé zpráva o biskupích a starSích J e d n o t y bratrské. historicky.' *' These writings o f Matëj were Ibid. one speaking contrary t o another. p. had resigned. t o o . Brother Matëj. was ever actually taken against Brethren w h o d i d n o t f u l l y observe them. p. T h e official head o f the U n i t y . t h o u g h threatened. T h e o l d regulations p r o h i b i t i n g U n i t y members f r o m p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n any f o r m o f activity connected w i t h the state were once again p u t i n t o force. t h o u g h i t is d o u b t f u l whether disciplinary action. J a n a J a f e t a krátká 1861.' while 'he w h o s h o u l d be p r i v y t o the death o f a fellow m a n should be expelled' . l i k e K l e n o v sky. p. 178. he wrote them several pastoral letters. too. ' A b o u t this t i m e . 144.

' U n i t y were years o f uncertainty. o f seeking o n a l l sides for 30 The p e r i o d o f the O l d Brethren's renewed predominance w i t h i n the guidance t h r o u g h the problems that beset the U n i t y . t o the P r a c h e n c o n g r e g a t i o n s e v e n before the r e s i g n a t i o n o f Klenovsky^ a n d h i s . . anxious to see i f they c o u l d get c o n f i r m a t i o n for their innovations a m o n g other C h r i s t i a n groups also a t t e m p t i n g l i k e the U n i t y to base their whole way o f life o n an u n c o m p r o m i s i n g adherence t o the ideals o f their Master. the l o r d o f L i t o m y s l a n d a member o f the U n i t y ] . i n particular. i n order to get firsthand i n f o r m a t i o n as t o h o w far stories t h a t the p r i m i t i v e C h r i s t i a n f a i t h was still preserved i n these lands i n a l l its p u r i t y were true. A t this time .T H E BEGINNINGS OF T H E MINOR P A R T Y 141 later t o be b r o u g h t u p against h i m by A m o s a n d Jakub as p r o o f o f his 'waverings' comparable to 'the perversity o f [Pope] Sylvester. F r o m the c l e a r f r o m the s c a n t y i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n i n the Zprdva tract i n w h a t c h r o n o l o g i c a l cedule) p h r a s i n g i n p l a c e s it w o u l d a l m o s t s e e m a s i f M a t e j w r o t e s o m e o f h i s letters {pismo friends f r o m the I n n e r C o u n c i l o r h i s o w n v i s i t a t i o n o f the s o u t h . I V ( O p i s ) . w i t h [Bohus K o s t k a . . . n o t merely o f theoretical interest. I t was perhaps i n p a r t as a result o f the controversy o n the C h r i s t i a n attitude to the state that the proposal may n o w have arisen to send a d e p u t a t i o n to visit the churches i n the East. e n q u i r i n g a l l the time whether there existed anywhere i n the w o r l d a people w h o still preserved the manner a n d order o f the p r i m i t i v e c h u r c h . assailed b y doubts and hesitations as t o the correct course o f action. The congregation at L i t o m y s l was especially active i n the project: the clash w i t h the authorities over the U n i t y ' s attitude to their demands was. A n d they decided t h a t certain persons f r o m their m i d s t s h o u l d be sent t o foreign a n d distant parts i n order that they m i g h t see w i t h their o w n eyes a n d discover f o r themselves. These were M a r e s K o k o v e c . I t is n o t at a l l menSi strany and Jakub's first a o r d e r the events d e s c r i b e d a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d . K a b a t n i k . fol. 'a w o r t h y m a n o f k n i g h t l y r a n k ' . The i n i t i a t i v e seems t o have come f r o m the r e f o r m i n g p a r t y . B . desiring always t o have c o m m u n i o n w i t h such people a n d n o t wishing t o be schismatics and sectaries. . 2 2 5 ) .K r o f t a . b u t o f practical significance f o r the t o w n s f o l k a m o n g the Brethren. i n the birthplace o f C h r i s t i a n i t y .. Members o n b o t h sides were. The funds for the expedition were provided by Bohus K o s t k a . . op. . 133 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . indeed. f o r they d i d n o t w a n t to rely o n mere tales t o l d t h e m b y persons corning t o Bohemia f r o m those countries. p. J . The struggle between the t w o different codes o f social behaviour was n o t b y any means settled once for a l l . . w h o was also instrumental i n o b t a i n i n g letters o f i n t r o d u c t i o n f r o m K i n g Vladislav for the f o u r Brethren chosen to make the j o u r n e y . as has been seen. . the elders o f the L i t o m y s l Brethren held frequent c o n ferences w i t h m a n y i m p o r t a n t persons and. the L i t o m y s l 3 0 A . cit.

K o r a n d a . deprecating the Brethren's refusal t o take up office when elected. i n positions o f a u t h o r i t y t o deal out justice . p p . . cit. the Brethren's refusal o f office appeared to their fellow citizens more often t h a n n o t as a dereliction o f d u t y . r e t u r n i n g to Bohemia i n N o v e m b e r 1492. pp. 6 7 . 31 A t home the trials w h i c h the Brethren were experiencing i n their attempts to put their principles i n t o practice i n face o f the hostility o f the state. t o discussing the problems i n general. The four men set off i n M a r c h 1491. op.. 1. H e entitled his epistle: Ze pigharti odpieraji byti konsele. especially i n the towns. op. X V I I . a certain Kaspar. . regard [their fellow Christians] as pagans. 160. op. a former Waldensian f r o m B r a n d e n b u r g . J491-92. cit. 1] w h i c h they interpret i n their o w n fashion. A c c o r d i n g to the Historia Fratrum. then. i n 1492 the Inner C o u n c i l devoted over a m o n t h .' ' B u t [he goes o n t o argue] since these Brethren consider themselves more perfect than the rest o f us. They failed i n each case t o f i n d the ideal Christian c o m m u n i t y w h i c h they were seeking.6 9 . . as a desire t o " K a b a t n i k . they should be able . p p . the administrator o f the U t r a q u i s t church and a f o r m e r U n i t y sympathizer. op. A d a m Bakalaf.B a r t o S . 3 1 Q u o t e d i n M u l l e r . some o f w h i c h are recorded i n the account w h i c h the semi-illiterate K a b a t n i k dictated t o his friend. Manualnik.K r o f t a . . and as they were to do a few years later w i t h the I t a l i a n Waldenses. 32 I n the same year K o r a n d a . a b o u t ten years later. 33 Koranda's remarks serve t o emphasize the p o i n t already made t h a t . 141-43. 1 5 3 . T h e details o f the j o u r n e y . continued to increase. t r u s t i n g i n themselves alone. f o r i n this way they insult their neighbours by cutting themselves off f r o m other Christians devoted to G o d ' s t r u t h . S e c also G i n d e l y . and Brother Lukas himself. . Once again the Brethren experienced the same disappointment as i n their earlier contacts w i t h the Russian and Greek churches i n B r o t h e r Rehor's day. 1 5 4 .6 3 . Cesta z Cech do Jeruzalema a Kaira r.B a r t o S . G o l l . " . pp. ...142 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MINOR P A R T Y clothier w h o had participated i n the p r e l i m i n a r y conferences w i t h B o h u s . f a i r l y a n d faithfully i n order t h a t righteousness and t r u t h may be established and unrighteousness a n d w r o n g d o i n g be p u t d o w n . addressed a special letter t o Bohus K o s t k a . esp. 2 . cit. 159. p p . . being lovers o f justice and t r u t h . V I I I . V I I . f r o m 23 A p r i l u n t i l 25 M a y . M u l l e r . . . 1 6 1 . X . cit. that ye be n o t j u d g e d ' [ M a t t .. do n o t concern us here. h a v i n g regard t o the scriptural passage: 'Judge n o t . I t is a perveseness w o r t h y o f r e p r o b a t i o n i n these Brethren that they should . p p . There have been a n d there still are [writes K o r a n d a ] certain people w h o refuse t o accept office as aldermen or i n any other capacity. seemingly because they do n o t w a n t t o administer justice.

. T h e i r conscientious scruples were mistaken f o r a device to dodge responsibility. . and the I n n e r C o u n c i l o f the O l d B r e t h r e n was p r o v i n g itself incapable o f steering the U n i t y t h r o u g h the t r o u b l e d waters.' M a n y o f the times o f Brother R e h o f a n d the early . i t was difficult t o see h o w a satisfactory way o u t c o u l d be f o u n d . B u t i t was extremely h a r d f o r the m a j o r i t y o f the O l d Brethren o n the c o u n c i l t o t h r o w over so m a n y o f the ideals u p o n w h i c h the U n i t y had been founded.' several o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l began to realize their i n a b i l i t y t o provide the necessary leadership f o r the U n i t y . even after m a n y o f t h e m had begun t o d o u b t the f u l l v a l i d i t y o f the ideas f o r w h i c h they were suffering. W e i m p l o r e y o u t o let t h e m go. distressed beyond endurance by the sufferings o f his fellow Brethren. ' M a t e j . is. T h e task c o u l d o n l y be accomplished by younger men.THE BEGINNINGS O F T H E MINOR PARTY 143 escape f r o m the obligations o f citizenship. unencumbered w i t h any sentimental attachment to doctrines w h i c h seemed n o longer t o apply under existing conditions. ' Y o u have dismissed those w i t h w i s d o m a n d understanding [they t o l d M a t e j ] and p u t us fools i n their place. however. and the fact t h a t U n i t y members were n o w d i v i d e d as t o h o w far they m i g h t r i g h t l y accept such duties must have made i t even harder to defend the rigorist p o s i t i o n . for we w i s h t o suffer i n their stead'. T h e s i t u a t i o n . w h i c h they placed u p o n the Brethren i n their c o m m u n i t i e s . W i t h o u t either a mass exodus f r o m the towns o r a continued readiness t o c o u r t m a r t y r d o m o n the p a r t o f the t o w n Brethren. Some s o l u t i o n h a d t o be f o u n d . even 'went himself t o the lords o r their officials or t o the t o w n h a l l a n d said to t h e m : 'These people w h o m y o u are persecuting and t o r t u r i n g . ideals w h i c h had been expecially dear t o Brother R e h o f a n d his contemporaries i n the U n i t y . T h e period o f the O l d Brethren's r e t u r n to power lasted over three years. consonant w i t h l o y a l t y t o the t r a d i t i o n a l principles o f the U n i t y . T h r o u g h o u t . indeed. n o t excluding even those o f the younger generation w h o c o u l d n o t remember Brethren. was r a p i d l y becoming unbearable. a t r i b u t e b o t h t o the l o y a l t y o f the o r d i n a r y members towards M a t e j a n d the I n n e r C o u n c i l and t o the h o l d w h i c h the t r a d i t i o n a l viewpoint still h a d o n a l l sections o f the U n i t y . the U n i t y priests and p r o v i n c i a l administrators were c o n t i n u a l l y a p p l y i n g t o Brother M a t e j f o r advice 'concerning the alderman's office and oaths and the other offices. ' h a v i n g sometimes conferred together f o r several weeks a b o u t the same p r o b l e m w i t h o u t c o m i n g t o any conclusion. T h a t the Brethren i n the towns c o n t i n u e d f o r so l o n g to endure hardship and persecution. are innocent.' A f t e r a little. f o r i t is we w h o have instructed them i n this.

the chronology o f the events described. w h e n these piles are r e m o v e d . feeling themselves unable to advise their flock to resist the a u t h o r ities any f u r t h e r . 315 v. being more knowledgeable and experienced i n the m a t t e r . . 2 0 v ( q u o t e d G o l l . t o help us w i t h y o u r prayers . ' fol. . Ibid. V . i n f o r m i n g i t o f the forthcoming synod to be held at R y c h n o v : This is to tell y o u [he wrote] t h a t i t is o u r i n t e n t i o n t o meet w i t h certain o f the Brethren and discuss together the most i m p o r t a n t matters concerni n g the general good and t o reach agreement. 2 0 7 ) . . I t is apparent. op. B . op. p. cit. W e are asking y o u . G o d w i l l i n g . . the Brethren w i l l keep y o u i n f o r m e d o n these matters according t o y o u r need. . 24v. 'like t h a t o f a house b u i l t o n piles. p. 98v ( q u o t e d ibid. fol. ' 36 The first step t o implement their decision was t a k e n w h e n M a t e j ' w i t h the Brethren' issued a circular letter t o the membership. cit. M 38 ' O u c e n y c h . t h a t there is n o possib i l i t y i n such things o f u n a n i m i t y and h a r m o n y i n service together w i t h o u t fear o f endangering salvation unless we h o l d some k i n d o f deliberation i n c o m m o n . Müller-Bartos. o n the one h a n d . a n d that the Brethren o f the previous council should take office once more. when they r e t u r n f r o m us back home again. since they were achieving n o t h i n g good.. and the viewpoint expressed i n the edict of Brandys was once again accepted as the official doctrine o f the Unity. I t seems that. ' fol. ' Finally the members o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l . ' O o b n o v e n l . according to K r a s o 35 nicky. as usual. ' O o b n o v e n l . unanimously recommended t h a t they s h o u l d ask t o be set free again. indeed. ' loc. p.are still extant. and w i t h fasting . o n certain matters connected w i t h f a i t h a n d b r o t h e r l y love and the hope o f salvation. . fol.. and K l e n o v sky and his supporters. " " " " . shortly before the opening o f the general assembly. . 165. cit. and m a n y o f the incidents themselves.obecny snem valny. w i t h G o d ' s help as w e l l as w i t h yours. J . . F o u r accounts written by participants o f the synod . so that the L o r d may listen t o the desire o f H i s p o o r creatures. therefore. A .was summoned f o r 5 M a y 1494 to discuss the t w o problems o f the future leadership o f the U n i t y and o f its official doctrine i n the questions under dispute. Lukas calls i t .t w o by Lukas a n d the other t w o by Krasonicky and Jakub .144 T H E BEGINNINGS OF THE MINOR P A R T Y the leaders o f the U n i t y i n the provinces sent i n their resignations t o Matej. C f . probably more than one preparatory meeting was held between M a t e j and the members o f the r e t i r i n g I n n e r C o u n c i l . o n the o t h e r . 2 0 4 ) .. r e m a i n obscure. 37 The synod . ' f i n d i n g b y experience that the task they had taken o n was a n impossible one and o n l y led t o a great deal o f evil. B u t . 34 The s i t u a t i o n o f the U n i t y was.K r o f t a ..

y o u ask t o be cast o u t o n account o f y o u r ignorance. o n account o f his failure ' t o administer (spravovatiy the U n i t y successfully. 133 ( q u o t e d G o l l .' The assembled Brethren. K n o w t h a t we. had asked to be relieved o f his bishop's office a n d begged t o be allowed t o c o n t i n u e t o serve the U n i t y . . ' he w o u l d make h i m c o m p l y w i t h their demands. have for l o n g been w i t h o u t knowledge or " A . they were w i l l i n g c o m p l i a n t l y to accept. Still J a k u b stood his g r o u n d . o f the s y n o d ] . 132. w h o at the very outset h a d made clear his unrelenting o p p o sition to any w a t e r i n g d o w n o f the o l d principles. J . A c c o r d i n g to L u k a s . M a t e j a n d the Brethren readily gave their consent t o Jakub's resignation f r o m the proceedings.. A t last Klenovsky. called o u t : ' B r o t h e r M a t e j . i f need be j u s t 'as an o r d i n a r y B r o t h e r . as w e l l as those o f the opposing side. so that i t m i g h t be observed (drzdna).K r o f t a . I V ( o p i s ) . whose version has no pretensions t o historical m e t h o d . . a n d ' i t was resolved that the edict o f Brandys. fols. telescopes i n t o one a l l the incidents i n w h i c h he was himself involved. I t is probable. t r y i n g to persuade h i m t o accept the compromise which they believed the edict embodied.T H E BEGINNINGS OF T H E MINOR P A R T Y 145 The o n l y member t o resist the f o r t h c o m i n g changes was the r e d o u b t able J a k u b .' Touched by this display o f disinterested devotion to the U n i t y . he goes o n . ' ' B r o t h e r M a t e j a n d his [previous] c o u n c i l h u m b l y submitted themselves i n everything to the judgement [i.' 39 B u t L u k a s tells another s t o r y . exclaimed t h a t 'even i f I have t o tear y o u r soul f r o m y o u r b o d y . A n d i t was therefore read again. h a d argued w i t h h i m . B . whose account is supplemented at times by Krasonicky's. the delegates at the synod confined themselves t o first examining a n d a p p r o v i n g the request f r o m M a t e j a n d his c o u n c i l to accept their resignations. 'They were glad o f i t [ J a k u b writes o f his o w n w i t h d r a w a l ] expecting t h a t it w o u l d lead t o good. 2 2 5 ) . F o r several days M a t e j and his colleagues o n the c o u n c i l . a n d the personal details w h i c h i t contains w o u l d indicate its authenticity. t o o . After that he 'got u p f r o m the c o u n c i l a n d w a l k e d o u t . t h a t J a k u b . whatsoever should be decreed there. sang a h y m n . indeed. after giving their consent t o his resignation f r o m the conference.e. w h i c h h a d been rescinded a n d set aside by B r o t h e r Matej's orders. should be read o u t . M a t e j . his patience exhausted. p. asking that they should n o t t r y t o impose their views o n h i m . a n d then to calling o n the members o f the previous council t o accept office once more. cit. one o f the best educated Brethren. op. T a b o r s k y . ' T h a n k f u l perhaps to r i d themselves o f so inconvenient a c o u n c i l l o r . F r o m Jakub's account i t w o u l d seem as i f the renewal o f the edict o f Brandys occurred d u r i n g one o f the m a i n sessions o f the conference.

T h e n I enquired what they were doing. which had n o w become such a bone o f contention a m o n g 4 0 ' O o b n o v e n i . succeeded i n breaking d o w n their resistance . 205. were called u p o n by the delegates to take a more p r o m i n e n t p a r t i n the direction o f U n i t y affairs. too. and i n their presence renewed (yyzdvihli) [the edict o f ] the Brandys assembly. But finally some o f the younger pastors. let i t now j o i n us together. pp. t o o . t o risk losing s u p p o r t among the waverers.. a n d w i t h the fear o f a fresh schism and trouble I t o o k m y d e p a r t u r e . a n d f u l l authority was n o w granted the new council. . says K r a s o n i c k y . B u t i n the evening o f the same day [Lukas goes on] w h e n some o f us had gone f o r a w a l k .w h i c h may a n y h o w have been more apparent than real. W i t h this the synod closed its sessions. 207. fol. 40 The resolutions o f the synod o f Rychnov had thus. been intended as a compromise. w h o c o n t i n u e d i n his refusal to r e t u r n to the c o u n c i l . Odpis. ' O u c e n y c h .2 1 v . saying: 'Since i t has kept us apart. r e t u r n i n g f r o m m y w a l k . l i k e those o f the previous assembly o f Brandys. 2 1 6 ) .9 9 v . w i t h the exception o f o l d T u m a PfelouCsky. Should we also be cast out? Rather let us come together and help each other. A n d he replied somewhat u n w i l l i n g l y : ' H a v e y o u n o t heard that they have renewed [the edict o f ] the Brandys assembly?' A n d I r e p l i e d : ' W h a t ! Late i n the evening! We have j u s t passed several other ordinances. and the other leaders o f their party still continued for some time to hesitate to re-enter the I n n e r C o u n c i l : Astdlo to tak chvili drahnou.' A n d I . They all now yielded t o the entreaties o f the rest o f the Brethren. The victorious party had evidently n o t wished t o press their t r i u m p h t o o far. ' o n account o f the numerous difficulties.' A n d I c o u l d n o t sleep at a l l that night pondering w h a t m i g h t arise f r o m this and h o w little understanding and forethought had gone i n t o i t . 204. 48v (quoted ibid.l H b BEGINNINGS OF T H E MINOR P A R T Y i understanding. the Brethren w h o had been dismissed f r o m the Inner C o u n c i l . b u t n o t h i n g f r o m the Brandys assembly. ' fols. like K r a s o n i c k y and Lukas. D u r i n g the actual sessions o f the synod no a t t e m p t was seemingly made t o reintroduce the edict o f Brandys. T a b o r s k y . P r o k o p . realizing perhaps that sympathy for the o l d views was still strong a m o n g many even on their o w n side and u n w i l l i n g . one o f the three first priests o f the U n i t y chosen i n 1467. summoned those near by.' t o take w h a t steps i t saw fit t o safeguard the wellbeing o f the U n i t y w i t h o u t the o b l i g a t i o n o f s u m m o n i n g another general assembly. ' fob. Some o f the younger personalities. came t o the d o o r and said to the B r o t h e r w h o stood by i t : 'So the Brethren are i n c o n ference?' A n d he replied that they were. 2 0 8 . 2 0 v . 9 8 v .' Klenovsky. chief a m o n g w h o m were n o w M a t e j a n d almost a l l the members o f his council o f the O l d Brethren. conferring w i t h certain o f the other Brethren (s jinymi bez jinych).

' I t is u n d o u b t e d l y w i t h this m e a n i n g t h a t LukáS. 2 2 5 ) . 9 7 ) .. M a r t i n B y d i o v s k y the C h a i r m a k e r and Simon H r a n i c k y . N e v e r t h e l e s s . J a k u b a l o n e c o n t i n u e d i n o p e n s i t i o n t o t h e n e w tendencies. The task o f defining exactly w h a t obligations towards the state m i g h t p r o p e r l y be undertaken by a member o f the U n i t y had been left t o the I n n e r C o u n c i l . i n t e r p r e t s the w o r d e m p l o y e d . cit. to see the replacement o f the o l d c o u n c i l by one w h i c h w o u l d include themselves and a general recognition b y the U n i t y that the o l d principles were no longer obligatory.. m e a n i n g ' t o reject. proposed at the end o f the synod by t w o Brethren. as he remarks. being occupied w i t h other 41 Dekrety Jednoty bratrské. to alter o r t o decide u p o n and to enact w h a t they recognized as needful f o r the U n i t y a n d for its continuance (yzdélání) i n f a i t h a n d grace. op. J . a n d s u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m i g h t a p p e a r m o r e i n h a r m o n y w i t h t h e p r e v i o u s l y h e l d o p i n i o n s o f the o l d c o u n c i l .. u s e s t h e w o r d i n the s a m e w o r k i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e r e s c i n d i n g o f the e d i c t a few y e a r s e a r l i e r (fol. n o t e s the o b s c u r i t y o f LukáS's a c c o u n t o f t h i s i n c i d e n t i n h i s G i n d e l y . 7 1 . b u t . 180. H e h a d been present at the assembly o f Brandos. p.a d o p t .e. p p . oppo- . w h o w e r e t o r e t u r n t o t h e I n n e r C o u n c i l after r e c a n t a t i o n o f their f o r m e r o p i n i o n s a n d n e w f o u n d e n t h u s i a s m for those o f their o p p o n e n t s . B . cit. cit. as O obnovenl. 42 A desire to p u t an end to further controversy b y definitely accepting the p o i n t o f view o f their f o r m e r opponents. and passed u n a n i m o u s l y . The resolution o f confidence i n the new I n n e r C o u n c i l . w h i c h m i g h t be t a k e n ' w i t h o u t calling a n assembly. i n re-enacting the edict o f Brandys.. gave i t f u l l a u t h o r i t y f o r this. p. . op. G o l l . T made no c o n t r i b u t i o n [i.' 41 Klenovsky a n d his associates were content. 3 2 . b o t h themselves later t o become its members. w h i c h apparently n o t even the most ardent o f the r e f o r m i n g p a r t y wished to see d o n e . a w i s h to compensate f o r w h a t were deemed past mistakes. T h e p a r t w h i c h Lukás himself played i n these proceedings is also n o t at all clear. 'as seemed t o them fit. a s T a p i é p o i n t s out. ' T h o u g h .K r o f t a . 132 ( q u o t e d G o l l . i n w h i c h c a s e h e m a y h a v e been o n e o f the O l d B r e t h r e n c o u n c i l l o r s . pp. p. Those present promised obedience to a l l its decisions. there- fore. Cf. the c o n t e x t s h o w s t h a t G o l l is right i n g i v i n g it the m e a n i n g 'to r e . M o r e difficult to understand is the behaviour o f the O l d Brethren. op. T h e events o f the n e x t few y e a r s s h o w c l e a r l y that o f the O l d B r e t h r e n i n the I n n e r C o u n c i l .' T h e council was e m p o w ered. 4 2 Tapié. b o t h v e r s i o n s would explain LukáS's fears a s to the future o f the s o m e w h a t shaky equilibrium between the t w o p a r t i e s j u s t r e a c h e d a t t h e s y n o d w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e difficulty a n d n o w e n d a n g e r e d b y t h i s p r e c i p i t a t e a c t i o n . w h e r e J a k u b seems t o i m p l y that a t least B y d i o v s k y w a s largely r e s p o n s i b l e for the r e . A . vyzdvilmouti.K r o f t a .THE BEGINNINGS OF T H E MINOR PARTY 147 the members. fol. I V ( O p i s ) . t o i t ] . may a l l have c o n t r i b u t e d t o this most unexpected action. 104. 3 3 . op. T i m e m i g h t be relied o n to b r i n g their v i c t o r y to completion. the tendency o f the recent convert t o be the most zealous i n his new-found creed.e n a c t m e n t o f the e d i c t o f B r a n d o s . cit. 2 4 6 . w h o h a d j u s t handed i n their resignations f r o m the Inner C o u n c i l . for i n s t a n c e .

w i t h its attack o n renunciation and suffering f o r their o w n sake alone...i n answer to the M i n o r Party's statements to the c o n t r a r y .that he stood f o r m u t u a l t o l e r a t i o n o f b o t h points o f view.. ' f o b . whose dissatisfaction w i t h the o l d doctrines h a d given such a n impetus t o the whole controversy. d u r i n g the synod o f R y c h n o v Lukás presents himself rather as a n e u t r a l observer. p. and. 9 3 v ( q u o t e d ibid. later to give the U n i t y a theoretical basis f o r its emergence f r o m retirement f r o m the w o r l d .. recognizing i n principle the claims o f the state w i t h i n the C h r i s t i a n c o m ' O o b n o v e n i . C f . 2 0 1 ) . op. M i i l l e r . p.. w o u l d n o t 4 3 44 s e e m to b e justified i n definitely c o n n e c t i n g t h i s passage w i t h the a s s e m b l y o f B r a n d y s . p p . H i s desire n o t to exacerbate the ill-feeling o n each side was u n d o u b t e d l y sincere. op. he was always to c l a i m . H i s o w n belief i n the v a l i d i t y o f the new doctrine. 2 0 3 .. BolesIavM bratfi.B a r t o s . at least t w o were concerned w i t h such matters as the o a t h . pp. 4 6 Lukás.no longer indeed extant . the obligations o f the various social classes w i t h i n the U n i t y . and w o r l d l y power i n general. i n view o f w h a t is k n o w n o f his later career.. Even i n the earlier controversy concerning justification by f a i t h o r b y w o r k s Lukás h a d been unsatisfied w i t h Prokop's compromise s o l u t i o n o f ' g o o d w i l l ' : the y o u n g reformer wanted a more radical revision o f the o l d beliefs.148 T H E BEGINNINGS OF T H E MINOR P A R T Y j i matters.' After the edict h a d been set aside b y Matéj a n d the O l d 43 Brethren Lukás claims that. d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f the latter's supremacy w i t h i n the U n i t y . ' A g a i n . cit. was indeed. 3 5 . 36. a n d o f the five w o r k s . 9 6 . p. Lukás i n the role o f a mediator i n the controversy concerning the U n i t y ' s p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines does n o t carry complete c o n v i c t i o n . as one w h o sought to b r i n g a b o u t h a r m o n y between the t w o opposing sides a n d achieve a synthesis o f their conflicting viewpoints. he ' d i d n o t j o i n either p a r t y . p. 44 H e h a d been associated i n the expedition to the East i n 1491 w i t h such noble members o f the U n i t y as Bohus K o s t k a and w i t h the burgher Brethren o f L i t o m y s l . according t o Molnár. However. as has been seen. cit. 204). 9 7 v . therefore. must definitely be reckoned a m o n g the members o f the r e f o r m i n g party. 45 Ibid. 4 4 . After his r e t u r n . 164.w h i c h he composed a b o u t the year 1493. M o l n á r . f o b . ' w o r k i n g w i t h his hands' as was still the usual c u s t o m w i t h the priests o f the U n i t y .9 8 v ( q u o t e d ibid. 9 7 v ( q u o t e d ibid. Even his Bárka ('The Boat') composed at that time. later. he h a d at the same t i m e launched o u t o n his career as a w r i t e r . 2 0 2 . w h i c h does n o t deal directly w i t h social problems. despite his o w n assertions t o the c o n t r a r y . 45 It would be extremely u n l i k e l y i f i n these w o r k s Lukás d i d n o t take u p a p o s i t i o n f a v o u r i n g at least some degree o f revision i n the doctrines o f the O l d Brethren. 2 0 3 ) . fol. Ibid. M o l n á r .

t o o . h a d left R y c h n o v i n an unsettled frame o f m i n d . at first o f the r e f o r m i n g party alone. 133 ( q u o t e d ibid. p. t h o u g h f o r different reasons. o p&vodu Jednoty *• . instead o f f o u n d i n g a separate c h u r c h ] . prevented h i m f r o m d o i n g this. W h a t have a l l our endeavours come to? W e c o u l d almost have remained w i t h the g o o d priests [i. .'** T u m a Pfeloucsky. later disagreeing strongly w i t h L u k a s i n such matters. fol. B . distant f r o m the m a i n centres o f U n i t y activity. B u t i t m i g h t have been supposed t h a t . ' Thereu p o n Klenovsky answered h i m : ' B r o t h e r M i c h a l . H e was evidently one o f those Brethren i n the I n n e r C o u n c i l w h o had f o l l o w e d K l e n o v s k y i n g i v i n g i n their resignations i n 1490. b u t f r o m n o w onwards o f the whole U n i t y . since his residence at Pferov i n M o r a v i a . as w i l l be seen below.e. still adament i n his refusal t o accept office again i n the c o u n c i l . w h o framed the policy.. ' y o u n g i n years a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g ' . Spis cit. he w o u l d have sided w i t h the rigorists o r at least have given the o l d views the v a c i l l a t i n g sympathy s h o w n t h e m by M a t e j o r Michal. a n d finally. t h o u g h there is no evidence t o indicate w h e n he first came t o discard the pacifist anarchism o f the o l d U n i t y . i t was n o t yet L u k a s . I t h a d n o t been o n l y Lukas and J a k u b w h o . as one o f the three w h o had been chosen i n 1467 t o be the first U n i t y priests. P f e l o u c s k y . had left R y c h n o v at the end o f the conference filled w i t h apprehension f o r the future. J a k u b relates a m o v i n g story about M i c h a l . bratrske a o chudych lidech. d o n ' t s p o i l things (nekaz). f o r the o l d principles n o w set aside]. 2 2 5 ) . B u t j u s t the c o n t r a r y is true. . H i s standp o i n t is a l l the more surprising when i t is remembered b o t h that he was famed for his attachment to the p r i m i t i v e simplicity o f the U n i t y o f Brother Rehor's day. 47 his views had perhaps n o t t a k e n o n the clear shape they were later t o acquire. J . S o k o l ' s I n t r o . b u t Klenovsky and his t w o associates. according to his o w n words.THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MINOR P A R T Y 149 m u n i t y . A . the first U t r a q u i s t priest t o j o i n the Brethren a n d one whose memories stretched back t o the very first days o f the U n i t y ' s existence. p p . H e was n o t . I V ( O p i s ) . ' loc. as was. W h e n already m a n y o f the Brethren h a d departed [ J a k u b writes] o l d B r o t h e r M i c h a l t u r n e d to some o f the leading Brethren w h o still r e m a i n e d : ' H o w m a n y g o o d m e n have suffered t o r t u r e and persecution a n d the sacrifice o f life itself f o r j u s t this [i.e. at any t i m e t o take a very active p a r t i n the controversy. T a b o r s k y a n d P r o k o p . B u t he was still. indeed. also the case w i t h the m a j o r i t y o f the reformers. he was a fervent c h a m p i o n o f the rights o f the p o o r a n d the oppressed against the claims o f the socially p r i v i l e g e d . a n d i n the wrongness o f its opponents was never i n d o u b t f r o m at least the beginning o f the nineties. and that. *' 4 8 49 ' O o b n o v e n i . indeed.

H e was a w e l l k n o w n figure t h r o u g h o u t the whole U n i t y . The presence o f T u m a i n the new c o u n c i l w o u l d n a t u r a l l y be a considerable asset. a n d . r e m a i n a mere supposition is that at the outset o f the conference T u m a h a d been at one w i t h K l e n o v sky and his colleagues i n their j o i n t refusal o f office: a refusal the reasons f o r which are once again obscure. p p . i t is true. the vicarious blessing..may have influenced h i m i n his decision to side w i t h Klenovsky and the 'learned' Brethren. K r o f t a . was to make a final attempt to persuade T u m a to alter his m i n d .3 0 3 . Tuma's membership o f the council along w i t h M a t e j and M i c h a l w o u l d go far to counteract the very plausible claims o f Jakub and A m o s t h a t their p a r t y represented the real U n i t y t r a d i t i o n . as w e l l as f o r the considerable a m o u n t o f learning he h a d managed t o acquire. " 'TomaS PrelouöskyV Casopis pro moderni filologii a literatury. o f Brother R e h o f a n d the O l d Brethren o f his time. A g a i n . to a reluctance to take u p office again unless i t was clear t h a t they had the backing o f the whole assembly. f r o m w h i c h the m a j o r i t y h a d fallen away.i n view o f the lack o f positive evidence i t must. as i t were. the assistance o f the younger members was called i n . 1 5 .150 THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MINOR PARTY The fact that he was one o f the most learned o f the Brethren. Some o f the leading delegates. T u m a alone remained unconvinced. his open accession to the r e f o r m i n g p a r t y w o u l d serve to give i t an added sanction. above a l l . acquired by selfeducation and n o t i n the university lecture-hall . ' Y o u w a n t to p u t the burdens o n the others [said K r a s o n i c k y pertinently to T u m a ] a n d n o t touch them yourself. pp. 2 9 7 . b u t w h i c h was p r o b a b l y due.' T u m a at last yielded t o 20-23. W h a t were the motives behind Tuma's continued refusal o f office? The reason p u t f o r w a r d by a recent biographer . before leaving Rychnov. Once this was obtained the others abandoned their resistance. as has been seen. op.t h o u g h n o t impossible. however.1 7 . III (1913). w i t h a g o o d knowledge o f L a t i n . h a d first agreed to meet together shortly at Tuma's house i n Pferov. däjepisectvi. even w i t h y o u r finger-tips. 22. does n o t seem very l i k e l y . Merka. O bratrskem S o k o l . The object o f this second meeting. . Perhaps the most probable explanation . an opponent o f their viewpoint. cit. T u m a h a d n o t been a member o f the resigning c o u n c i l o f O l d B r e t h r e n : he h a d shown himself.t h o u g h his learning was. p p . he was respected by all f o r his simple piety and n a t u r a l intelligence. at least i n part. 2 3 . fearing the renewed outbreak o f dissension among the Brethren.t h a t o f T u m a ' s l o y a l t y t o the o l d principles o f Rehof's d a y 60 . i n a d d i t i o n to settling some i m p o r t a n t details o f administration consequent o n the changes decided u p o n at Rychnov.

cit. p. W i t h very few exceptions. however. was still left w i t h his r i g h t as bishop o f o r d a i n i n g the new priests o f the U n i t y .2 2 v ( q u o t e d . a l l were n o w l a w f u l . op. 168. to a v o i d a l l luxuries i n their apparel. w h o was given the title o f judge (sudi). Elias Chrenovicky as Klenovsky's deputy i n M o r a v i a . 2 1 v . t o o . M . They were. ' fols. L u k a s as pastor o f the equally i m p o r t a n t M l a d a Boleslav. p r o v i d e d they d i d n o t engage i n such deceitful practices as falsifying weights a n d measures.. i n 81 a d d i t i o n . b u t those already engaged i n i t . ' The second task o f the Pferov meeting was t o pass a series o f decrees framed i n the t r a d i t i o n a l spirit. T a b o r s k y as pastor o f the i m p o r t a n t congregation at L i t o m y s l a n d K l e n o v s k y s r i g h t . p. ibid. ' A c c o r d i n g to this decree the priests a n d elders were t o advise their people. r a n the answer. T o Klenovsky. were advised n o t to take up commerce i f they c o u l d get a l i v i n g f r o m their o l d o c c u p a t i o n . a n d this task was allotted t o P r o k o p . a n i m p o r t a n t decree was enacted a i m i n g at p r o v i d i n g an answer t o the question as t o exactly w h i c h professions a n d trades a B r o t h e r m i g h t p r o p e r l y carry o n . o f w h i c h the chief was usury. B r o t h e r M a t e j was deprived o f his powers as a d m i n i s t r a t o r responsible f o r the d i r e c t i o n o f the U n i t y ' s affairs. indeed. a n d kneeling before the sacrament.B a r t o S . I n every instance they were to observe exactly the T e n C o m mandments. The former. Brethren. the first o f a l o n g series o f similar 5 1 ' O u c e n y c h . a n d they were then able to go o n to consider the d i v i s i o n o f duties a m o n g the new leadership o f the U n i t y as well as certain theological a n d m o r a l problems. I n a l l their undertakings they were to h o n o u r G o d a n d love their neighbours. w h o wishes t o be saved t h r o u g h the Christian f a i t h . M u l l e r . w h o w o u l d otherwise be w i t h o u t suitable employment. were t o be p e r m i t t e d to remain. ' T h i s is to be the measure [the decree concluded] by w h i c h everyone must abide. I t was t o be.THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MINOR P A R T Y 151 their arguments. First. A m o n g other appointments made at Pferov the most i m p o r t a n t were as f o l l o w s : K l e n o v s k y as 'confessor (zpovednik)' t h r o u g h o u t the whole o f Bohemia a n d M o r a v i a a n d Prokop's chief adviser.. a n d n o t swear 'false' oaths or tell u n t r u t h s . dealing w i t h such theological questions as the v a l i d i t y o f sacraments administered by a sinful priest. 52 I n a d d i t i o n . co bych rozumSl a v zboflch promlouval). however. was entrusted the significant task o f 'seeing to the U n i t y s y m pathizers a m o n g the lords a n d h o l d i n g converse w i t h t h e m . 2 0 8 ) . and K r a s o n i c k y as a k i n d o f itinerant preacher (jd abych pomocnik byl Jednoty. a n d the w o m e n and y o u n g f o l k i n p a r t i c u l a r .h a n d m a n . the eucharist.

d i d not take a p a r t i c u l a r l y conspicuous p a r t i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the U n i t y . M i c h a l h a d lapsed back i n t o obscurity. cit. rapidly rising to prominence. B u t their influence h a d now w a n e d . 2 4 5 .K r o f t a . who had definitely sat i n the previous c o u n c i l . des p a r t i s a n s de 'l'interprétation large' entrèrent d a n s le C o n s e i l . Dekrety. w h i l e T u m a Pfeloucsky was f u l l y occupied i n his M o r a v i a n outpost. 5 4 The only opposition to the acceptance o f the new doctrines. l o n g threatened. w h i l e members. a b o u t w h o m often l i t t l e m o r e t h a n their bare names is k n o w n . Some o f the O l d Brethren f r o m the previous c o u n c i l were p r o b ably included as a conciliatory gesture i n the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the new Inner C o u n c i l . 104. T h e s o u r c e s s h o w t h a t the O l d B r e t h r e n h a d resigned en bloc f r o m the c o u n c i l a n d were t h e n r e p l a c e d by t h e representatives o f the o p p o s i n g p a r t y . d o n t l ' o p i n i o n v e n a i t d'être desavouée. by the l i g h t o f w h i c h may be traced the U n i t y ' s gradual retreat f r o m the rigorist position o f the early B r e t h r e n . op. Other p r o m i n e n t U n i t y priests . a n d a m o n g these may have been Elias Chfenovicky.. indeed. q u ' à côté des a n c i e n s m e m b r e s . Ambrozi o f Skutec. 2 4 6 . T u m a the G e r m a n . 3 8 . came f r o m J a k u b a n d A m o s and their supporters among the rank-and-file. l i k e M i k u l a s Slansky f o r instance. p. 2 . w i t h T u m a and M a t e j one o f the three first U n i t y priests. was now t o become a fact.for instance.152 T H E BEGINNINGS OF T H E MINOR P A R T Y declarations. and M a t e j U h l i r . toutefois. c o m m e n t des gens. ' T h i s a p p e a r s to be b a s e d o n a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the c h a r a c t e r o f the c h a n g e s w h i c h h a d o c c u r r e d . w i t h T a b o r s k y a n d P r o k o p as the t w o other most i m p o r t a n t figures. . T u m a the Scribe. See G o l l . though they figure i n the history o f the Brethren i n other connections. m a y h a v e c o n t i n u e d to sit i n the n e w c o u n c i l . T h e schism. L u k a s and K r a s o n i c k y were. o r Bernard o f Pfibyslavice .were b u t shadowy figures. conservaient l a d i r e c t i o n de l'Unité. 126. p p . 63 Klenovsky was n o w undisputed leader o f the U n i t y . p p . Tapié. ( " " Dekrety. and the rapid e l i m i n a t i o n o f the o l d . a n d a n y h o w their previous conduct h a d shown that they completely lacked the capacity for strong leadership.. M a t e j was i n disgrace. r e m a r k s of the U n i t y i n the p e r i o d i m m e d i a t e l y after the S y n o d o f R y c h n o v : ' O n p e u t se demander. but as yet their roles were subordinate t o their seniors i n age. op. p p . Matëj's a u t h o r i t y w a s relegated to the p u r e l y f o r m a l f u n c t i o n of ordination. t h o u g h a few o f the old c o u n c i l l o r s . O n récit p l u s v r a i s e m b l a b l e a d m e t . h a v i n g r e c a n t e d their f o r m e r o p i n i o n s . cit. 125.

1495. had collapsed. A middle party. m a r k e d the beginning o f an active campaign o n behalf o f the o l d doctrines. defining his o w n position and attacking his opponents. i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a new and i m p o r t a n t decree passed by the leaders o f the M a j o r Party. Its members had n o w . L e t us. B u t n o w the Brethren say. centring r o u n d Matéj and certain o f the O l d Brethren w h o m he h a d called t o the Inner C o u n c i l i n 1490. the followi n g year. The w i s d o m o f G o d . i n his view. therefore. the sheep that are already there r u n out a n d the wolves tear t h e m t o .V THE SCHISM Largely as a result o f the decisions taken at the meetings held at R y c h n o v and Pferov and the reconstitution o f the U n i t y w h i c h ensued. gone over. i n n o uncertain terms. b r o u g h t t w o events w h i c h showed clearly t h a t the struggle had n o w reached a new stage o f development. Jakub's r e t u r n f r o m R y c h n o v . was 'hidden f r o m the wise a n d p r u dent.' by w h i c h he meant K l e n o v s k y and the M a j o r Party. after a l o n g period o f vacillation. as i t came t o be called). A n d when they have opened u p the f o l d . The disciplinary action to be taken against Jakub a n d his followers. a n d for the same causes a l l further attempts at reconciliation were t o come to grief. H i s first step n o w was to issue an open letter to Brother Matéj (První traktát Jakuba Stékenského. t h o u g h perhaps w i t h some reservations. to the M a j o r Party. a n d K l e n o v s k y i n particular. H e went o n t o contrast the u n a n i m i t y a n d godliness o f the early days o f the U n i t y w i t h the present situation. open the gates o f the f o l d i n order t o gather i n more sheep. l i k e his r e t u r n w i t h A m o s f r o m the assembly o f Brandys four years earlier. signified that the attempt to unite the Brethren o f b o t h parties o n the basis o f a compromise f o r m u l a g r a n t i n g the v a l i d i t y o f the positions taken u p by each side h a d been unsuccessful. Its failure had been due b o t h t o the unyielding attitude o f J a k u b and his followers i n defence o f the o l d doctrines and t o the unwillingness o f their opponents t o accept these doctrines as s t i l l b i n d i n g o n the U n i t y members h i p .

e. . .' B u t n o w even the leaders o f the Brethren. Christ's commandments were absolute a n d no pleas o f h u m a n weakness or the imperfection o f this w o r l d c o u l d be allowed as an excuse f o r n o t keeping them to the f u l l .' Indeed c o u l d n o t m a n y o f the sayings o f C h r i s t and St. A n o t h e r sure sign o f disintegration lay i n the different way o f life led by the new generation o f U n i t y pastors. saying that a Brother may become an alderman a n d a judge. . They n o longer went o u t i n t o the w o r l d . . ' N o w [they] have settled i n one place a n d concern themselves w i t h their parsonages . to preach the gospel l i k e the early apostles. and take oaths. . . regard [Pope] Sylvester's apostasy.154 THE SCHISM pieces. after his break w i t h K l e n o v s k y i n 1490] . 'since he spoke m u c h more moderately himself and merely confirmed the sayings o f Christ a n d the apostles?' A clear p r o o f f o r J a k u b t h a t G o d d i d n o t l o o k w i t h favour o n the new order i n the U n i t y was t o be f o u n d i n the contrast between the spiritual peace o f the early Brethren a n d the tempestuous heart-searchings a n d restlessness o f the last few years.' Towards the end o f his letter Jakub summed up the attitude o f himself and his friends i n regard t o the changes recently made i n U n i t y doctrine and the line o f action w h i c h they intended to take up i n the f u t u r e : I do n o t acknowledge the new tendency (smysl posledni). Paul be considered m u c h more ' h i g h ' t h a n a n y t h i n g B r o t h e r Rehof ever advocated? ' T h e n w h y d o y o u p u t a l l the blame o n ' h i m . J a k u b complained. w i l l witness against y o u . a n d exercise the b l o o d y rights o f the s w o r d . . a n d so long as there are n o Brethren After your death good men a n d bad w i l l regard y o u r vacillation as they n o w . c l a i m i n g that the o l d doctrines were t o o ' h i g h ' f o r the o r d i n a r y members. for I consider i t to be b o t h heretical and u n t r u e . t o be j u s t l i k e other people. . A n d whoever broadens these. leading a peaceful existence. . . ' F o r G o d does n o t revoke his commandments or change his w i l l o n account o f men's difficulties.' Bishop Matéj h a d been witness o f the slow r o t that h a d set i n i n the U n i t y since Rehof's death a n d had never raised his voice against the new tendencies. . is l i k e u n t o a rogue a n d a t h i e f w h o comes n o t i n b y the door. . 'After your death a n d ours [he concluded his attack o n Matéj] y o u r o w n words as well as the writings and letters y o u sent us i n the Prácheñ district [i. . frequenting taverns a n d banquets and feasts a n d weddings. ' wrote J a k u b rather u n f a i r l y . . Even 'a swineherd w o u l d n o t have kept silent when such h a r m was being done to his h e r d . . . T h e gates are G o d ' s commandments and the p r o h i b i t i o n s o f Christ the strait p a t h a n d the n a r r o w doorway. Jakub asked. h a d themselves made the way easy ' t o amass wealth.

Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. ' B u t their most fiery attacks were directed against A m b r o i o f Skutec. according to J a k u b .. 7 1 .T H E SCHISM 155 i n the c o u n c i l . p. whatever he m i g h t do. A c c o r d i n g to H i s statement. 1882. a n d as such i t was regarded by t h e m .. o r the decree a b o u t R e h o f m a y h a v e b e e n m a d e e a r l i e r . he was b r o u g h t i n t o conflict w i t h the leaders o f the M i n o r Party.K r o f t a . i t w a s w r i t t e n after t h e s y n o d o f R y c h n o v . op. p l a c e s it l i k e w i s e beofre J a k u b ' s tract. fols 1 2 9 . 3 S e e G i n d e l y . b u t before M a t e j a n d Lukää's visit to S t e k e n d u r i n g L e n t o f t h a t y e a r . Jednoty 1 Chelcicky 3 stoleti. I V a Jednota v XV. 2. n o . cit. T h e o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by J a k u b . T h e dating o f J a k u b ' s tract. 3 2 J a k u b was evidently able to gather enough support i n the n e i g h b o u r h o o d f o r his p o i n t o f view to cause the H e a n d A m o s were able to challenge the a u t h o r i t y o f the p r o v i n c i a l leaders o f the U n i t y .'* Jakub also became engaged a b o u t this time i n a lively controversy w i t h A k t a Jednoty B r a t r s k i . 1 T h i s was b o t h a challenge a n d a threat t o M a t e j a n d his new c o u n c i l . Dejiny bratrske. 171. i n c l u d i n g some o f 'the best' members o f the congregation. so l o n g as he refused ' t o r e f o r m . p. ( O p i s ) . G ö l l . 194. T h e e v i d e n c e is i n a n y c a s e i n d e c i s i v e . t h o u g h .3 4 ( q u o t e d i n part in G o U . a well-educated Brother w h o h a d been p r o m i n e n t i n the U n i t y f o r m a n y years. p p . o n r e t u r n i n g f r o m R y c h n o v . presents a n u m b e r o f problems. refused to attend c o m m u n i o n a d m i n istered by the l o c a l U n i t y pastor.'' J a k u b retorted angrily that ' i n that case [he] w o u l d regard as Brethren such as were k i l l e d i n the wars a m o n g the footsoldiers a n d those w h o were hanged a n d those w h o sat i n the p i l l o r y f o r adultery. I . h o w e v e r . ibid. the t r a c t m a y either h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n i n fact after M a t e j a n d L u k ä l ' s v i s i t . H e a n d P o r i m s k y . Their supporters i n K l a t o v . so l o n g as he was n o t excommunicated (vyobcoväri). 2 2 3 . however. p r o b a b l y i n 1495. c l a i m i n g that the U n i t y h a d u n a n i m o u s l y agreed to accept t h e m . I . a t the s a m e t i m e . Müller-Bartos. 6 5 . 4 ' P s a n i j a k e h o s k n e z e J a n a A p p o l i n a f s k e h o . declared t h a t he was ready t o accept 'everyone as a B r o t h e r . Jan P o r i m s k y . m u s t c e r t a i n l y h a v e b e e n k n o w n to M a t e j i n o u t l i n e before h i s visit. A l t e r n a t e l y . w h o h a d sided w i t h the M a j o r Party. spoke a n d wrote o n behalf o f the new doctrines. 180. A m b r o z especially attacked J a k u b a n d A m o s f o r refusing t o accept the v a l i d i t y o f o a t h t a k i n g a n d . and.2 5 ) . the leading pastor i n the province. that it c a m e after the decree c o n c e r n i n g R e h o f ' s w r i t i n g s is n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s d a t i n g t h i s decree i n the e n d o f the y e a r . 170. H e h a d become a decided protagonist o f the new tendencies o n l y after the recent s y n o d . we shall n o t h o l d i n g t o the o l d doctrine (smysl prvnl) c o n t i n u e t o obey y o u r orders. B u t it is p o s s i b l e t h a t the references i n the t r a c t to the c o n d e m n a t i o n o f R e h o f ' s w r i t i n g refer n o t to the a c t u a l decree o n t h i s subject. historicky. victorious p a r t y serious anxiety. p p . p. thereby. but to the c r i t i c i s m s o f the e a r l y B r e t h r e n w h i c h h a d often been m a d e a l r e a d y by the l e a d e r s o f the M a j o r P a r t y . ' Casopis . dates it s o m e t i m e after A p r i l a n d . p.

he claimed. I V . 6 are I t seems that Lukas defended w i t h v i g o u r the v a l i d i t y o f oathtaking. b u t oaths w h i c h contained the t r u t h were n o t only permissible. fol. was 'required t o take such an o a t h . A . may have been due t o an attempt o n Jakub's p a r t t o have Rendl's application for membership t u r n e d d o w n or. therefore. I n 1491 he h a d been appointed Burgrave (purkrabi) o f Prague Castle. T h e i r dispute. A n o t h e r source o f conflict may have been the fact that R e n d l . O u r knowledge o f their dispute is only fragmentary.. M a t e j . an i n n o v a t i o n w h i c h . The result was a foregone conclusion. p p .3 6 . ' I f he. Accounts o f the meeting. commits a sin and breaks the L a w . II. t h o u g h i t is n o t completely certain w h e n the former actually became a f u l l member o f the U n i t y . and a t h i r d B r o t h e r whose name is n o t recorded arrived i n Steken i n Lent 1495 t o b r i n g the rebels to heel. o w i n g to his position i n society. is certainly more radical t h a n i n previous discussions. while the new leadership o f the U n i t y n a t u r a l l y supported A m b r o l ' s standpoint i n the dispute. J . three different types o f oaths. 2 3 4 . admission t o the U n i t y .K r o f t a . Cas. B . a His post o f considerable importance i n the administrative hierarchy. 66. was allowed to j o i n the U n i t y as a secret member. w h i c h p r o b a b l y arose sometime i n 1494. F o r a l l these reasons the newly constituted I n n e r C o u n c i l considered the situation serious enough t o send a deputation o f three t o visit the turbulent province. There were. 156). as reported by Jakub. was n o t accepted for l o n g even by the M a j o r Party. 5 Jakub's charges may have carried considerable weight i n his o w n congregation. 6 G o l l .' 7 T h e argument. B o t h sides were summoned to attend a meeting at w h i c h they were required t o state their case. b u t 'whoever is u n w i l l i n g t o swear o n t r u t h . Cheshkie bratya v svoikh konfessiyach. fragmentary.. indeed. the nobleman w h o had played such an i m p o r t a n t p a r t i n b r i n g i n g a b o u t the victory o f the M a j o r Party at Brandys i n 1490. cit. L u k a s . [he] w o u l d regard i t as a sin t o refuse. . hist. I t seems that R e n d ! was a member o f the same congregation as J a k u b .156 THE SCHISM Rendl o f Ousava. b u t they c o u l d only a d d fuel t o the flames o f his dispute with Ambroz. w h i c h t o o k place i n Jakub's h o m e . * ' p. t o b r i n g a b o u t his expulsion f o r h o l d i n g office contrary t o the o l d regulations o f the U n i t y . since J a k u b a n d A m o s were obviously u n w i l l i n g to give u p their o p p o s i t i o n to the edict o f Brandys. . p. 5 6 v ( q u o t e d i n P a l m o v . op. w o u l d after this have seemed t o Jakub an even worse betrayal o f its principles t h a n before. L u k a s . False oaths and ones l i g h t l y taken were f o r b i d d e n . i f indeed he h a d already become a member earlier.

hist.Lukás calls i t ousudek opravy . I V . however.. attempted to defend the o l d doctrines and was i n f o r m e d t h a t his words contained 'immoderate and overhigh accusations. T h e verdict o f Matéj and the t w o visiting Brethren. J a k u b and A m o s p r o m i s i n g t o remain i n the t o w n u n t i l then. however. calling u p o n them t o abandon their o p p o s i t i o n as w e l l as to become reconciled t o A m b r o z a n d R e n d l o f Ousava. was t o be p r o m u l g a t e d o n the f o l l o w i n g day. 8 4 10 Cas.. fol... T h i s s e e m s t o i n d i c a t e t h a t M a t e j ' s d e c i s i o n o n t h e f o l l o w i n g 1 1 m o r n i n g w a s r e a d o u t before the w h o l e c o n g r e g a t i o n o f Stéken B r e t h r e n . hist. t h a t J a k u b h a d been s t i r r i n g u p t r o u b l e T h i s J a k u b . asked h i m whether he was n o t acting f r o m compulsion.' 9 There was also a n angry exchange o f opinions between J a k u b and Pofimsky. A .h a d to be sent o n t o them i n w r i t i n g . L a t e r J a k u b made the rather ambiguous statement that. fol. departed f r o m Stéken secretly d u r i n g the n i g h t .K r o f t a . Pofimsky's accusation. 66. fol. p. 11 A s was t o be expected. i f he had k n o w n that Matéj w o u l d afterwards t r y t o conceal the fact o f his frequent changes o f o p i n i o n . 2 2 6 ) . Ibid. J .THE SCHISM 157 w h e n oaths were to be taken only as a last resort a n d f u l l freedom was granted those w i l l i n g t o suffer f o r continued refusal. an unlettered Brother called Blazek. Matéj r e p l i e d : ' I have come t o the same way o f t h i n k i n g as Lukás o f m y o w n free w i l l and w i t h o u t any pressure.' Doubtless a feeling o f h a v i n g been o u t w i t t e d coloured Jakub's version o f w h a t t o o k place.e. T h e t w o rebels. 'we w o u l d never have left [i. 5 7 v . w h o was t o l d by the f o r m e r : ' I t was n o t i n order t o spread lies f r o m province to province and create hatred a m o n g people that y o u were ordained priest. i n the n i g h t ] . p. a n d t o s u b m i t t o the decisions o f the Inner C o u n c i l . therefore.' This r e m a r k was p r o b a b l y i n answer t o a m o n g members o f his congregation. 50v. Lukás had been backed u p i n his argument by Matéj. pressure h a v i n g been b r o u g h t u p o n h i m t o give his support. b u t instead have entered the congregation a n d proclaimed before b o t h the sexes what had taken place between us. 51 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . T h e verdict. One o f the M i n o r Party. w h o indeed denied there had ever been any serious differences o f o p i n i o n i n the U n i t y i n such matters. C f . T h e discussion c o n t i n u e d u n t i l late i n the evening. 65. cit. 6 5 . J a k u b a n d A m o s t o o k n o notice o f their conIbid. therefore. .. m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t the discontent was a spontaneous reaction o n the p a r t o f those still l o y a l t o the o l d d o c t r i n e s . op. B . realizing that this decision w o u l d inevitably go against t h e m . . Cas.' 8 A n o t h e r member o f the M i n o r Party. pp. s t o u t l y 10 denied. repeated several times.

since i t relieved the U n i t y o f m a n y o f its most fractious members. As wrote i n the letter he sent to Jakub and t o Blazek. B u t we have a m i n d to suffer y o u f o r a suitable t i m e . ' O o b n o v e n i .158 THE SCHISM d e m n a t i o n . Odpis proti » " " fols. B .. 2 2 6 ) . 4 5 . f o l . 2 2 7 ) .. p p . The verdict o f excommunication may actually have been taken at the Lent meeting at Sttiken. Ibid. 9 9 v .. The sources are n o t quite clear as t o the exact date when disciplinary action was taken against J a k u b and A m o s . . 1 0 0 : odtriencom. I t was p r o b a b l y hoped t h a t the radical action to be taken against their leaders. fol.. declaring the v a l i d i t y o f o a t h t a k i n g and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state. op. ' A n d hence once again no l i t t l e confusion arose w i t h i n the U n i t y . and the letters sent t o the Brethren o f the M i n o r Party by M a t e j d u r i n g or immediately after his visit t o Steken. one o f the M i n o r Party present at the meeting. Ibid. 3 3 . t h a t the eventual result was beneficial. ' relates L u k a s . despite their disagreement w i t h the new doctrines. f u l l expulsion f r o m the U n i t y only came several years later. to w h o m he handed i t o n leaving St&ken: ' I n conversation w i t h us y o u several times asserted t h a t y o u cannot. 6 4 . cit. after A m o s had created a b o u t 1500 a separate priesthood f o r the M i n o r Party. fol. fol. A .. hist. however. 57 ( q u o t e d ibid. 4 8 v ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . 14 would put an Matej end to the disaffection among the rank-and-file. A m o s and J a k u b . ' 13 The o r d i n a r y members o f the M i n o r Party were t o be tolerated f o r the time being w i t h i n the U n i t y . among the membership. b u t o n account o f the ' s i n ' o f disobedience to the properly constituted a u t h o r i t y o f the U n i t y and their intolerance o f those Brethren w h o d i d n o t share their o p i n i o n s . ' 15 The accusations w h i c h the M i n o r P a r t y were constantly b r i n g i n g for1 2 F o r M a t e j ' s visit a n d its aftermath. so t h a t they m i g h t continue to t h i n k as they had t h o u g h t . c o n t i n u i n g to p r o c l a i m their belief i n the obligatoriness o f the o l d principles o n a l l the Brethren and t o r a l l y support. L u k a s and the M a j o r Party. even t h o u g h i n the o p i n i o n o f others i t is n o t against Christ's c o m m a n d m e n t . see L u k d s . o n the contrary. 6 5 . wherever possible. p p . w h o maintains. hist. or i t may only have come afterwards as a result o f the rebel's non-compliance w i t h the decisions made there. 2 1 2 . J . were always to m a i n t a i n t h a t their opponents were n o t expelled for their views. indeed. and w i l l n o t . 45v. op. I V . cit. love was shown t o t h e m . w r o t e L u k a s .K r o f t a .K r o f t a . 2 0 5 . 'were n o t forced t o a n y t h i n g opposed to their conscience. Cas. Its first stage was exclusion f r o m the eucharist. 51 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . p. w h o had n o t yet been guilty o f acts o f indiscipline against their spiritual superiors. 6 6 . 12 A f t e r the synod o f Rychnov.. ' fols. . submit i n the matter o f w o r l d l y power and the o a t h .. Cas. 145. p. 2 1 6 ) . p.

' i. t o o . 2 1 9 ) . I n another letter. w h i l e L u k a s m a k e s it precede t h e letter q u o t e d i n note 18. F i r s t . op. Some.5 5 ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l . . f o r a r i c h m a n to enter the K i n g d o m o f Heaven. M a t e j and his I n n e r C o u n c i l sent o u t a strongly w o r d e d directive as to the attitude t o be taken u p towards the rebel leaders. 'since y o u are n o t forced b y us i n any way either as regards actions or thoughts . we have t h r o u g h o u t wanted t o tolerate y o u i f y o u h a d n o t c o m m i t t e d other offences. b u t they w o u l d b o t h a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n before its c o m p o s i t i o n . 16 Soon after this.w h i c h . o f indiscipline.' o f a b o y c o t t by the l o y a l members o f the U n i t y against the r e f r a c t o r y . h a d been those o f the whole U n i t y a few years before . B u t t h a t is n o t f o r all m e n . . fols. . i n w h i c h their souls are i n m u c h danger'. 5 4 . i t seems t o us. o r d e r i n g the b o y c o t t i n g o f t h o s e w h o r e m a i n e d i n the M i n o r P a r t y . 'Therefore we beseech y o u to take care n o t t o become offenders against G o d ' s commandments f o r the sake o f the letter (pro nekterd literni slovd) w h i c h .' 'After much w r i t i n g a n d direct talks w i t h y o u . cit.e. a n d lead t h e m 'towards a more perfect life a n d . ' A c c o r d i n g to C h r i s t i t was indeed difficult.T H E SCHISM 159 w a r d against M a t e j . . a closer i m i t a t i o n o f C h r i s t . however. . T h e views o f the M i n o r Party . w h o believed i n Christ. . The second concession was one w h i c h h a d n o t appeared before d u r i n g the course o f the controversy: 'We do n o t f o r b i d y o u [wrote M a t e j ] t o lead whomsoever y o u can o f the wealthy towards v o l u n t a r y poverty. the avoidance o f office wherever possible was still considered advisable. let me r e m i n d y o u o f the d u t y o f Let t h e m stop creating disturbances. .. o n the request o f some o f the pastors i n the provinces. G o l l r a t h e r v a g u e l y p u t s it s o m e t i m e before the c o n f e r e n c e at C h l u m e c i n 1 4 9 6 .K r o f t a . however. I t is e q u a l l y difficult to p l a c e e i t h e r letter i n r e l a t i o n to J a k u b ' s S e c o n d T r a c t . t o snatch t h e m f r o m offices. b u t n o t impossible. p. h a d p r o b a b l y touched h i m on the raw. were men placed i n a u t h o r i t y . y o u d o n o t understand.' H e was prepared. he sought to rebut their assertions o f treachery o r at least to get them to moderate their tone. o f course. ' w i c k e d a n d b o l d m e n [they are called] w h o are unable to p r o f i t f r o m any a d m o n i t i o n o r talks " Odpis. a n d he concluded his letter w i t h the threat o f 'avoidance. b r o t h e r l y love. such as the R o m a n centurion. B o t h the t r a c t a n d the t w o letters s e r v e d to give w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n to the o p i n i o n s o f the t w o p a r t i e s d u r i n g the p e r i o d b e t w e e n the d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n t a k e n a g a i n s t the M i n o r P a r t y after M a t e j ' s L e n t visit to Stfeken a n d the C h l u m e c c o n f e r e n c e o f the f o l l o w i n g y e a r . . to m a k e some concessions towards their p o i n t o f view. w r i t t e n i n the name o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l a n d now sent to the Brethren o f the M i n o r Party. M a t e j n o w considered acceptance o f office under certain conditions as scripturally justified.were j u d g e d by M a t e j t o be u n s o u n d . T h e r e is n o c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n o f the d a t i n g o f this letter.

Minor " op.e. 18 I n the same year as the p a r t i a l expulsion f r o m the U n i t y o f the leaders o f the M i n o r Party.B a r t o s . l i k e M a t e j and M i c h a l . these should still appear t o such persons more right and good . Ibid. A m o s and J a k u b . that i t was they w h o represented the t r u e U n i t y t r a d i t i o n . p. p. denied they k n e w a n y o f the P r a g u e M a s t e r s o r priests. . tell i t to t h e m . F o r dating. they twist a r o u n d . Party . c f the I n n e r Council] i n salvation i n G o d . op. 17 to our detriment. B u t if. . past or present. as 'unalterable laws. h a d ' p r e a c h e d [i. V i k t o r i n K o r n e l . a s s e r t i n g . against the M i n o r P a r t y ] i n their s e r m o n s . . despite even that. another step was taken towards the final eradication o f the p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines o f the O l d Brethren. T h e P a r t y .. cit. some continue to h o l d intercourse w i t h t h e m . 66) a r e n o t at a l l c l e a r . . T H E SCHISM F o r whatever is said t o them. F o r most probably the same sort o f persons w i l l j o i n t h e m as they are t h e m selves. fol. The decree (svoleni) w h i c h embodied the conference's findings opened by declaring that the U n i t y d i d n o t regard any previous sayings o r w r i t i n g s o f any o f its members. Rehof. w h i c h had included b o t h priest and laymen. by w h o m A m o s and 17 Odpis.' Therefore. ' T h e references to these c o n t a c t s in the R e p o r t o f the M i n o r (Cos. . cit. t h e n they should be personally admonished. o n the c o n t r a r y . while the present I n n e r Council had betrayed the ideals o f its founder. 65. people w h o w o u l d stick at n o t h i n g . If. ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l . ' T h e U t r a q u i s t priests. the writings o f ChelSicky. i f y o u have a n y t h i n g against t h a t . e s p e c i a l l y T a b o r s k y . The object o f the conference was t o find means to counter the accusation. A t C h l u m e c i n the f o l l o w i n g y e a r the M a j o r P a r t y a c c u s e d J a k u b a n d h i s friends o f w r i t i n g to P r a g u e to incite the U t r a q u i s t M a s t e r s against t h e m . see M i i l l e r . ' F o r we are m o r e aware o f some o f their lies.' T h e arguments to the c o n t r a r y o f those presentday Brethren. now only eighteen leading pastors were present. give them freedom... A second conference was held at Rychnov t o discuss the question h o w far. . i n c l u d i n g a l l members o f the new Inner C o u n c i l and some. saying: ' W e believe according t o the Brethren [i. the U n i t y ' s e r s t w h i l e friend a n d later o p p o n e n t — to ' o u r a n d y o u r great e n e m i e s .. let t h e m have a taste. w h o had f o r m e r l y been upholders o f the o l d viewpoint. made by the M i n o r Party. a s a result.e. and his contemporaries were n o w b i n d i n g o n U n i t y members. m a k i n g use o f their d e n u n c i a t i o n s . 2 1 9 ) . b u t t o deal w i t h t h e m briefly. pp. that it w a s t h e i r o p p o n e n t s . U n l i k e the conference o f the previous year. the pastors are advised t o w a r n : Their people and their assistants n o t to speak w i t h them n o r even t o wish t o listen t o t h e m . especially those o f the older generation used to regard the w r i t i n g s o f Brother Rehof as o f almost equal v a l i d i t y w i t h the scriptures. despite the general w a r n i n g . 55v.K r o f t a . . w h o h a d w r i t t e n s e v e r a l times t o P r a g u e — seemingly i n p a r t i c u l a r to M . hist. however. i n view o f the recent changes. 169.160 together. Such arguments c o u l d obviously be used w i t h great effect a m o n g the rank-and-file Brethren.

t o o . therefore.. w h i c h had been handed o n t o succeeding generations as the official U n i t y line. ' A f t e r some time i t began t o be felt that some o f the doctrines accepted by the U n i t y were m i s t a k e n and even erroneous. are sufficient. the authors o f the decree p o i n t e d o u t t h a t Moses i n the O l d Testament a n d the apostles.' writings were. also. t h o u g h i t is difficult t o identify t h e m exactly. ' C o u n t e r i n g i n advance the accusation o f disrespect towards the f o u n d ers o f their society. after m u c h heartsearching. specifically mentioned. N e w converts. and especially St. whose w o r k s were especially p o p u l a r reading i n U n i t y circles. O w i n g t o God's love and effective actions we have come t o realize [the decree goes on] that certain matters have been treated w i t h o u t m o d e r a t i o n and intemperately (nad miru a stridmosi) . . We. and t h a t those writings for l o n g accepted b y a l l Christians. all fell short o f perfection and deserved admonishment for some o f their actions.T H E SCHISM 161 specifically Jakub were obviously meant t h o u g h their names were not mentioned. Therefore.' were on no account to be given credence. I n the present dissension a n d controversy w i t h i n the U n i t y o n the attitude towards the state. however. their chief concern should be t o strive patiently for the r e f o r m a t i o n o f the w r o n g t h i n k i n g and n o t to act simply f r o m anger and The net result was. A f t e r a brief historical survey o f the origins o f the U n i t y i n the year 1457. A m o n g those responsible for the acceptance o f such ideas. the attempt was made t o base their way o f life u p o n the doctrines o f ChelSicky a n d R e h o f and their l i k e .. b o t h those w h o have been members f r o m the beginning and those w h o j o i n e d later. The Brethren t h e n .' was Petr Chel5icky. were required to accept these principles as their o w n . they h a d n o w come to acknowledge t h a t Several o f Brother Rehof's the w o r k s o f the early Brethren c o n t a i n i n g the official corpus o f U n i t y doctrine 'were w r i t t e n w i t h insufficiency. w h i c h are set o u t and contained i n the Bible. Peter. as a result o f the imprecise use o f titles. w i t h the founders o f the U n i t y . w h o interpreted these writings i n such a way as to cause 'a general lack o f trust' a m o n g members a n d 'even t o b r i n g about a schism. . that we should n o t be impeded by these things n o r keep them for future guidance . Even t h o u g h the Brethren f o u n d i t extremely h a r d t o live u p to such principles. t h a t the Brethren came t o trust more i n their o w n good w o r k s . persons ' w h o praised w h a t they themselves d i d not practice. than ' i n the cross o f C h r i s t . B u t t h a t they s h o u l d be reckoned a m o n g the A p o crypha. have unanimously and w i t h good intent decreed. the writers o f the decree went o n to express themselves very c r i t i c a l l y concerning the opinions given vent t o at t h a t time. indeed. were w o n t to view matters f r o m an 'immoderately l o f t y ' standpoint. i t was claimed. ' I t was the same.

i t is true. 108. F o r this reason probably the M i n o r Party n o w sent one o f their number. M. i n actual fact. composed a lengthy manifesto w h i c h p u t s f o r w a r d i n somewhat chaotic fashion. therefore. T h e i r a i m i n m a k i n g this decree. p. the decree was designed t o b r i n g a b o u t 'a u n i t i n g and a harmonious calming o f a l l the divisions.' 21 B u t . and to find o u t exactly what his views were o n these subjects..1 1 .K r o f t a . were n o t . p. 2. ' C. b u t w i t h an almost fanatical earnestness a n d sincerity.. S a f a f l k . ' B r . above a l l . w i t h the assistance o f A m o s and a t h i r d member o f the M i n o r Party. to speak w i t h Matej w h i l e he was visiting L i t o m y s l . between the younger members and those who had j o i n e d i n Brother Rehof's d a y . i t was t o have the effect o f reThe appeal t o placing the t r a d i t i o n a l ideology by one w h i c h was by degrees to come to accept the existing social order w i t h o u t any reservations. Benes V o d i c k a . This must.' 22 I t was also for the present the official attitude o f the Inner C o u n c i l . Towards the end o f the decree the writers called for the e x h i b i t i o n of a spirit o f brotherly love. t h o u g h even a m o n g many o f those w h o accepted the new standpoint the a u t h o r i t y at least o f Rehof still had m u c h weight. and to give a clear p r o o f o f the u n i t y w h i c h existed o n this subject among the leadership. fol. the case f o r the M i n o r P a r t y . have been true o f B r o t h e r M a t e j . 2 0 9 . 2 1 9 ) . as expressed i n the writings o f ChelcSicky and Rehof. .162 T H E SCHISM hatred. T h e v e r s i o n i n Dekrety Jednoty bratrske. neb obemu ddvdme miesto). G o l l . too. entirely rejected. " " " ** Dekrety. w h i c h h a d existed h i t h e r t o i n the Unity of Brethren. XXXVI (1862). op. was n o longer t o be an irrefutable p r o o f o f the Tightness o f any given o p i n i o n . Matej's reply to the question whether he 'wished to stand by the early doctrine o r by the present decree' was typical o f his whole o u t l o o k : ' B y b o t h . b o u n d b y so many ties o f affection a n d respect t o Rehof's m e m o r y . loc. op. cit.K r o f t a . p. cit. A b o u t t h i s time. C. They were still to have binding force 'so l o n g as they coincided w i t h the h o l y scriptures and served the purpose o f profitable e d i f i c a t i o n . was to p u t an end t o the uncertainty and bickering w h i c h h a d existed hitherto. p. cit. i s v e r y given i n the Historia m u c h shortened. p. T h e o l d political and social doctrines. the writings o f R e h o f o r ChelSicky.. Jakub. 54v ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . 19 The decree o f Rychnov was a l a n d m a r k i n U n i t y history. 194. " 23 Jakub's G o l l . Odpis. since we tolerate b o t h (Ze pri prvnim i nynejsim. they claimed.K r o f t a . w h i c h r e p r i n t s the m a j o r p a r t o f the fuller v e r s i o n Fratrum. J a n a B l a h o s l a v a h i s t o r i e b r a t f i c e s k ? c h . ' 20 As the Historia Fratrum expressed i t . R i h a o f Votice. op.. cit.

u p o n j o i n i n g the U n i t y . fol. h a r d i m p r i s o n m e n t . his suffering is merely that o f an ass o r a beast.' 24 Renegades. 2 6 Jakub's second p o i n t was t h a t the true C h r i s t i a n f a i t h h a d been held t h r o u g h o u t the centuries o n l y by a small m i n o r i t y o f the f a i t h f u l .. l i k e L u k a s a n d K r a s o n i c k y . was a religion ' w h i c h blesses the p o o r . a persecuted m i n o r i t y .. B . lived thereafter o n the same level as the 'simple' B r e t h r e n : persons belonging to the Sarovec and Sudomer families and Brother V o t i k . i n the course o f time undergoes a decrease and later a c o r r u p t i o n t h r o u g h the " 25 2 A . 54. . 52. ' D u r i n g the early years o f the U n i t y . op. gained h o n o u r and r e n o w n a n d the friendship o f the w o r l d ' and risen and here R e n d l o f Ousava is p r o b a b l y referred t o . I V . Ibid. w h o 'has acquired estates. 5 0 ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n ibid. 51v. These he contrasts w i t h the type o f person n o w recruited i n t o the U n i t y .. among servants. Ibid. . J . p.. . ' 25 J a k u b mentions the names o f some o f these ' h i g h a n d noble' persons w h o . has become r i c h . ' C h r i s t i a n i t y . . H i s followers were f o u n d a m o n g the l o w l y a n d the p o o r . for every movement. 54v ( q u o t e d G o l l . G o d preserves i t i n a small c o m p a n y .K r o f t a . Ibid. ' F o r i t is n o t the poor w h o rule the w o r l d b u t the r i c h . 56. being able to defend himself. B u t even the latter had finally departed f r o m the teachings o f their founder. as i t is usually called. cruel t o r t u r e and some even death i t s e l f . 2 3 4 . ' m a n y people h a d renounced great estates. n o t rulers. fol. a n d a p p o r t ions misery t o the r i c h . f o r Jakub and his l i k e . b u t I t was better t o be o n the r i g h t p a t h w i t h the chosen few t h a n o n the w r o n g w i t h the m a j o r i t y . ' 27 'When- ever the n u m b e r o f people m u l t i p l i e d . they stifled the seed o f f a i t h ..' B u t Christ had n o t taken this view. . 2 2 5 ) . was t o be o f considerable i m p o r t a n c e i n the ensuing stages o f the controversy. fame and a l u x u r i o u s life and w i t h j o y undergone great trials. 5 3 . p. p p . first. t h o u g h 'begun i n G o d . I t was to the small flock t h a t Christ's words o f c o m f o r t were directed. he writes. as a neophyte. fols. had tried t o prove t h a t i f a person 'suffers. a b o u t whose lives however n o t h i n g further is k n o w n . This J a k u b illustrates b y the contrast between the history o f the official c h u r c h since the D o n a t i o n o f Constantine and t h a t o f the Waldenses. . H e had n o t hesitated ' t o lay his y o k e ' u p o n his disciples ' f o r the sake o f God's k i n g d o m .. he should be d o i n g penance f o r his former sins i n the w o r l d . 5 0 ( q u o t e d ibid. cit.THE SCHISM 163 Second T r a c t . 2 2 5 ) . fol. ' r e q u i r i n g t h a t they should renounce p r o p e r t y and f a m i l y . 2 3 5 ) .to h i g h office: a l l d u r i n g the p e r i o d when. 2 2 6 . A t the outset J a k u b stressed. « " . h o n o u r . the virtues o f suffering and p o v e r t y : ' F r o m the beginning o f the w o r l d the g o o d people had had t o suffer.

Christ w o u l d acknowledge o f His w o r d s . abandoned the o l d doctrines t o avoid persecution and t o w i n over large numbers o f people unwilling to make the sacrifices h i t h e r t o demanded on entry i n t o the U n i t y . The tract repeated the f a m i l i a r arguments against the p a r t i c i p a t i o n o i the Christian i n the w o r k o f the state. F o r the first time i n the polemical literature o f the U n i t y the question o f the oath comes t o the fore. 52. 56. so cherishing i t that heaven a n d earth w o u l d first pass away before the least This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was o f course the one given by Chelcicky and Rehof. to the rack and the scaffold. 'There is no p r o o f whatsoever [wrote Jakub] that the civil power ever had any p a r t i n the u n i t y o f the holy church. 56v. t h o u g h i t does n o t as yet take the central position i n the controversy i t was shortly t o d o . . J a k u b devotes considerable attention to i t a n d quotes the words o f Christ ( M a t t h e w V . but that 'a Brother m i g h t deliver u p a t h i e f to justice. fols. w h i c h h a d been accepted u n t i l recently b y almost a l l . heedless o f Christ's injunctions i n the Sermon o n the M o u n t . ' M a n y people were saying. J a k u b rejected w i t h scorn his opponents' c l a i m that by the recent changes i n doctrine they had n o t simply accepted the standards o f the paganized C h r i s t i a n i t y o f the w o r l d . ' the Brethren. 29 only 'those w h o accepted H i s teaching. . had n o w happened w i t h the Brethren..' THE SCHISM T h i s . He even accused t h e m o f h i d i n g the f u l l implications o f their p o s i t i o n f r o m the ordinary members o f the U n i t y . 34-37) and St. swear and fight i n the wars. fol 51 ( q u o t e d ibid. i t was i m p l i e d . indeed. 28 They h a d . p.' This was the result o f the i n n o v a tions o f the M a j o r P a r t y .' as well as all the other injunctions o f the Sermon o n the M o u n t . and d o evil for evil. were i n fact 'the legions o f d a m n a t i o n ' . h a v i n g begun i n the spirit. t o lessen the force o f one c o m m a n d m e n t was an attack on all the others. 2 2 6 ) . Those Christian bodies.' " " Ibid. A n y attempt. 51v. T h i r d l y . were ending w i t h the flesh. 5 3 . according to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n given by the early Brethren. James (James V . Ibid. ... the tract stressed the absolute b i n d i n g force o f every w o r d o f Christ.5 4 . ' A n d w h e n the p r o h i b i t i o n concerning the o a t h is set aside [he writes] then the c o m m a n d m e n t to love one's enemies is b r o k e n too. as they called to m i n d their early w o r k s and saw what they were d o i n g at present.' T o m i x the t w o w o u l d be like c o m b i n i n g fire and water. therefore. not only that the Brethren m i g h t n o w take office. F o r h i m the edict o f Brandys meant. w h o have allowed their members to participate i n the state.164 wicked enemy. that the Brethren. 12) to prove that every k i n d o f o a t h is f o r b i d d e n to the Christian.

T H E SCHISM 165 W h y h a d the M i n o r Party b r o k e n w i t h their opponents o f the M a j o r Party? I t was i n the first place. i t was impossible t o continue to s u b m i t t o ' y o u r p r o s t i t u t i o n o f doctrine. . so l o n g as the same t o l e r a t i o n was accorded to the opinions o f the m a j o r i t y . Its arguments are t h r o w n together w i t h o u t m u c h attempt at any logical sequence.' T h i r d l y . 57v. even going so far as t o w a r n his congregations against contact w i t h t h e m . T h e arrangement is c o m pletely m u d d l e d a n d personal abuse is often substituted f o r reasoning. 5 5 . therefore. whose conscientious scruples were to be respected.' A second reason lay i n the fact t h a t they had no r i g h t to act as judges i n the dispute. a n d we are m i n d e d t o keep t o this doctrine u n t i l we die. B . J . 8 0 Ibid. ' Y o u are u n w o r t h y t o be a bishop a n d pastor'. J a k u b . flatly denied the M a j o r Party's c l a i m that the cause o f the schism was n o t a dispute a b o u t doctrine. however u n t r a i n e d . J . 5 7 . I V . 4 3 . a s c r i b e d its o r i g i n t o differences o v e r t h e o l o g i c a l a n d d o g m a t i c q u e s t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n to a m o r a l r e v o l t . j u s t because o f their l o y a l t y to p r i n c i p l e . B r o t h e r M a t e j held f o r m a n y years. LukâS. o n the o t h e r h a n d . the t u r n c o a t . 5 1 . BoleslavSti now 3 3 bratfi. b u t a case o f indiscipline a m o n g a m i n o r i t y o f the members. S e e M o l n â r .' B u t n o w M a t e j h a d ' o f his o w n free w i l l ' deserted t h e m . f o r i t was observed f o r m a n y years under B r o t h e r Rehor a n d m a n y Brothers a n d Sisters still h o l d i t dear. 'The same doctrine w h i c h we n o w h o l d .. I t was i n fact rather the M a j o r P a r t y w h i c h h a d split o f f f r o m the M i n o r . o n a c c o u n t o f h i s l i t e r a r y a c t i v i t i e s a n d h i s i n c r e a s i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the dispute. J a k u b replied. 30 M u c h space i n the tract was devoted to attacks on the leaders o f the 31 K r a s o n i c k y a n d Tûma the Scribe. since the latter alone held t o the p r i m i t i v e f a i t h o f the early Brethren. w a s rightly r e g a r d e d b y the M i n o r P a r t y a s o n e o f t h e i r m o s t weighty A . by w h i c h y o u c o r r u p t the h o l y scripture' w i t h the assertion t h a t the former strict i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Christ's c o m m a n d m e n t s m i g h t be abandoned. 5 7 . . J a k u b t o l d h i m . . 'since y o u are yourselves one o f the parties (neb jste strand).1 3 8 ) m a i n l y f o r the p u r p o s e o f c o n t r o v e r t i n g the 3 1 I n J a n u a r y 1496 L u k â s h a d i s s u e d a t r a c t entitled O pfiâinâch bratrske P a r t y ' s thesis that the U n i t y s e p a r a t e d f r o m the U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h a s a protest a g a i n s t t h e m o r a l c o r r u p t i o n o f its clergy. because ' y o u oppress us by force. B u t the bitterest jibes were directed against M a t e j . p. fols 9 8 . fols. t h e r e b y w e a k e n i n g the e m p h a s i s p l a c e d b y h i s o p p o n e n t s o n the p r o b l e m o f m o r a l b e h a v i o u r i n p o l i t i c a l a n d s o c i a l m a t t e r s . oddlleni sepsâni Minor ( A . fols. B . LukâS.5 2 v . opponents. the renegade w h o o n l y a few years earlier h a d confided i n J a k u b a n d his friends his distrust o f K l e n o v s k y and his l o y a l t y t o the o l d doctrines. 56v. B u t i t is obviously the p r o d u c t o f a personality w h i c h . Lukâs. I l l . M a j o r P a r t y : Klenovsky. 32 The tract is badly constructed. T h e former were 'the devisers o f new things a n d the defenders o f new-fangled' doctrines.

' as the R e p o r t o f the M a j o r Party p u t i t . like M a t e j . t h o u g h p r o b a b l y a c c u r a t e o n the w h o l e . Party ( A . A conference irozmlouvdni) Chlumec on the river C i d l i n a . 6 1 . however. is the same as is f o u n d i n the w r i t i n g s o f Rehof or Chelcicky. i n view o f the fact that so far they h a d been refused a further chance o f expressing their s t a n d p o i n t . the feeling o f frustration almost t o the p o i n t o f inarticulateness. w i t h its c o n t i n u o u s emphasis o n the n a r r o w path to be t r o d by the small a n d l o w l y flock o f true Christians. fol. J . 'The Brethren i n the true suc¬ " '* A . The atmosphere.3 3 v ) . indeed. J . The chances o f a successful outcome to such a meeting were. to convince the other p a r t y o f the wrongness o f its opinions: ' F o r the sake o f p u t t i n g t h e m r i g h t . 'We are n o t i n the least grateful t o y o u [wrote Jakub i n his Second Tract] for suffering us i n those matters. the a u t h o r o f w h i c h w a s p r o b a b l y J a k u b . D e t a i l e d a c c o u n t s o f the c o n f e r e n c e a r e given i n the R e p o r t o f the M a j o r historicky. 2. 33 t a k i n g p a r t i n the controversy o n the side o f the M a t e j a n d the I n n e r C o u n c i l also still appear to have been anxious to confer w i t h J a k u b and his friends once more. B . 57. is i n b o t h r e p o r t s s o m e t i m e s r a t h e r erratic. B . Neither threats n o r attempts at conciliation were t o make the M i n o r Party more ready t o accept the existence w i t h i n the U n i t y o f any members u n w i l l i n g to keep to the strict m o r a l code o f Rehof's day. I t must. I V .166 THE SCHISM possessed a deep m o r a l seriousness. J . pp. J a k u b went o n to h i n t that his p a r t y w o u l d welcome another meeting f o r discussion. B . I V ) . Therefore. t o o . 2 6 . . actively innovators. had been Rehof's closest associates.6 7 . . Its author's b u r n i n g anger. The immediate i n i t i a t i v e i n calling the conference seems to have come f r o m the latter. 34 actually t o o k place o n 23 M a y 1496 a t The object o f the conference i n the view (Zprdva) o f each side was the same. n o . ' Nevertheless. I V . where we are i n fact fulfilling God's commandments. remote. we d o n o t need y o u r tolerat i o n . T h e threats only strengthened their c o n v i c t i o n o f the wrongness o f their adversaries. have become increasingly clear t h a t the b u l k o f the membership was prepared to stand by indifferent a n d see this happen. a n d to protest even t h a t the disciplinary action taken against himself a n d other members o f the M i n o r Party was especially unfair. w h i c h is a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y by Lukds". a n d i n t h a t o f the M i n o r P a r t y (Casopis 1882. T h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r i n w h i c h the d i s c u s s i o n s a r e presented. . fols. r e p r i n t e d f r o m A . w i t h many Brethren. They scornfully rejected the l i m i t e d toleration o f their o w n views offered them by M a t e j . was due to his realization that n o t o n l y were the ideals o f the U n i t y ' s founders being destroyed b y those w h o claimed to be the guardians o f its traditions. . but t h a t a m o n g the latter were some even who.

They n o w answered that they wanted the conference t o be conducted ' w i t h o u t squabblings and as a friendly discussion. quite possible that Klenovsky kept away f r o m the t h a t o f some o f his colleagues. ' B u t the M i n o r Party were n o t at first ready t o f a l l i n w i t h their suggestion.' B u t . . Vodiéka was a t a i l o r a n d a p r o m i n e n t member o f the M i n o r Party w h i c h . O n the M o n d a y m o r n i n g the members o f the local congregation gathered t o hear the proceedings o f the conference. I t is. some Brethren also a r r i v i n g conference realizing that his rejection o f the o l d doctrines. P r o k o p . they added. Matéj. that the M i n o r Party had n o t at first understood the meaning o f the questions p u t to t h e m .' numerous supporters. O n the Sunday evening Matéj again sent a messenger t o the M i n o r Party asking for an answer. as already related. o n a r r i v i n g i n Chlumec o n the Saturday before W h i t s u n sent t o ask whether the M i n o r Party still 'wished f o r a meeting. Therefore . w h o m they r i g h t l y regarded as the leading personality i n the I n n e r C o u n c i l . domacy) The M i n o r Party also proposed t h a t Matéj and his 'the rank-and-file Brethren o f the n e i g h b o u r h o o d (bratrí obecní. I t appeared. and where and according to w h a t order o f speaking and before w h a t persons i t should take place. designated the f o l l o w i n g M o n d a y for the conference The leaders o f the M i n o r Party evidently chose Chlumec as being i n the centre o f the area where they had house o f Bene§ V o d i c k a as its l o c a t i o n . being m o r e radical t h a n . . i n and the answer. okolní y should be s u m m o n e d ' t o attend its sessions. i t was left for them to choose when and where they wished to come together f o r a conference. T h e delegates o f the M a j o r Party.T H E SCHISM 167 cession (v puovodu) [as they called themselves] were u n w i l l i n g to reply o n paper to the w r i t i n g s ' o f the M i n o r Party. prefering ' t o speak w i t h them i n person for the sake o f a better understanding between the t w o sides. Lukás. indeed.' T h e M i n o r Party. they were disappointed at the absence o f K l e n o v s k y . Matéj Uhlíf. colleagues agreed t o this o n c o n d i t i o n t h a t 'they p r o v i d e d accomodation a n d provisions f o r t h e m . had sent h i m n o t l o n g before o n a visit to Matéj to find o u t exactly where the bishop stood i n the controversy. m i g h t impede its success. n o r d i d they give an immediate answer as t o the rules under w h i c h the conference should be conducted. however. p r o m i s i n g however to give this later. and Bernard o f Pfibislavice f r o m the congregation at L i t o m y s l . and t h a t they were ready to behave properly towards B r o t h e r Matéj. like Matéj a former protagonist o f the o l d doctrines. and also t o find o u t whether they wanted a general conference o f all the delegates or w o u l d prefer t o elect several o f their number for a more i n t i m a t e discussion.

a n d before the session actually opened. a n d V o d i c k a as host t h a n k e d M a t e j for consenting t o come. M a t e j spoke first. 1 5 — 2 0 . pp. w h i c h they seem to have distributed a m o n g b o t h the members o f the M a j o r n C f . a n d M a t e j a n d his colleagues. 55v. H a v e l the C l o t h i e r f r o m L i t o m y s l . I V . Jan the M i l l e r f r o m Susice. I t s m e m b e r s . b u t P a v e l m a y h a v e been o n e o f their elders w h o a d m i n i s t e r e d the affairs o f the sect. 6 5 . a furrier. 4 7 . before the session opened. Then all the delegates sat d o w n . 4 9 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . Even the Report o f the M a j o r Party admits that some o f the members o f the opposing delegation 'came w i t h the object o f p r o m o t i n g peace a n d c o n c i l i a t i o n ' . . ' C. was u n f o r t u n a t e l y n o t t o be m a i n t a i n e d for l o n g . op. op.. The latter were well-represented. B . J a k u b a n d A m o s o f course attended as well as Benes V o d i c k a w h o acted as host. 2 1 6 ) . ' T h e n the disputants entered. cit. also f r o m Votice. J . M. 35 These onlookers were present at the request o f the M i n o r P a r t y . . i t w o u l d seem. 1876. The conference opened i n an atmosphere o f m u t u a l t o l e r a t i o n .. article ' T h e W e e p i n g B r e t h r e n o f B o h e m i a ' . i n c l u d i n g the elders. Odpis. therefore. ' M i k u l d s e n c i . fols. H e asked the M i n o r Party t o state whether they still held t o the attacks made o n h i m a n d his colleagues i n Jakub's Second T r a c t . M a t e j a n d his colleagues being shown t o one table and the Brethren o f the M i n o r Party t o another.8 2 . Review (Denver. A .. a n d Pavel. 56. pp. f o r m e r l y a priest o f the Mikuldsenci. 77K? Iliff W i n t e r 1956. p. c o n s i s t e d a l m o s t entirely o f illiterate p e a s a n t s a n d a r t i s a n s . they d i d n o t h a v e priests o f their o w n . The greater size o f the M i n o r Party's delegation was u n doubtedly due t o the fact that its members mostly came f r o m the neighb o u r h o o d .K r o f t a . T h e i r other delegates were: M a t o u g the Weaver o f L a n s k r o u n . T h e y a p p a r e n t l y According d i d n o t s h a r e the e a r l y U n i t y ' s pacifist a n a r c h i s m a n d were severely c r i t i c i z e d by J a k u b for their c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h the c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s . 'a c e r t a i n ' Jan C v i l d a . b o t h sides had stood i n prayer together. ' t h a t they should sit quietly i n silence a n d n o t take p a r t themselves i n a n y t h i n g . t h o u g h t i t advisable t o have t h e m warned. See also my Colorado). R i h a the Weaver f r o m Votice. J i r i k the Cooper. o f the p r o l e t a r i a n element i n the U n i t y i n contrast t o educated theologians l i k e P r o k o p a n d L u k a s o f the v i s i t i n g delegation. o n Matej's proposal. see J i r e c e k . p p .168 T H E SCHISM f r o m the n e i g h b o u r i n g congregation at N o v y B y d z o v . Ondfej the Cobbler. ' " F o r this sect. 6 4 . fol. eleven o f their number being present as against only five f r o m the M a j o r Party. p r o m i s i n g that they w o u l d listen quietly to what he had to say. cit. C. 36 They were representative. w h e r e L u k a S w r i t e s t h a t a n d before m a n y [Brethren] the conference w a s h e l d 'before the l o c a l c o n g r e g a t i o n gathered f r o m the p r o v i n c e o f H r a d e c K r a l o v e . briefly o u t l i n i n g the reasons f o r h o l d i n g the conference. to J i r e c e k . however. w h i c h . where the M i n o r Party h a d strong support.

w h i c h proposal the M i n o r Party had evidently t u r n e d d o w n earlier. The M i n o r Party t r i e d t o press them o n this p o i n t : 'We t h a n k e d t h e m t h a t they had spoken t r u t h a n d asked t h e m w h y they had made a second new doctrine w h i c h c o u l d n o t be confirmed b y the scripture. . F o r this reason perhaps. o n the other h a n d .' They then t u r n e d t o M a t e j and asked h i m : 'Was the U n i t y at the very beginning b u i l t u p o n the f o u n d a t i o n o f Christ?' P r o k o p b r o k e i n t o say that i t was. been baptised a second t i m e and entered i n t o the h o l y c h u r c h . " 38 A . p. p r o v i d e d a guarantee was given that their conscientious scruples w o u l d be respected. f o r t h e m 'the one was the c o n t r a r y o f the other.' They discoursed eloquently o n the cruelties i n v o l v e d i n p u t t i n g the new doctrines i n t o practice i n the sphere o f j u d i c i a l a d m i n i stration. like water and fire. I V . A n d i t was for this doctrine t h a t they had split o f f f r o m the Brethren. i t was a question.e. when they came t o realize the significance o f the decree [i.' * 3 'They had [he said] been b r o u g h t u p i n [the o l d doctrine]. 3 7 T h e M i n o r Party i n answer protested that ' i t is n o t r i g h t t o speak first o f y o u r affairs . whether they were w i l l i n g t o cease causing dissension. he added. 2 6 . hist. . i n their o p i n i o n . were ready to agree that the o l d doctrines (prvnl smysl) were still t o be tolerated w i t h i n the U n i t y .' The M a j o r Party however. fundamental and essential to salvation. we shall give y o u a proper reply concerning these i n o u r o w n time. M a t e j and his colleagues. Tolerance having been granted t o the t w o points o f view. B . h o w far the M i n o r Party were prepared to accept the c o n t r o l o f the p r o p e r l y constituted c h u r c h a u t h o r i t i e s . o f Brandys] c o n t r a r y to i t . ' b u t that there was insufficiency i n the teaching o f the o r i g i n a l doctrine. w h e n one c o u l d be saved t h r o u g h the first. ' The t w o sides were i n fact a r g u i n g at cross purposes. the M i n o r Party were quite unprepared t o accept.. fols. w a n t e d t o make the whole question one o f U n i t y discipline. Cas. J . T h e M i n o r Party wished t o centre the discussion o n the scriptural v a l i d i t y o f the o l d d o c trine. w i t h considerable j u s t i f i c a t i o n .T H E SCHISM Party and 'others' outside the U n i t y . 6 2 .' T h e reply was the same as M a t e j h a d given earlier t o V o d i c k a : t h a t b o t h doctrines m i g h t equally be held t o . f o r its sake they had b r o k e n away f r o m other religious societies a n d j o i n e d the B r e t h r e n . 2 6 v . they again proposed to l i m i t the conference t o a smaller n u m b e r o f persons chosen by each side. . This however. Let us rather talk first concerning h o l y matters. ' H o w can y o u say t h a t b o t h doctrines can be adopted [their speaker ended w i t h i n d i g n a t i o n ] t h a t one can hang a m a n w i t h l o v i n g kindness (aby mohl z Idsky obesiti). .

indeed. b u t o n account o f y o u r sins' o f indiscipline. 39 The M i n o r Party continued. fol. w h o was himself present at the conference. 3 1 . fol. tioned a s being present at the conference. The examples he went o n t o give. B u t again the M i n o r Party refused. p r o b a b l y mostly sympathetic to the M i n o r Party. began t o m u r m u r a n d demand ' t h a t o u r sins [i. where they were later hanged. t o assert that i t was f o r their loyalty ' t o the o l d doctrine' that they h a d been disciplined. a s i f this i n c i d e n t m a y h a v e t a k e n place n e a r K u n v a l d i n n o r t h . since M a t e j and his colleagues. . I t does n o t s e e m p o s s i b l e o n t h e C f . ' T h e n VodiSka got u p a n d said that he was ready t o prove this statement. as expressed i n the edict o f Brandys a n d later decrees. H i s first i l l u s t r a t i o n concerned a certain teacher (ucitel). ' Vavfinec then delivered them over to the p r i s o n . t h r o w an interesting l i g h t o n the practical application o f the U n i t y ' s new attitude towards the state and the a u t h o r ities. existing evidence to identify this V a v f i n e c w i t h V a v f i n e c K r a s o n i c k y . those o f the M i n o r Party] s h o u l d be named i n f r o n t o f them a l l .170 T H E SCHISM and the decisions reached i n this narrower circle were thereafter to be binding o n b o t h parties. w h e r e it w o u l d s e e m . to h u n t the thieves d o w n . B . I V . J. was equivalent t o accepting w o r l d l y conceptions 'even as far as the h a n g m a n . conscious perhaps t h a t the views o f the M i n o r Party were i n fact n o t at a l l unconnected w i t h the action taken against t h e m . the local Brethren. ' The argument continued for some t i m e to go r o u n d i n a circle w i t h o u t either side showing any signs o f yielding its g r o u n d . n o t merely by the words o f the M a j o r Party. B . ' k n o w i n g that he w o u l d best take care o f t h e m . J. o n the news that a gang o f thieves was active i n the district. T h e i r o p p o nents answered: 'We do n o t exclude y o u because o f y o u r opinions. When the M i n o r Party attempted t o give a d e f i n i t i o n o f the t w o r i v a l doctrines. m a n y o f w h o m belonged t o the U n i t y . They chose Vavfinec as their captain (hejtman) and entrusted the greater part o f those captured to his charge. N o w . " A. b u t by their deeds.e.e a s t B o h e m i a . w h o were sitting r o u n d as mere spectators. a member o f the U n i t y called V a v f inec. . w h o is n o t m e n - . indeed. a n d the incident presumably t o o k place i n the locality o f C h l u m e c . A . Tempers began t o rise. 2 6 v . forgetting the adjurations given them earlier o n n o account t o take p a r t i n the debates. I V . their opponents strongly disagreed w i t h the r e m a r k that the new doctrine. h o w e v e r . 40 Not long before the neighbouring lord's official. had called o u t the l o c a l inhabitants. t h o u g h u n d o u b t e d l y his narrative was coloured by partisan bias. refused t o enter u p o n any further details as t o the exact nature o f these alleged sins.

has more sentences carried o u t t h a n m a n y a l o r d i n the rest o f B o h e m i a . A l o r d o w n i n g estates. cit. T h e n the official said : 'Be prepared t o defend yourselves. 6 2 . gathering together the l o c a l peasantry. 4 2 . J o h a n k a d i d n o t a c t u a l l y j o i n the U n i t y until 1512. ' Y o u tell us [ V o d i 5 k a went o n w i t h fierce i n d i g n a t i o n . A t h i r d example was given by another member o f the M i n o r Party... w h o asserted t h a t the L a d y Johanka Tovacovskâ z K r a j k u . 4 1 . A n d they stood over against each other w i t h their arms ready. B u t they said : ' I f there h a d been more o f us. f r o m w h i c h a n u m b e r o f the onlookers at the conference came. H e was h i m s e l f a friend o f Johanka a n d one o f those w h o wished t o see a m o r e f o r t h r i g h t acceptance o f the d u t y o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state: the tone o f his arguments n o w appears t o have gone somewhat further t h a n the previous cautious statements o f Matëj a n d P r o k o p . . 'The c i v i l power [he n o w stated] w i t h its laws a n d punishments can be allowed i n o u r U n i t y a n d i n the h o l y church. later t o i n h e r i t Mladâ Boleslav where Lukâs h a d his congregation. fortresses a n d towns may be accepted i n t o o u r U n i t y w i t h o u t h a v i n g t o relinquish the s w o r d . A m o n g the men o f B y d z o v there was a Brother w h o was a teacher. father against son a n d son against father. a n d " 4 2 Cas. A n d i n this way y o u confuse a n d m u d d l e g o o d people. 7 7 . prepared to fight a n d s h o o t : Brethren against Brethren. a n d the name o f the L a d y Johanka Tovacovskâ was w e l l . A n d the m e n o f Bydzov h a d t o deliver up the prisoner.' A n d a m o n g the men o f Bydzov there were m a n y Brethren a n d a m o n g the men o f Chlumec likewise. t h o u g h a l r e a d y a s y m p a t h i z e r . f o r there were few o f t h e m . . op. b u t the m e n o f refused t o give h i m u p . H i s official. pursued the refugee f r o m j u s t i c e . hist. ' 41 Bydzov These illustrations o f h o w the rejection o f the o l d principles w o r k e d o u t i n practice were likely t o carry considerable weight w i t h the rank-and-file o f the U n i t y .THE SCHISM 171 His next example was taken f r o m the near-by t o w n o f N o v y Bydzov. ' y o u r famous Sister. The t w o incidents described must have been f a m i l i a r to most o f those present at the conference . either they w o u l d have t o have k i l l e d us o r we t h e m . 6 3 . M o t n â r . p o i n t s o u t t h a t . t u r n i n g t o the representatives o f the M a j o r Party] t h a t as yet y o u d o n o t go t o the wars. . also a Brother. B u t is n o t that abominable a n d disgusti n g warfare? . u n t i l they d o n o t even k n o w w h a t is good and w h a t evil. castles. p p .k n o w n a m o n g the Brethren as a patroness o f the Major Party. I t is n o t k n o w n t o w h a t p u n i s h m e n t s the M i n o r P a r t y w e r e referring i n the passage q u o t e d a b o v e . p p . a n d a m o n g those f r o m Chlumec was his son. The local inhabitants h a d taken i n t o custody a m a n w h o h a d been condemned to t o r t u r e by the l o r d o f Chlumec. 42 I t was Lukâs w h o attempted t o answer the accusations.

172

T H E SCHISM

may become a Brother while c o n t i n u i n g to order punishments a n d executions.' I t was possible, he claimed, to hang a m a n having love t o wards h i m i n one's heart. Acceptance o f w o r l d l y power, c i v i l a u t h o r i t y , was not equivalent to acceptance o f w o r l d l y values.
43

I t was o n l y the abuse o f a u t h o r i t y that h a d been condemned by C h r i s t and not its use i n all circumstances. The reason w h y the M a j o r Party advocated that Brethren should, wherever possible, a v o i d t a k i n g office, exercising a u t h o r i t y , amassing wealth o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n p u b l i c activities, was ' n o t o n account o f power (moc) i n itself, b u t because o f the evils which are associated w i t h power or riches or landed p r o p e r t y . ' I t was, i t was true, difficult to keep a clean conscience i n such matters, b u t n o t at all impossible. The M i n o r Party, i n advocating the O l d Brethren's theories o f the i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f w o r l d l y power i n any f o r m a n d under any conditions o n the grounds that this was f o r b i d d e n by C h r i s t d u r i n g the Sermon o n the M o u n t , was entirely mistaken. But by what standards, indeed, was the scripture to be interpreted? ' I t should be understood simply [replied Jakub] w i t h o u t any commentaries and glosses.' The M a j o r Party, however, t h o u g h t this i m p r a c t i c a l , a n d gave as an instance the m u d d l e d arguments used d u r i n g the lengthy speech j u s t made by M a t o u s the Weaver, w h o h a d once again been arguing against the v a l i d i t y o f the O l d Testament f o r the C h r i s t i a n . I n his view the T e n Commandments h a d given place f o r the C h r i s t i a n t o the Sermon o n the M o u n t . T h e M a j o r Party believed t h a t their opponents, i n t a k i n g such passages o f scripture as the Sermon o n the M o u n t ' s i m p l y , ' were i n fact applying their o w n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o t h e m , an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h i c h they believed t o be erroneous.
44

Several other matters were probably dealt w i t h either s t i l l d u r i n g the m o r n i n g session o r early i n the a f t e r n o o n .
45

Concerning tavern-keeping,

for instance, P r o k o p is said to have r e m a r k e d : ' W h y should n o t people live as best they can.' Inevitably, t o o , the question o f oaths cropped u p . Luka§ seems to some extent to have retracted his f o r t h r i g h t c o n d e m n a t i o n at Steken o f those w h o refused t o swear i f j u s t occasion arose. B u t he vigourously defended the M a j o r Party's p o s i t i o n t h a t oaths were n o t forbidden by Christ i n all circumstances. The M i n o r Party, realizing the very close connection between the o a t h a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state, n o w
«*
4 4 4

C a r . hist., p. 63. A . J . B . , I V , fols. 27v, 2 8 . S e e c h a p . I V , p. 136, n . 12. I t is a l m o s t a l w a y s difficult, a n d often i m p o s s i b l e , to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e I t is difficult, too, to d i s t i n g u i s h

*

s a m e a r g u m e n t is being described i n b o t h r e p o r t s . between direct r e p o r t i n g a n d l a t e r c o m m e n t a r y .

THE SCHISM

173

claimed that the M a j o r Party had been led to j u s t i f y o a t h - t a k i n g ' i n order that they m i g h t carry o u t every cruel punishment w i t h o u t fear o r conscience . . . i n order that [Brethren i n office] m i g h t order the executioner t o hang and quarter or break men o n the wheel.' A t that date, as has been seen, an o a t h was demanded o f a l l w h o held office: permission for Brethren to take office w o u l d , therefore, have been a dead letter i f they had been forbidden t o swear. A t the afternoon session the M a j o r Party consented to the reading o f the edict o f Brandys, w h i c h the M i n o r Party had asked for i n the m o r n i n g , o n c o n d i t i o n t h a t Jakub's Second T r a c t was also read o u t and discussed. N o w , however, the M i n o r Party w o u l d n o t hear o f this. ' W h a t a strange business [the M a j o r Party t o l d J a k u b a n d his friends]. F i r s t y o u are very insistent i n demanding a r e a d i n g ; and w h e n the Brethren agree, y o u then refuse.' The M i n o r Party reluctantly gave their consent. But it would seem that i n fact only 'a couple o f paragraphs' o f the edict were read o u t , perhaps i n order t o save t i m e . T h e M a j o r Party proceeded to give their reasons f o r p r o m u l g a t i n g the edict, a r g u i n g t h a t its conclusions d i d n o t conflict w i t h Christ's teachings and that they h a d been reached as a result o f careful study o f the meaning o f the scriptures. They next went o n t o consider Jakub's Second Tract, w h i c h was read o u t ' w o r d by w o r d . ' I t then transpired, according t o the R e p o r t o f the M a j o r Party, that several o f the M i n o r Party's delegates had neither participated i n d r a w i n g i t u p n o r even approved o f its contents. I t had been almost entirely the w o r k o f three m e n : J a k u b , A m o s a n d R i h a o f Votice. A c c o r d i n g again t o the M a j o r Party, they seem to have made a rather p o o r showing i n their defence o f the tract, leaving this m a i n l y t o M a t o u s the Weaver, even t h o u g h he h a d had n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h its c o m position.
46

Luka§, f r o m the other side, t o o k the lead i n defending the

p o s i t i o n o f the M a j o r Party, n o t only against the personal attacks made o n the absent Klenovsky and i n the obscure dispute over an alleged connivance by the M a j o r Party at the loosening o f the marriage b o n d , b u t also i n regard to the m o r e general accusations made b y J a k u b i n his Second T r a c t .
47

There was little t h a t was new i n Lukas's argument, w h i c h he developed at great length, or indeed i n t h a t o f his opponents. T o the M i n o r Party's charge t h a t the M a j o r Party was a t t e m p t i n g to conceal f r o m the r a n k and-file o f the membership its real o p i n i o n o n these questions, L u k a s replied that they wished t o behave w i t h discretion and confine the discussion o f controversial matters t o the r i g h t occasion.
"
4 7

Lukas did,

Cos. hist., he.

cit.; A . J . B . , I V . , fols. 2 8 - 3 0 v .

A . J . B . , I V , fols. 2 9 v - 3 3 v .

174 however, stress that

THE SCHISM

his p a r t y were against a l l forms o f religious

persecution by the secular a r m : they were still one, therefore, w i t h the M i n o r Party i n condemning Sylvester f o r his alliance w i t h Constantine. He repeated once again the assurance that his opponents w o u l d never be penalized because o f their o p i n i o n s .
48

He was able t o c l a i m w i t h complete

justification that, anyhow, the M a j o r Party's views o n the relationship o f church a n d state were a great deal 'more moderate,' that is to say, still much closer to the o l d doctrines o f the U n i t y , t h a n those held by W y c l i f o r Hus o r M a t e j o f Janov, w h o m the M i n o r Party h a d claimed as their spiritual ancestors, as 'the true source a n d o r i g i n o f the faithful (pramen pofddny puovodu vernych).*
9

Interesting, t o o , is Lukas's argument that
60

t u r n i n g the other cheek may be obligatory f o r i n d i v i d u a l Christians, b u t not necessarily the d u t y o f Christian communities o r their r u l e r s . Sometime d u r i n g these debates - i t is indeed difficult to ascertain at exactly what p o i n t - the delegates o f the M i n o r Party launched f o r t h o n a fierce attack o n p o o r B r o t h e r M a t e j . 'We have never dared to tell y o u the t r u t h directly o n account o f y o u r d i g n i t y [they t o l d h i m ] . . . . B u t the fulness o f t i m e has arrived f o r w h a t has been whispered i n the ear to be spoken out a l o u d (aby na svMe bylo pravend).'
1

They b r o u g h t u p against h i m his former adherence t o their p o i n t o f view, the criticisms he h a d made o f some o f his present colleagues d u r i n g the period o f the r e t u r n o f the O l d Brethren t o the I n n e r C o u n c i l , a n d the stand he was n o w t a k i n g i n favour o f the new views. He was, they claimed, excommunicating t h e m f o r the very opinions w h i c h he himself h a d adjured t h e m t o h o l d t o at a l l cost. ' I f I myself should ever speak otherwise [he had t o l d them] d o n o t believe m e ' ; t h o u g h M a t e j c o u l d n o t n o w remember having made this r e m a r k . B u t V o d i c k a b r o k e i n t o say t h a t he had heard h i m make i t d u r i n g one o f his visits t o this very congregation o f Chlumec. I t was M a t e j , therefore, w h o was the t u r n c o a t : they h a d b u t followed his instructions. W h a t you regarded as evil, w h a t y o u wrote against, y o u are n o w i n fact d o i n g ; while w h a t y o u f o r m e r l y described as good, w h a t y o u praised w i t h y o u r lips, y o u n o w condemn. Y o u revile us f o r these things. A t the same t i m e you p u t those i n hope [i.e. o f salvation], w h o against their c o n sciences swear oaths a n d deliver m e n up t o the executioner; a n d y o u a d m i t them to c o m m u n i o n . T h e i r o w n consciences were clear: they w o u l d be l o y a l t o the principles
" " Ibid., fol. 3 1 . Ibid., fol. 31v. Ibid., fols. 32, 32v.

T H E SCHISM

175

they h a d accepted o n entry i n t o the U n i t y , to the doctrines i n w h i c h they had been b r o u g h t u p . 'Here we stand [said Vodióka to Matéj] b u t y o u have n o t remained w i t h us.' The M i n o r Party p u t obedience to G o d , V o d i c k a went o n , before allegiance to any earthly superior. The wretched Matéj was evidently reduced by their taunts to silence, i f n o t to tears. 'We had a m i n d to ask B r o t h e r M a t e j ' several more questions, the M i n o r Party were to report, ' b u t we were sorry f o r h i m . '
5 1

T h e light began t o fail before they h a d finished reading Jakub's tract. T h e detailed discussion o f the various points as they h a d arisen h a d t a k e n u p m u c h time. Neither side h a d yielded an i n c h to its opponents. B o t h , indeed, had o n l y been strengthened i n their previous c o n v i c t i o n t h a t they were entirely i n the r i g h t and that their opponents were schismatics or traitors t o the f a i t h . B o t h felt that the other side h a d been unable t o answer the arguments p u t f o r w a r d a n d each was later t o c l a i m a v i c t o r y . I t is n o t suprising, therefore, that neither p a r t y was anxious t o continue the debate next d a y ; b u t n o decision seems t o have been t a k e n that evening. N e x t m o r n i n g P r o k o p a n d B e r n a r d were sent by Matéj to speak w i t h the delegates o f the M i n o r Party. A f t e r some skirmishing a b o u t the n u m b e r o f the sacraments a n d about some o f the accusations made the previous day by the M i n o r Party a n d various other disputed p o i n t s , the t w o emissaries departed. They h a d tried, says the Report o f the M a j o r Party, t o convince their opponents ' n o t to act i n so angry a fashion, but rather t o have regard t o the matter o n h a n d . They w o u l d n o t , however, be persuaded, b u t wished to speak as they h a d b e g u n . '
52

I t was thus i n a

spirit o f m u t u a l distrust a n d increased animosity t h a t the conference, whose beginnings h a d augured so favourably, was n o w b r o u g h t to an end. There h a d indeed been little chance o f a successful outcome i n view o f the irreconcilability o f the t w o positions. B o t h parties, as has been seen, h a d come t o the conference i n a f a i r l y conciliatory m o o d . The M a j o r Party a l l along expressed their desire t o tolerate their opponents as a m i n o r i t y w i t h i n the U n i t y : while the M i n o r Party, f r o m their side, claimed t o be ready to amend their doctrine o n whatever points they c o u l d be proved to be i n e r r o r .
53

B u t , as the conference proceeded, the debate

became more heated; abuse was often substituted f o r a r g u m e n t ; a n d i t became clear that neither side was i n practice prepared t o yield an i n c h , expecting the other p a r t y t o make a l l the concessions. This was indeed o n l y to be expected. The leaders o f the M a j o r Party were eager to make
" "
53

Cas. hist., p p . 6 4 - 6 7 . Ibid., p. 6 7 ; A . J . B . , I V , fol. 3 3 v . Cas. hist., p. 6 3 .

176

T H E SCHISM

an even more clearcut break w i t h the old principles than had been achieved by the edicts o f Brandys o r Rychnov, w h i c h to some extent represented a compromise between o l d and new. The M i n o r Party, o n the other hand, was o n the defensive, suspecting that every concession made to their opponents w o u l d be seized u p o n by c u n n i n g theologians, l i k e L u k a s or Krasonicky, to undermine their p o s i t i o n still further. T h o u g h the conference, therefore, was f r o m the outset almost inevitably doomed to failure, i t serves as an extremely i m p o r t a n t l a n d m a r k i n the history o f the controversy. I t marks the last serious attempt t o reach a modus vivendi between the t w o parties. O w i n g to the fact that each side has left its o w n account o f the proceedings, i t is indeed possible t o gain a clearer picture o f their m e n t a l processes than usual. The conference o f Chlumec reveals far better t h a n the somewhat a r i d pages o f their polemical tracts the workings o f the minds o f the h u m a n beings w h o played the leading parts i n the d r a m a . The remaining f o u r years o f the century b r o u g h t v i r t u a l l y n o developments i n the controversy. new I t was only a matter o f time before the

schism, already existing i n practice, was brought t o its f o r m a l conclusion o f a complete secession o f the M i n o r Party f r o m the reconstituted U n i t y . This period i n the history o f the U n i t y ' s p o l i t i c a l and social ideology was marked, first, b y the p r o m u l g a t i o n b y the M a j o r Party o f a series o f decrees, w h i c h gave detailed instructions o n various points o f practical conduct i n connection w i t h the attitude o f the i n d i v i d u a l U n i t y member to the state and society. Synods were held each year: i n 1497 at a n u n k n o w n l o c a t i o n ; i n 1498 at P r e r o v ; i n 1499 at Brandys, when the f u l l sessions were preceded by a meeting o f the Inner C o u n c i l at Prostejov; i n 1500 at Prerov and at Rychnov. The decrees passed d u r i n g these conferences are extremely i m p o r t a n t as evidence o f the state o f U n i t y t h i n k i n g on these subjects i n the period o f t r a n s i t i o n ; since, however, the issuing o f / this series d i d not cease at the end o f the fifteenth, b u t continued o n i n t o the early years o f the sixteenth century, detailed discussion o f their contents w i l l be given i n Chapter V I I . Secondly, i n close connection w i t h these decrees a cycle o f polemical tracts was issued d u r i n g these years, the most i m p o r t a n t o f w h i c h were written about 1499 or 1500. They dealt p r i m a r i l y w i t h the theoretical background o f the controversy, the m a i n discussion n o w centring o n the problem o f the validity o f o a t h t a k i n g among Christians. The cycle smyslu appears to have opened i n July 1499 w i t h a short tract, Odpor

druhemu ( A Refutation o f the N e w Doctrine), w r i t t e n i n defence o f the M i n o r Party's views and addressed t o an unidentified Brother Benes. I t is

frequently i l l u s t r a t i n g their arguments w i t h the example o f the adherence o f the Waldenses to the same p o l i t i c a l a n d social principles. The M i n o r Party h a d expressed their a d m i r a t i o n for this sect and stressed the Waldensian influence i n the history o f the U n i t y . 9 3 . as G o l l points o u t . cit. a defence o f the M a j o r P a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . 68 was probably. Dodatek pfisaze. Dejiny kfest'anstvi v Ceskoslovensku. . the leaders o f the M i n o r Party. clearly w r i t t e n and free f r o m the usual personal abuse. 56 This exchange o f view. however. Ibid. the M a j o r P a r t y e n t i t l e d T h o u g h M u l l e r . o n the one h a n d .K r o f t a . fols. Its u n k n o w n a u t h o r was n o t a member o f the U n i t y at a l l . and A m o s and Jan Kalenec. p. p p . served only t o w i d e n the breach. op. 2 2 8 . o n p. b o t h Lukas and K r a s o n i c k y t o o k u p the cudgels i n defence o f their party's p o s i t i o n . his successor. suggests t h a t t h e a n o n y - m o u s a u t h o r m a y h a v e been i n fact M . p. Dialog. The name o f the sect had several times cropped u p d u r i n g the conference at Chlumec. T h e chronological order o f events d u r i n g this p e r i o d is. I V . at least i t has left few traces i n the records. I V . a l s o w r o t e a t r a c t .3 0 .. this time t o I t a l y when he visited the Waldenses.. B . Odpor longer druhemu.K r o f t a . w h i c h despite its title. elaborating their objections t o the arguments o f the M i n o r Party's new c h a m p i o n and their o w n attitude to the o a t h . G o l l . polemical B o t h K r a s o n i c k y a n d L u k d S w r o t e t r a c t s e n t i t l e d Odpovid O pfisaze T h e r e exists also a fourth k odpovedi na spis proti tract emanating from I n addition. Spis smyslu proti pfisaze referred to h e r e w a s o f c o u r s e the M i n o r ze kfesCanu nenaleii Party's tract. see ibid. even m o r e confused t h a n h i t h e r t o . cit. op. 3 4 0 . 2 3 2 . feeling that their o w n literary talents were no m a t c h for their opponents. 173 t h e y f o l l o w G o l l .B a r t o S .. too. 2 3 0 . 75v. 54 I n the same year.. o n the other. J . A f t e r the conference o f Chlumec the controversy appears t o have died d o w n somewhat. . e x t a n t . J a n C e m y . w i l l be treated i n the next chapter i n connection w i t h a second cycle o f polemical tracts. w h i c h issued o u t o f the renewed controversy i n the first h a l f o f the 1520's between L u k a s a n d K r a s o n i c k y . p.T H E SCHISM 177 a well-argued piece o f w o r k . 5 5 S e e A . t h o u g h i n fact the latter had b y n o w abandoned their pacifism and social radicalism. L u k a S ' s p h y s i c i a n brother. cit. p. n o pfisahati. I n 1498 L u k a s made another j o u r n e y a b r o a d . L u k a S wrote about this time one called nature.i n a t t r i b u t i n g it to K r a s o n i c k y . t o o .a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y c o r r e c t l y . had evidently commissioned some educated sympathizer to w r i t e i t i n their n a m e . however. T h o u g h the i m m e 6 1 H r e j s a . 2 3 1 .. l i s t this w o r k a s i t e m 5 2 i n t h e i r b i b l i o g r a p h y o f L u k a i ' s w r i t i n g s . op. 8 3 . extremely i m p o r t a n t f o r the l i g h t they t h r o w o n the theoretical positions o f each side. na spis proti o f a less pfisaze. p. the f a m o u s h u m a n i s t a n d e a r l i e r a s y m p a t h i z e r o f the U n i t y . T h i r d l y . the last four years o f the century were filled w i t h several m o r e abortive attempts to prevent a final and complete split between the t w o parties and some further fruitless discussions. V i k t o r l n K o r n e l . 141. 55 These w o r k s .

f o r a C h r i s t i a n 'placed i n a u t h o r i t y to give over the evildoer into the hands o f the executioner. having i n the meanwhile seen the latter. M o l n a r . cit. that the standp o i n t they had adopted was i n any way c o n t r a r y t o scripture. I n d i v i d u a l members o f the M i n o r Party had been c i r c u l a t i n g a m o n g o t h e r U n i t y members. ' A f t e r Easter.. 5 7 L u k a s . . I n fact the M i n o r Party had completely misunderstood their p o s i t i o n . the M i n o r Party sent a d e p u t a t i o n to Brother M a t e j . he states. t h a t thieves and marauders should n o t m u l t i p l y . 1 7 9 . so t h a t they may be the more safe b o t h at home a n d o n the highways. A n d even those w h o speak [as the M i n o r Party d i d ] are glad that the higher power gives t h e m peace. I t was not a sin. they d i d n o t consider. T h i s d i d not mean. still h o p i n g perhaps t o w i n h i m back to their side. . returned h o m e disillusioned as t o the existing c o n d i t i o n o f the Waldensian c o m I n the following year. often repeated i n the polemical literature o f the M i n o r Party. a secondary consideration may have been a desire to discover h o w far the Waldenses i n their native A l p i n e retreat lived u p t o the ideal picture painted o f t h e m b y the M i n o r Party. munity. indeed. t h a t the new doctrine i n a l l o w i n g Brethren to participate i n the execution o f justice was t h r o w i n g aside the teachings o f the Sermon o n the M o u n t . 1-5). T h o u g h he and his Brethren were w i l l i n g to accept correction where they were shown to be w r o n g .4 7 . ' M a t e j p u t off giving an immediate answer ' u n t i l we have spoken w i t h the Brethren i n M o r a v i a . F o r t o this end are the powers that be ordained o f G o d . therefore.. A s for the accusation. t h a t the M a j o r Party gave / t h e i r approval to the present methods o f justice. a n u n c o m p r o m i s i n g defence o f the opinions o f the M a j o r Party. . I t was the h u m a n i t a r i a n aims o f the state t h a t they supported. p p . t o execute w r a t h u p o n h i m that d o e t h evil and praise the g o o d ' (Cf. M a t e j sent back his answer. 4 4 . .B a r t o S . however. before Easter. cit. op. MatSj insisted. A n d those who thus approve are n o t far removed f r o m those w h o actually d o the w o r k . 178.178 THE SCHISM f diate reason for Lukas's j o u r n e y was his concern f o r the influence o f the pagan humanist tendencies. . according t o the order a n d c o m m a n d and judgement o f G o d . Romans X I I I . as H i s minister. p p . as w e l l as a m o n g non-members. w h i c h were f i n d i n g their way f r o m I t a l y t o Bohemia. M a t e j answered sarcastically: W e consider that a l l w h o love justice regard i t as a g o o d t h i n g . slanderous attacks *' M u l l e r . He was asked whether he a n d his p a r t y 'wished to correct those matters w h i c h [they] had decided o n . w h i c h were often l a c k i n g i n mercy. op.

. H i s expressions were identical w i t h those used by Klenovsky o r Lukâs. cit. ' 59 Three further meetings between representatives o f the t w o parties t o o k place after Easter. 173. d u r i n g the last few years o f his life. J . 58 The contents o f his letter. . 2 2 9 ) . 'he had [he writes] t o f o l l o w after the o t h e r s . .' T o w a r d s the end o f his epistle Matëj gave a b r i e f résumé o f his party's standpoint: W e d o n o t reject a u t h o r i t y i f . p..T H E SCHISM 179 against their opponents. whatever inner doubts and hesitations he m a y still have h a d . Blazek and A m o s . op. Matëj often resided i n this p a r t o f the c o u n t r y o r possibly to the fact t h a t the M i n o r Party h a d many supporters there. t o distinguish what was composed i n the name o f their p a r t y f r o m w h a t was merely a private expression o f o p i n i o n . One conference was held 'before the congregation at [Mladâ] Boleslav. 4 9 ( q u o t e d ibid. 186. t h a t i n fact a l l c i v i l a u t h o r i t y was i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the C h r i s t i a n way o f l i f e . B . 2 2 2 ) .5 1 v ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l . i t has been purged f r o m the errors and sins o f the w o r l d f o r t e m p o r a l use. cit. fols. M u l l e r . 2 1 8 . and the other t w o at Prostëj o v a n d Hranice i n M o r a v i a . according t o divine order.B a r t o s . fol. .4 2 v .K r o f t a . H e was quite ready. however. i n Matëj's view. 7 4 ( q u o t e d i n ibid. However. p p . 'Therefore. fols. 4 1 . Odpis. cit. Matëj's final sentence. p p . 6 0 T h e choice o f places i n M o r a v i a may have been due t o the fact t h a t . concluded o n a conciliatory note. Odpis. T h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r i n w h i c h t h e c o n - ferences w e r e h e l d a n d t h e i r d a t i n g a r e n o t c l e a r . see note 6 4 . op. op. we w o u l d be glad i f a l l together y o u w o u l d w r i t e something o f h o w y o u t h i n k i n these matters. M a t o u s the Weaver a n d R i h a o f Votice a n d others h a d a l l been responsible for w r i t i n g various I t was thus difficult. 1 4 7 .' where Lukââ was pastor.. p. F o r G o d does n o t reject those i n a u t h o r i t y and a l l a u t h o r i t y is f r o m h i m . T V \ fol. Matëj was already t o o i l l t o come i n person t o H r a n i c e . t o change his o p i n i o n i f i t c o u l d be shown h i m f r o m scripture t h a t the M a j o r Party's doctrine was incorrect. indeed. he w r o t e . . no account remains o f any o f these meetings. T V . showed t h a t the ageing bishop. 2 1 7 ) . 4 9 . b u t " " *° A . F o r the M l a d â B o l e s l a v m e e t i n g . . J . and he therefore sent the delegates o f the M i n o r Party a letter i n w h i c h he called u p o n t h e m t o show a m o r e tolerant attitude t o their o p p o n e n t s . 217^. had definitely come d o w n o n the side o f the M a j o r Party.. The u n k n o w n a u t h o r o f Odpor smyslu druhému has described Matëj's state o f dependence at this p e r i o d o n the more educated members o f his p a r t y . T h e y p r o b a b l y t o o k p l a c e d u r i n g t h e l a t t e r h a l f o f 1499 o r i n 1500. A . " G o l l . p.K r o f t a . items. . 61 T charge y o u n o t t o condemn after hearing o n l y one side o n some one occasion.218. B .

4 9 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . whether we actually are [as y o u have pictured us or n o t ] ' . returned to the U n i t y . ' 62 This epistle appears t o have been MatSj's last p u b l i c utterance. signified a definite break w i t h the " * " 3 63 J a k u b and several others.' U n i t y . 2 1 7 ) . therefore. b u t also the final c o m pletion o f the schism. M a t e j concluded. B . cit.. 357v (quoted i n V o d i i k a the T a i l o r left the M i n o r P a r t y a n d r e t u r n e d to the a c t i o n c o u l d be e n f o r c e d for w r o n g t e a c h i n g a b o u t o a t h s . I V . .K r o f t a . a n d the p r o m u l g a t i o n i n 1495 o f the decree d e p r i v i n g the writings o f Chelcicky a n d Rehor o f any special a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n the U n i t y . c o n t r o l o f the U n i t y ' s destinies m i g h t conceivably have been regained once more b y the M i n o r Party. 1 4 7 v . U n i t y . however. w a s 'expelled for the s e c o n d t i m e o n a c c o u n t o f h i s f r e q u e n t i n g t a v e r n s . aged 48. A c c o r d i n g to Luke's a c c o u n t . fols. . w h o h a d watched i t develop f r o m its obscure beginnings. w h o m i g h t possibly have been w o n back f o r the o l d doctrines. indeed. s a y s K r a s o n i c k y .' fol. were unprepared f o r such a r a d i c a l step a n d 6 4 B y the end o f 1500. A f t e r d o i n g p e n a n c e J a k u b w a s r e c e i v e d b a c k a s 'an ordinary Brother. it w o u l d s e e m to h a v e B o l e s l a v m e e t i n g t h a t J a k u b a n d h i s associates r e t u r n e d to the been at the M l a d a M i n o r Party. cit. . . w h o m they should be prepared t o trust more t h a n other men. p. op. J . The death o f M a t e j had removed f r o m the scene the one man o f influence i n the M a j o r Party.K r o f t a . The re-enactment o f the edict o f Brandys i n 1494. fol. Only give over dissension and slander . i n M o r a v i a .. decided t o f o l l o w the Unity's example i n 1467 a n d establish a separate p r i e s t h o o d . p p . T h r o u g h his influence. 85v. B u t b o t h m e n s o o n b r o k e a w a y a g a i n a n d d i e d o u t s i d e the U n i t y . The last year o f the old century saw n o t only the death o f the U n i t y ' s first bishop. G o l l . i n January 1500 at L i p n i k ..1 4 9 v . 'still they are prepared gladly t o suffer y o u and to live together i n h a r m o n y w i t h you. B u t cf. cit. op. repeating t h a t n o one i n the U n i t y was being penalized for his opinions. 232.180 T H E SCHISM to enquire further i n regard to us . Odpis. He died. op. complete. fol. w h i c h s e e m s to i m p l y t h a t d i s c i p l i n a r y T h i s final step w a s t a k e n i n 1500 o r s o o n after. 187. ' I f y o u cannot accept this doctrine i n so moderate a f o r m or believe' what the M a j o r Party teach. After MatSj's death. a m o n g w h o m A m o s was the chief. He went on once again to defend i n some detail the position taken u p by the M a j o r Party. J a k u b . p p . 186. ' P s a n i proti K a l e n c o w i o p u o w o d u odtrzencuw. therefore. . 2 3 2 ) . f o r they are greater sins than those about w h i c h y o u are q u a r r e l l i n g . ' I t is i m p o s s i b l e to s a y i f this a c c u s a t i o n w a s t r u e o r m e r e s l a n d e r . I n this c a s e the m e e t i n g p r e s u m a b l y t o o k p l a c e after the final s e p a r a t i o n o f the . T h e y needed t o consult together further to find o u t i f they were n o t perhaps mistaken i n their opinions concerning their former brethren. K r a s o n i c k y . see G o l l .K r o f t a . the schism was A . the m o r e determined spirits i n the M i n o r Party.

the average Brother was either indifferent or actively supported the M a j o r Party. t h o u g h disciplinary measures had been taken against t h e m by the party n o w i n c o n t r o l o f its affairs. w i t h one b r i e f interlude i n 1490. m i g h t have b r o u g h t w i t h h i m a considerable Brethren. The h u m b l e unlettered men. had been b i n d i n g o n U n i t y members since its f o u n d a t i o n .T H E SCHISM 181 p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines o f the O l d Brethren w h i c h . were giving way t o the burgher Brethren. t o a m o u n t t o a r e v o l u t i o n i n theory and practice. as bishop o f the U n i t y a n d one o f its oldest and most respected members. o n the points w h i c h were i n fact i n dispute. : however. a n d t o the university-bred leadership o f the younger m e n l i k e L u k a s or Krasonicky\ T h e ideology o f an earlier generation could n o t be fitted satisfactorily t o the needs o f its successors w i t h o u t considerable adjustment. however. was a period o f indecision and h a l f measures. The second h a l f o f the last decade o f the fifteenth century. a n d their simple self-educated leaders o f the type o f R e h o f o r M a t e j .. The fundamental reason for the failure o f the M i n o r Party. lay i n the fact that the character o f the average member o f the U n i t y . w h o h a d at first f o r m e d the overwhelming m a j o r i t y o f the rank-and-file Brethren. . was r a p i d l y changing. section o f the . ' > < *'-•• h>-^ • -'-> collapsed. Even t h o u g h the rebels enjoyed considerable support i n certain parts o f the c o u n t r y . B u t d m years members o f the M i n o r Party still n o m i n a l l y retained their membership o f the U n i t y . The process o f readjusting the p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines o f the Czech Brethren was. at the end o f w h i c h the schism between the t w o parties w i t h i n the U n i t y was carried t o its logical conclusion o f complete separation. E q u a l l y unsuccessful was the attempt t o w i n back Brother MatSj w h o .. r side to . Attcm. mostly peasants w i t h a s p r i n k l i n g o f artisans. o r at least o f those sections o f the membership w h i c h carried most weight i n its affairs. o w i n g t o the unwillingness o f . some o f w h o m had even managed t h r o u g h practising the virtues o f f r u g a l i t y and t h r i f t t o amass n o t inconsiderable wealth. essentials. apart f r o m errors i n tactics and practical leadership. The efforts o f the M i n o r Party t o w i n over a m a j o r i t y o f the B r e t h r e n were unsuccessful.

t o o . T h e y were. closely interrelated. w h i c h n o w faced t h e m i n their relationship t o society and the state. AND THE OATH POWER. more closely related to everyday life. was the U n i t y t o interpret the teachings o f C h r i s t . d u r i n g the last few years o f the fifteenth century a n d later. Nevertheless. the series o f tracts composed by Lukas a n d K r a s o n i c k ^ o n the one hand. consists m a i n l y o f the decrees issued by the U n i t y synods d u r i n g the last few years o f the fifteenth a n d the first few years o f the sixteenth centuries i n order to guide the membership o n the practical problems. while flowing f r o m this fundamental problem.VI THE THE CIVIL BRETHREN. first. The present chapter is concerned w i t h the u n d e r l y i n g theoretical . / first. w h i c h b o t h parties were agreed o n t a k i n g as the touchstone o f conduct i n p o l i t i c a l a n d social matters as w e l l as i n the m o r e strictly religious? A n d . was m o r e directly related t o everyday life. there d o exist t w o types o f sources w h i c h correspond broadly to the t w o categories o f problems o u t l i n e d above. rarely differentiated by those actually engaged i n the c o n troversy. after an i n t e r v a l o f twenty years. and by members or sympathizers o f the M i n o r Party o n the other. H o w . indeed. was the nature o f a t r u l y C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y ? The second g r o u p o f questions. i t is clear. There is. o n the basis o f this interpretation. ^ The controversy a m o n g the Brethren was carried o n at t w o levels: the theoretical a n d the practical. i n connection w i t h the o u t b r e a k o f renewed controversy i n the early twenties o f the sixteenth century. The second category. H o w were the B r e t h ren t o react i n practice t o the concrete demands w h i c h the state was increasingly m a k i n g f o r their services either as executors o r instruments o f its commands? W h a t types o f occupation m i g h t properly be carried o n b y members o f the U n i t y ? The t w o groups o f problems were. w h a t was t o be the U n i t y ' s attitude to the often disputed p r o b l e m o f the relationship o f the Christian t o the state? W h a t i n fact was the Christian idea o f the state? W h a t . They gave practical expression t o the new ideology w h i c h had w o n supremacy i n the U n i t y .

b u t o n l y t o supplement t h e m . as the M i n o r Party h a d done. I T h e basis u p o n w h i c h the O l d B r e t h r e n h a d b u i l t their theoretical negation o f the state was their doctrine concerning 'the higher righteousness. fols. as has been seen. . 1 . . . T H E C I V I L POWER. L u k a s and K r a s o n i c k y . . he tempered these w i t h mercy and love. to fulfil a n d n o t t o destroy the L a w a n d the Prophets t h o u g h . i n their p u r i t y . rather d i d they gain new force. were still v a l i d f o r Christians 'for the purpose o f i n s t r u c t i o n (k 1 by the scribes a n d pharisees: i t was this c o r r u p t i o n t h a t was attacked by C h r i s t I n the M a j o r Party's view.f o r H e was n o t referring here t o that o f the Jews as a whole . indeed. . the debate o n fundamentals. T h e M a j o r P a r t y . . . I n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n accepted b y the Brethren i t precluded. . 8 7 . C h r i s t h a d come. .they w o u l d n o t enter i n t o the k i n g d o m o f heaven.' w h i c h C h r i s t h a d t a u g h t i n his Sermon o n the M o u n t . I t was their teaching H e commanded should be shunned. being purged f r o m the accretions o f the centuries. I V . i n his o w n words. i n particular . T h e righteousness t a u g h t i n the Sermon o n the M o u n t was. T h e U n i t y remained a sect apart. T h e more practical issues w i l l be dealt w i t h i n Chapter V I I . .8 9 v . b u t refers back to the o l d . . C h r i s t never created any new commandments beside o r above the o l d . . . i t is true.sought t o u n d e r m i n e this p o s i t i o n by g i v i n g the words o f C h r i s t a completely different interpretation. the books o f the O l d Testament naucenl)' They were o f equal value t o the N e w Testament a n d n o t t o be set aside as o f i n f e r i o r w o r t h .a n d its t w o leading theologians o f the younger generation. ' L i k e C h r i s t a n d the A k t a J e d n o t y B r a t r s k e . Therefore i n this place H e is n o t the creator o f new commandments. any f o r m o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the affairs o f the c o m m u n i t y . . . AND T H E OATH 183 problems. The righteousness t h a t C h r i s t preached. C h r i s t never said o r intended that another C h r i s t i a n righteousness be contained i n these injunctions . w h i c h are ever pure i n themselves.T H E BRETHREN. f o r the w i l l o f G o d is e t e r n a l . These d i d n o t lose their v a l i d i t y because o f Christ's teachings. . . writes K r a s o n i c k y . . . therefore. He never meant that C h r i s t i a n righteousness should be higher than the Jewish i n these m o r a l c o m m a n d ments. was n o t intended t o supplant the L a w and the Prophets. A n d hence H e t o l d H i s disciples t h a t i f their righteousness was n o t higher t h a n t h a t o f the scribes and pharisees . as [the M i n o r Party] b l i n d l y infer. higher t h a n the debased m o r a l code observed a n d n o t the o r i g i n a l law.

Odpowid na spis Kalencuo. also. J . B . the M i n o r Party's advocate claimed.184 THE BRETHREN. 3 .' N o m i d d l e w a y existed. AND THE OATH apostles [writes Lukas] we have d r a w n o u r proofs n o t o n l y f r o m the N e w Testament. the Brethren's p r i m i t i v e virtue is being l u l l e d asleep. fol. the anonymous a u t h o r o f the Odpor smyslu druhe'mu. l i k e t h e C z e c h M i n o r P a r t y . a literal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f many passages i n the N e w Testament. 5 5 . " A . w h i c h they interpreted a l o n g s i m i l a r l i n e s . L e t t h e m . wars b o t h aggressive and defensive. and c o n f o r m i n g w i t h the ways o f the w o r l d o n the other. I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t a s i m i l a r d i v i s i o n o f o p i n i o n o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the latter h a l f o f the s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y a m o n g the P o l i s h A r i a n s o n t h e v e r y s a m e subject o f their attitude t o the c i v i l p o w e r . t e n d e d l i k e w i s e t o r e l e gate t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t t o a p o s i t i o n o f s e c o n d a r y i m p o r t a n c e c o m p a r e d t o t h e N e w . ' W h o is he w h o has discovered this mean a n d n o t strayed f r o m G o d and yielded t o the flattery * K r a s o n i c k y . P r o f e s s o r K o t b r o u g h t o u t i n 1933 a n e w e d i t i o n o f B u d n y ' s w o r k . S e e K o t . . f o r i n this manner the early church went astray. O n the other h a n d . T H E CIVIL POWER. T h o s e w i s h i n g t o t h r o w o v e r the e a r l i e r s o c i a l r a d i c a l i s m . therefore. t h o s e a m o n g the A r i a n s w h o . p u t t i n g aside deep interpretations. F o r them the L a w o f C h r i s t h a d taken the place o f the lower Mosaic l a w .3 6 1 v . ' I n m y o p i n i o n [he went o n ] i t w o u l d serve the B r e t h r e n best simply t o believe Christ's w o r d s . wrote A m o s a n d Blazek i n a letter t o their colleague J a k u b . cease t o rely so m u c h o n people o f ' w o r l d l y w i s d o m ' a n d r e t u r n t o their former simplicity a n d literalist attitude. I V . between on the one h a n d c a r r y i n g o u t Christ's commandments i n their most literal sense a n d t o the last letter. 2 F o r the M i n o r Party their doctrine o f the higher righteousness h a d meant that the fact that G o d i n the O l d Testament h a d seemingly approved executions a n d cruel punishments. Ideologja Braci Polskich. a d v o c a t e d a negative attitude t o t h e state. a n d i n this way. The reason w h y the R o m a n Catholic C h u r c h had strayed so far f r o m Christ's o r i g i n a l teachings was. a n d o f the Sermon o n the M o u n t i n particular. law-courts a n d prisons. ' P s a n l p r o t i K a l e n c o w i . f o l . 3 I n the o p i n i o n o f such writers as the M i n o r Party's c h a m p i o n . . ' w h i c h contained i n embryo Christ's gospel o f love. T h e Brethren o f the M a j o r Party were n o w themselves o n the same slippery road o f interpreting inconvenient passages away. 3 6 0 . L u k a s " . c o u l d n o t be used as a n argument i n favour o f these things i n a c o m m u n i t y w h i c h strove t o f o l l o w Christ's example. was the best guarantee o f the correctness o f such a n attitude. i n p a r t i c u l a r S z y m o n B u d n y w h o i n h i s O urzedzie miecza uzywajqcem (1583) w a s the m o s t forceful e x p o n e n t o f t h e n e w t r e n d s . ' fols. r e l i e d v e r y largely o n a r g u m e n t s based o n the O l d T e s t a m e n t . 57. w h i c h h e edited f r o m t h e o n l y s u r v i v i n g c o p y i n t h e l i b r a r y o f the C z a r t o r y s k i Museum in Cracow. polityczna i spoleczna p p . because i t abandoned the simple attitude o f the first centuries. 68. b u t also f r o m the O l d .

I t was f o r this reason. . h a d taken place o n l y after m u c h heartsearching and lengthy discussion and earnest prayer. G o d had s h o w n the doctrine i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the people by Petr ChelCicky and others o f their o w n w i s d o m to be unhealthy.. fols. we f o l l o w the 7 doctrine derived by B r o t h e r R e h o f a n d the others f r o m H i s holy s p i r i t . c l a i m t o be nearer i n their new doctrines t o the o r i g i n a l teachings o f Christ. Odpis proti Ibid. declaring t h a t the latter's w r i t i n g s were n o longer b i n d i n g o n the U n i t y . . fol. t h r o u g h i t . 67v. Ibid. a n d . regarded the early Brethren's p o l i t i c a l and Ibid. ' 9 5 ' I t is proper t o base T h o u g h the M a j o r Party c o u l d . l i t e r a l meaning. was to c l a i m . T H E C I V I L POWER. t h a t i n 1495 they had passed the edict o f R y c h n o v . as has been seen. 8 2 v . and d i d . . A . 9 3 . W h e n y o u . 7 5 . b u t o n account o f Christ's w o r d s .. . AND T H E OATH 185 o f the w o r l d (pochlebnik aby nebyl svitu)!* I f the scriptures were given their simple. the M a j o r Party] m u c h nearer s i m p l i c i t y .. 'better and more useful' t h a n the o l d doctrines had been. 2 6 . fols. then i t is y o u take refuge i n s i m p l i c i t y . . a later leader o f the M i n o r Party. fol. 9 4 v . ' simplicity n o t o n the letter. ' T h i s conservative. asserting that 'anyone w i t h any understanding w h o reads o u r w r i t i n g s a n d yours w i l l find those o f the Brethren [i. 2 5 v . fols. they c o u l d n o t deny t h a t their opponents were closer i n the spirit and i n the letter to the conception o f the C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h p r o p o u n d e d by B r o t h e r Rehof. I V . The results o f their deliberations were. ' F o r we take n o t h i n g new u n t o ourselves .. B . and H e has helped towards one more moderate and realistic. 'We have always stood u n a n i m o u s l y f o r the things f o r w h i c h this U n i t y was founded according t o the doctrine o f C h r i s t . The M a j o r Party. T h e change.e.. fundamentalist attitude was challenged by the y o u n g reformers o f the M a j o r Party. 8 3 . odtriencom. 4 * ' ' » L u k a S . T h e change h a d n o t come as a result o f 'carnal freedom. indeed. they w o u l d never find i n the N e w Testament any injunctions to the faithful to set u p a u t h o r i t y . they claimed instead. nearer t o the spirit o f Christ a n d more l i k e l y t o m a k e the U n i t y an effective instrument t o spread the gospel. w h o made little pretence o f t r y i n g t o square the new doctrines w i t h those o f the O l d Brethren. Kalenec. . J .' The U n i t y h a d rejected 8 the teachings o f its founders as unscriptural. 6 6 . . b u t o n the t r u t h .T H E B R E T H R E N . they believed. cannot get any proofs. ' claimed the M i n o r Party. 7 5 v . B u t was the simple i n t e r p r e t a t i o n really o n the side o f the M i n o r Party? L u k a s stoutly denied this. 2 4 v .

' f r o m the sin o f A d a m ' w h i c h introduced evildoing a m o n g m e n . unless they were protected b y the c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s . the c o m m u n i t y o f believers. 'The f a i t h f u l c o u l d n o t exist a m o n g the unrighteous Christians. i n the F a l l o f M a n .e. T H E CIVIL POWER. 9 4 ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l . and t h r o u g h such gatherings villages and towns and cities arose i n different parts o f the earth . Chelcicky Odpis. t h o u g h seemingly some members m i g h t achieve this. . for their power a n d cruelty.K r o f t a . those w h o h a d come together were unable to exist i n h a r m o n y and peace w i t h o u t order and a u t h o r i t y . even a m o n g the flock at the time o f Christ a n d H i s apostles. .. The C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h . 15v. ' T h a t a l l members [i. w i t h o u t repentance. . 230). The c i v i l power for the M a j o r Party was n o t a n unmitigated evil or. what then about the o r d i n a r y folk? . i t was to be regarded as a necessary evil i n a sinful w o r l d . rather. ' T h u s .' o f the public peace p u t d o w n . I t originated. w o u l d be w o n d e r f u l [writes K r a s o n i c k y i r o n i c a l l y ] . according t o L u k a s . 10 F o r the M i n o r Party a n d their predecessors. rulers chosen f r o m the c o m m o n a l t y and disturbers ' I n the t o w n s ' there sprang u p 'seats o f and numerous defences. . i n their view. The Brethren w i l l be d o i n g enough i f they continue n o t t o give way to open wickedness . stoleti. . when G o d p u t the latter under the a u t h o r i t y o f her husband and their children later under the a u t h o r i t y o f the parents. for the towns a n d cities could not exist for the wickedness o f some men. o f the church] should thus shine i n t r u t h . be called a Christian one. 93v. 'Since this was so w i t h the priests and pastors. everyone was to some extent seeking his o w n interest.' 9 L u k a s . the need was felt to set u p some f o r m o f government ' f o r c o m m o n defence and the administration o f the c o m m u n a l life and business. f r o m village c o m m u n i t y t h r o u g h city state. t o o . The power o f the father over his household was i n the course o f time extended over still larger groups. d i d n o t believe t h a t everyone i n a C h r i s t i a n c o m m u - nity could be perfect. a Jednota v XV. AND T H E OATH social doctrines as an u n w a r r a n t e d perfectionism. 'The householders came together i n greater or smaller numbers. fol. fols. 'The source o f the c i v i l power t o o k its beginning according to God's decree f r o m repentance after the fall o f A d a m and Eve. o f course. . B u t this i n m y o p i n i o n has never happened i n the w o r l d . 'an unrighteous C h r i s t i a n ' was a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n t e r m s : a c o m m u n i t y i n w h i c h force was needed t o repress the evil tendencies i n men c o u l d not.' he writes.' Even then. could never i n this w o r l d a t t a i n to the h i g h standard demanded by R e h o f and his l i k e : the saintly life was n o t for the multitude.' • 10 Ibid. p. . .186 THE BRETHREN. . government (rathtizy) Walls were built r o u n d the towns.

' w h i c h remained outside the C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h . a n d o f b r i n g i n g the nations under one ruler. b y ChelCicky i n his S i r ' vlry. L u k a s n a t u r a l l y denied this.' This d i d n o t . arguing t h a t the incident proved o n l y t h a t Christ's k i n g d o m was n o t o f this w o r l d . T h o u g h they remained subject to the powers t h a t be i n all matters n o t against conscience. Augustine Jednoty bratrske. i t was therefore w r o n g f o r any C h r i s t i a n t o exercise the functions o f k i n g . I . L u k a S follows St. held republican doctrines. b u t a l l together were subject . lived together f o r some 300 years o n the basis o f the L a w o f L o v e (zdkon milosti) alone. alter the fact that G o d had instituted the c i v i l power for man's u l t i m a t e well-being according t o the w r i t t e n law o f the O l d Testament. There were. f o r instance. indeed. since Christ h a d refused the devil's offer o f all the kingdoms o f the w o r l d . w h i c h was later t o be c o n f i r m e d by C h r i s t i n the N e w . pp. the w o r l d emperors had r u l e d cruelly and w i c k e d l y : ' G o d h a d aroused [them] to p u n i s h the people o f Israel. T H E C I V I L POWER. G o v e r n i n g according t o n a t u r a l law. . however. fols. the influx o f new members f r o m the r u l i n g classes Ibid. I n h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l 11 e q u a l i t y o f m a n .B a r t o S . therefore. Spis o mocy swim. 4 . even t h o u g h the latter gave a qualified a p p r o v a l t o c i v i l a u t h o r i t y a m o n g non-Christians.7 . see M u l l e r . therefore. according to L u k a s . f r o m m i g h t y emperor to h u m b l e alderm a n : that ' a l l s h o u l d i n a n o r d e r l y manner be b o u n d one u n t o another according to constituted a u t h o r i t y . a n d o t h e r c h u r c h fathers. t o the constituted c i v i l power. 18v. The early Christians. 288. T h a t . 18. was the o r i g i n o f the office o f every p r o p e r l y constituted ruler. continuously q u a r r e l l i n g a m o n g themselves. a n d o f the state a s a result of. b o t h m e n drew very close i n their ideas.. o n the other h a n d . w h i c h were left t o the pagans. B u t i n their picture o f the place w h i c h the c i v i l p o w e r occupied i n the early C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y . t o the spiritual administrators a n d . fols.' T h e establishment o f w o r l d empires h a d been intended by G o d as a means o f keeping i n order the lesser kings. instituted one m a n o r one i n s t i t u t i o n t o c o n t r o l the evil tendencies i n m a n . f o r instance. F o r his acquaintance with the writings of St. 289. claimed L u k a s . a n d a t the s a m e t i m e a r e m e d y f o r s i n . 1 2 I n his concept o f the state's o r i g i n L u k a s . Ka- lenec. A s time passed. differed fundamentally f r o m the explanation p u t f o r w a r d . higher and lower. t r i e d to prove that. Augustine. 'believers were n o t r u l e d by t h e m . a few rulers a m o n g the early Christians. L u k a S . they t o o k n o p a r t i n w o r l d l y affairs. " Odpis. . 11 T h e M i n o r Party. AND T H E OATH 187 G o d h a d . Dcjiny . T h e o n l y sanction they employed was expulsion o f wrongdoers f r o m the c o m m u n i t y o f Christians. fol. i n a d d i t i o n . indeed.THE BRETHREN. 4 v .

been consistent i n rejecting the interference o f the s e c u l a r a r m i n s p i r i t u a l affairs. w h o had 'come t o the f a i t h . i n his view.' So G o d sent t h e m Constantine. fols. o n the legend o f the D o n a t i o n o f Constantine Lukas's attitude is o u t w a r d l y n o t dissimilar t o t h a t o f Chelcicky a n d the early Brethren. a later generation o f Christians 'demanded f o r themselves a k i n g and c i v i l power. should be kept strictly apart. this fundamental difference between the t w o w r i t e r s : that whereas Chelcicky saw i n the story a w a r n i n g against the participation o f the C h r i s t i a n i n a l l activities connected w i t h the state. writes Lukas". ' O o b n o v e n i . ' The f a i t h f u l few. obviously not shared by L u k a s . w h o by an anachronism are pictured as having been at that time under the leadership o f Pierre Valdo. L u k a S does n o t a l w a y s s e e m t o h a v e Cf. b u t over the w o r l d . ' says L u k a s . 'The R o m a n E m p e r o r gave Sylvester power and a u t h o r i t y over the earth. The latter then proceeded to suppress all those w h o refused t o acknowledge their supremacy i n religious matters or t o approve o f their acquisit i o n o f a u t h o r i t y and wealth. leading t h e m t o the seat o f a u t h o r i t y (na rathauz) as the devil led Christ t o the temple a n d up o n t o the m o u n t a i n . F o r L u k a s . THE C I V I L POWER. that was the legendary 'poison injected i n t o God's c h u r c h . w h o helped to p u t the false Christians under Sylvester i n t o power. o n the other h a n d . i n order to p r o m o t e the priesthood i n this w o r l d . s h o u l d n o t o r c o u l d not be saved. as has been seen. B u t that d i d not mean either ' t h a t c i v i l power should n o t be b r o u g h t under the f a i t h ' or that those i n official positions. 135v.1 0 . the f o l l o w i n g passage f r o m h i s Spis o mocy . ' fols. There is. however. the use o f the secular a r m i n s p i r i t u a l affairs. L i k e the Jews under their judges. fleeing n o w f r o m the additional persecution o f a paganized church dressed i n Caesar's ' r o b e s . remained behind i n the forests. 2 1 4 . that they should enjoy these things as other nations. 2 1 6 . T h i s . Chelcicky's view however. 133.' 13 l b his commentary. ' u 14 Spis 1 4 L u k a i . 2 7 v : ' W h o e v e r w i l l n o t listen to o mocy swita. Lukas merely regards the c o r r u p t i o n o f the c h u r c h . t o o . ' T h e s p i r i t u a l a n d the secular. as a result o f the fusion o f the secular and the spiritual spheres o f life. 'They d i d not exercise their secular offices over o r among the faithful. had been t h a t i n such cases the Christian convert should resign his office a n d renounce c i v i l a u t h o r i t y o n j o i n i n g the c h u r c h . what was w r o n g and unchristian was n o t that those i n authority retained their offices o n becoming Christians o r that Christians should accept a u i h o r i t y i n the outside w o r l d . swita.188 THE BRETHREN. I t was the exercise o f force i n matters o f f a i t h . was the practice enforced b y the early Brethren and still advocated by the M i n o r Party. w h i c h was said t o have ensued f r o m the D o n a t i o n . 7 v . AND T H E OATH greatly increased. fol.

. 3 8 ^ 4 0 v . according t o the scriptures. where to obey w o u l d be against their Lastly. AND T H E OATH 189 I t was the existence o f evil that. t h o u g h such disobedience should always be passive. f o r s u c h a r e n o l o n g e r u n d e r the L a w o f L o v e w h i c h h a s b e e n set u p f o r the penitent a n d the j u s t . 'desiring o u t o f fatherly love t o be their benefactors. O v e r s u c h a p e r s o n .1 3 . I t was to be exercised only t o c u r b 'the refractory and disobedient. never w i t h s p i r i t u a l . ' W i c k e d rulers were. G o d . i n Lukas's view.' W h a t then. indeed. b u t u n d e r the l a w o f fear a n d v e n g e a n c e w h i c h h a s p o w e r o v e r t h e m . G o d . i n the first place. b u t evil spiritual advisers. 2 9 v . was the nature o f the C h r i s t i a n state? C i v i l a u t h o r i t y must. ' T h e purpose o f the law was t o punish evildoers a n d t o protect the good. i n order t o p u t d o w n evil. t h e c i v i l a u t h o r i t y a n d the l a w h a v e the p o w e r to use force. 2 4 v . t o be obeyed i n secular affairs. f o r the sake o f w h o m the l a w o f the c i v i l power is set u p t o frighten a n d to p u n i s h . criminals a n d unpeaceable persons. the l o r d conscious o f his obligations t o society. b u t also a m o n g such o f those placed i n a u t h o r i t y as may be faithful to the gospel o f love.T H E BRETHREN. T h e reason f o r H i s d o i n g this has n o t g r o w n less. consciences. were n o t t o be heeded actions. even i f backed by the authority of the state.' i n c l u d i n g even the death penalty ' f o r those w h o w o u l d n o t repent. G o d desired ' t o have his o w n n o t only a m o n g the c o m m o n a l t y subject t o a u t h o r i t y . the unrepentant. has raised some m e n above others . w h o w o u l d otherwise perish f r o m the resulting disorders. the w i c k e d a n d unjust a n d unrighteous. 2 5 .' The j u s t a n d benevolent lawgiver careful f o r the well-being o f his people. therefore. i n Lukas's eyes. ' " Spis o mocy swlta. ' h a d n o t condemned the l a w c o u r t a n d punishments. . H e has n o t . had i n the new social ideology the c h u r c h s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d a s i n n e r a n d a p u b l i c a n . C h r i s t i a n rulers should strive after the welfare o f 15 their subjects. F o r this reason. the civil power i f they must be advocated properly unchristian constituted (zrizeny) a n d directed o n l y against wrongdoers a n d those w h o infringed the c i v i l law. n o r has H e n o w made i t a sin a n d unrighteous because o f the p r o m u l g a t i o n o f this L a w . . Secondly. ' T h i r d l y . T H E C I V I L POWER. Since evil a n d unrighteousness m u s t . therefore. so that i t should n o t be exercised over the w i c k e d a n d the t u r b u l e n t . . 1 0 v . fols. i n e v i t ably go o n increasing i n C h r i s t e n d o m u n t i l the end o f the w o r l d . the power o f the state was n o t to be u n l i m i t e d . p r o v i d e d the judges themselves were w i t h o u t s i n . B u t he m a y have b e e n t h i n k i n g h e r e m a i n l y o f m o r a l offences r a t h e r t h a n a n y k i n d o f h e r e s y . justified the p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f Christian laymen i n the affairs o f the w o r l d . . abolished power by the L a w o f L o v e . therefore. True Christians must suffer the consequences o f such disobedience. to c o m m a n d a n d to p u n i s h . There were cases where subjects s h o u l d refuse obedience t o their rulers. deal o n l y w i t h 'earthly a n d t e m p o r a l matters.

„„y e m r a ^ r e . B u t i t was only such k i n d s o f courts that Christ condemned i n the Sermon on the Mount ( M a t t h e w V .. Indeed. \ u *T ' n V ^ ™ * (I vWyouUKV. . t o o . 56. just and good m e n . fols. Spis o mocy swita. B u t he loves. M l . fol. t h o u g h he added the somewhat ambiguous proviso that i t should be done ' w i t h o u t sin o r the chance o f worse e v i l ' arising and w i t h o u t cruelty. 5v.. more differences have arisen.3 5 . VU\WUKLIM* » tiri ZiVhi allied merely Paul •me o f the apostles Conmhia. opponent* »md c m that St. n o t only i n the w o r l d . VI.. and i t was difficult to escape c o n t a m i n a t i o n .ven his to i l . i f it had been »in St. ) x i ..' 17 A Christian. censurious. ' w i t h o u t t h e m i t w o u l d be impossible t o live. f o r they are carrying out God's w o r k : the settlement o f disputes and the reconciliation and b r i n g i n g i n t o h a r m o n y o f persons. approval 1-7). forbidden Those who denied that the machinery o f justice c o u l d have any place in a Christian c o m m u n i t y .»*« necessity ? C 3 s a s d t b a r esabiisfainent even for a short time. etc. Odpowid na spis . since. But i t was still necessary t o punish persistent evildoers even.KX. The execution o f justice. breathing f o r t h threats o f vengeance. C h r i s t i a n * ' w i l l have to have courts. 3 8 . 'Whenever some w r o n g occurs [Lukas writes] they are the most offended. w o u l d never ). on the contrary. fols. a n» a i mp. i f necessary. getting angry. I t appears to them that i f they do this outside the c o u r t then i t is n o s i n . 6. Lukas went o n t o m a i n t a i n . „. b u t i n the church. 3 3 v . Lukas wrote i n justification o f his p o i n t o f view: ' G o d loves . Odpowid na spis Kalencuo. w h o w o u l d n o t o f themselves be able to reach this state. " 17 Odpis. . 2 8 . m H w h „ U H X . the tlways fc* tbem was. aggressive. Paul had g. Kalencuo. the more they have bereaved 1 in number. IIK.{»0 . L u k a S . argued L u k a i . likely to last for ever. was perfectly justified i n demanding a restitution o f his property. provided i t was tempered w i t h mercy. 40) and n o t all courts. L u k a s adds. . 3 7 . and because o f them he hates the sins o f the wicked. 5. w i t h death itself. *. Christ had certainly taught his followers to love their enemies. fols.But.* * Secular courts were nowhere i n the New Testament. C f . was n o t inconsistent w i t h l o v i n g one's enemies. so t h a t the former m i g h t live i n peace. ' I t was true that at present courts were conducted i n a n unchristian f a s h i o n . 2 8 v . were themselves usually guilty i n spirit o f all the bad features allegedly involved i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the law.

I n the Sermon o n the M o u n t ... w h o h a d come t o fulfil and n o t to destroy the law. F o r their opponents o f the M i n o r I 'a/ty. \n. the r i g h t of'self-defence is taken away as is a l l revenge.„. i t was n o t a n absolute p r o h i b i t i o n o f k i l l i n g under a n y circumstances as ChelSicky a n d his successors m a i n t a i n e d .' Theirs was the u n c o m p r o m i s i n g doctrine o f complete n o n resistance.f.A ..„/'..:•#*.«. • f.i hand.. >-'. ^ * x •.m litKfii.. \'. 'JA sMi IAKX> w>./ yt:US>iA ()/»: <)• I t u ' i .' «'r&!.»:*A)\Yj U / W . ' I t was n o t a sin f o r the magistrate o r those " " Spis o mocy A . — . 19 w h i c h is n o t even allowed according t o the de- clared laws. 4 4 . uuriK »>.u.. such doctrine seemed the antithesis o f the C h r i s t i a n gospel..' Indeed. • / . . I V . I f he h a d . p e r m i t t e d b y G o d .>„.. o n the ofl «-. Luka§ started w i t h a m o r e h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the F i f t h C o m m a n d m e n t : ' T h o u shalt n o t k i l l . 4 5 v .. 41 v . b u t he also warns against those things w h i c h are justified i n men's eyes. swita. a n d the f o r b i d d e n forms o f k i l l i n g w h i c h are called m u r d e r . .. J . 4 1 .<»„. 4 4 v . 6 5 .' ' F o r when G o d forbids k i l l i n g he n o t o n l y excludes brigandage (lotrovstvi).. jrj fo<ot in //f life a n d property.was the o n l y battle i n w h i c h t h e follower o f C h r i s t m i g h t participate.' < • U . in o p i n i o n of and th«.6 3 V . . h a d n o t altered its v a l i d i t y . a n d C h r i s t . fols. fols. for t h e m spiritual warfare . r r >*'. they wrote i n one o f their tracts. „ . ' I n his view.•///.. T h i s n a t u r a l l y d i d n o t exclude either t h e death penalty o r j u s t wars o r self-defence.> *s. M a j o r Party. 'anyone c o m m i t t i n g m u r d e r w o u l d have n o fear o f j u d g e m e n t a n d sentence..//tf/i. I t meant o n l y t h a t 'whoever spilt h u m a n b l o o d w i t h o u t proper a u t h o r i t y a n d c o n t r a r y t o G o d ' s l a w a n d j u s t i c e ' was guilty o f a great sin.. 6 2 .. B . L u k a s considered C h r i s t himself had made a d i s t i n c t i o n 'between legitimate k i l l i n g . 4 2 v ..the boj duchovni o f Chelcick^ .

p i t y are taught. t o o . Lukas argued i n a passage w h i c h brings t o m i n d m o d e r n p o l i t i c a l theory.' f o r instance. w h e n vengeance o n wrongdoers is taken o u t o f the hands o f the c o m m o n people. pocijna Ibid. I I . kteryito P a l m o v . T h i s c o m m a n d m e n t is also f u l filled when i t . w r i t t e n i n 1507: 21 • The fifth [commandment] is fulfilled. the scribes d i d n o t realize that they were going against the c o m m a n d m e n t : ' T h o u shalt n o t k i l l . .' I t was n o t intended as an attack o n the c i v i l power. was an a t t e m p t t o counteract a t o o great insistence by the Jews o n r e t r i b u t i o n for w r o n g done.' 20 The official U n i t y position was p u t f o r w a r d as follows i n one o f their confessions o f f a i t h . slander. w h i c h were q u o t e d by the M i n o r Party i n defence o f their doctrine o f non-resistance.. ' I t is also being fulfilled when mercy. etc. w h e n anger leading t o revenge is w h o l l y renounced a n d vengeance against the objects o f one's dislike a n d i n one's o w n cause is taken away. goodness. for L u k a s . b u t j u s t l y a n d l o v i n g l y . T H E CIVIL POWER.2 4 . resistance t o evil was n o t left t o the " 1 1 Spis o mocy dosti swlta. . b a c k b i t i n g . are forbidden.192 THE BRETHREN. f r o m an inordinate desire for revenge i n one's o w n cause. i n acting i n this fashion. F o r . teaches the judge n o t t o j u d g e according t o o u t w a r d appearance (ne podle tvdfi). were also subjected b y L u k a s t o similar interpretation. AND T H E OATH enforcing the law o r defending the state t o k i l l 'the unrepentent wrongdoer and other unrighteous persons. hatred. are the causes o f b o t h b o d i l y a n d spiritual murder. also blasphemy and c o n t e m p t which. 2 1 . . treachery. 5 0 v . secret condemnations. . . I n an ordered society. a r e t u r n indeed t o the pristine p u r i t y o f their doctrine. p. 'Resist n o t evil. p. bratya se v svoikh sst'astni. b u t t o b r i n g a b o u t peace o r a proper r e f o r m a t i o n ' o f the wrongdoer. . w i t h o u t judgement by those p u t i n a u t h o r i t y and w i t h o u t p i t y o r mercy. whether C h r i s t i a n o r pagan. iinijcy fols. 22 The positive injunctions o f Christ given m a i n l y i n the Sermon o n the M o u n t . T h e c o n f e s s i o n w a s e n feci] Apologia slowe. 2 9 3 . There was no c o n t r a d i c t i o n between the t w o . A n d i n addition t o anger envy. . merely a n elaboration o f the truths already enunciated i n the L a w a n d the Prophets. n o r according to his ungovernable i n c l i n a tions. a n d . konfessiyach. l y i n g . Cheshkie titled Spis " prwe imprytnowdn. Such injunctions were. w i t h m o d e r a t i o n and love i n punishment a n d discipline. Hence i t proclaims the order o f the c i v i l power as j u s t when performed w i t h o u t anger and unrighteousness. . acting ' n o t f o r vengeance. i n the k i n d o f society where C h r i s t i a n principles were p u t i n t o practice. latijnskau I . / Christ's words meant only that his followers were n o t ' t o resist evil f r o m anger. malice. w Normberce z wijry. 2 7 3 .

as well as by the w o r k s o f Chelcicky a n d the early Brethren. 36 . T h e use o f force. I n his lengthy tract o n the c i v i l power L u k a s gives this passage ( M a t t h e w V . the M a j o r Party maintained.. . W h i l e people i n a u t h o r i t y should temper justice w i t h mercy i n cases where there were extenuating circumstances o r where the wrongdoer manifested genuine repentance. THE C I V I L POWER. Forgiveness o f injuries was possible o n l y f o r the i n d i v i d u a l Christian. p r o v i d e d i t was done 'justly a n d w i t h o u t hatred. 25 Lukas i n fact.. d i d n o t apply.3 3 v . were led to take u p a w h o l l y negative position i n regard t o every aspect o f the f u n c t i o n i n g o f the c i v i l power. 3 1 . 'The r i g h t cheek [he says] is the t r u t h . . b u t should leave this either ' t o G o d o r the order set u p by G o d . fols. Christians m i g h t carry some sort o f Spis Ibid. persuaded by their reading o f the N e w Testament.5 2 . was forced to adapt even the most refractory o f Christ's sayings to this conception. 24 T h e i n j u n c t i o n to love one's enemies. t o the collective activities o f men. c o u l d n o t be explained literally. was i n fact justified i n t w o sets o f circumstances.' was n o t inconsistent w i t h showing at the same time love towards t h e m . AND T H E OATH 193 i n d i v i d u a l citizen as i n more p r i m i t i v e communities. claimed L u k a s . convinced as he was f r o m practical observation o f the Tightness o f C h r i s t i a n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state. o f the i m m o r a l i t y o f such p a r t i c i p a t i o n . o n the other h a n d . 23 First. 23 T u r n i n g the other cheek. The left is the w r o n g o r fault o f the one w h o must suffer f o r i t . 39) a far-fetched and complicated metaphorical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by w h i c h he sought t o refute his opponents' claims t o find here a clear justification o f their p o i n t o f view. .THE BRETHREN.' Lukas further interpreted i t to mean that Christians should n o t take i t u p o n themselves to avenge their o w n wrongs. 24 fols. b u t o f the whole state system and the apparatus o f justice. i n Lukas's view. o r patiently to suffer the penalty o f the [civil] power and o f the c o u r t and h u m b l y make amends. they c o u l d n o t fail t o take the requisite action against breakers o f the law. 3 2 v . 5 1 . The M i n o r Party. Ibid. ' i n other words t o the state. 30v. ' t o k i l l a n d destroy the enemies' o f the L o r d .3 2 . w h i c h the M i n o r Party had regarded as a p r o h i b i t i o n n o t o n l y o f warfare a n d the death penalty. ' There was no o b l i g a t i o n for Christ t o t u r n his other cheek since he had c o m m i t t e d no s i n . ' T u r n i n g the left cheek meant either to endure i n j u r y ' f r o m one against w h o m y o u have yourself done w r o n g . 'Christ offered his r i g h t cheek f o r o u r left. f o r the innocent suffered for the g u i l t y . o mocy swlta. b u t entrusted to the p r o p e r l y constituted a u t h o r i t y . he suffered f o r truth's sake alone. fols. A n y h o w . t o o .

As has been seen. J . be careful to a v o i d such weapons as m i g h t lead persons o f a 'There is need o f moderation i n this matter [writes Lukas] b u t I cannot properly regard i t as w r o n g t o go about w i t h daggers. The former may r i g h t l y occur when those set i n a u t h o r i t y defend the temporal welfare o f the church o r its members. Lukas added. even though such p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n warfare m i g h t n o w be permitted the Brethren under certain circumstances. (1501). since for this purpose was the [civil] power instituted and the f a i t h f u l have made use o f i t t o this end. v o l . i n cases where the law was unable to afford protection. 3 7 6 . were never t o call u p o n the t e m p o r a l power i n the purely religious sphere. m i g h t call i n the aid o f the c i v i l power t o assist t h e m i n defence o f their t e m p o r a l interests: I t is one t h i n g [writes L u k a s again] t o defend the church by the s w o r d lawfully i n regard t o its material welfare. Dijiny literatury. ' fol. were n o t justified i n calling t h e m selves martyrs for the f a i t h . who had not been t o l d by Christ ' t h a t he must resign his a u t h o r i t y for the * OdpowSd na spis Kalencuo. to enforce r i g h t belief o n heretics o r to impose C h r i s t i a n i t y o n non-Christians.' 27 Christians fighting against the T u r k s . 31. since G o d had i n fact sent such enemies as a punishment for the misdeeds o f the official c h u r c h w i t h its great 'wealth and power. the M a j o r Party made frequent use o f the argument that f r o m the beginning practising Christians. i n its consequences one o f the most revolutionary o f the tenets o f the early Brethren. . 26 They must. i n the second place. B . 28 The complete separation o f church and state. o r the defence o f one's property. I . however. fol. . p. ceske fols. 186. the T u r k s d i d n o t make converts by force to their r e l i g i o n . as ChelSicky's school o f t h o u g h t argued. T H E C I V I L POWER. and quite another to do this i n regard to spiritual matters. AND THE OATH weapon for use i n personal self-defence. 29 B u t this separation o f the functions o f church and state d i d not mean. 5. I V . fol. c o n t r a r y t o the accepted practice o f the official c h u r c h since the D o n a t i o n o f Constantine. like the R o m a n centurion for instance. was therefore still advocated by the M a j o r P a r t y .' Members o f the Christian c o m m u n i t y . the direction o f which must be left to non-Christians or n o m i n a l Christians. 1 0 . VlCek.194 THE BRETHREN.' Besides. ' O o b n o v e n i . fiery temperament t o c o m m i t b l o o d t h i r s t y deeds. B u t Christians. F o r a C h r i s t i a n t o spread the faith by the use o f the sword 'against pagans' was to act ' u n l a w f u l l y and t o stray f r o m the p a t h (svodne). slovii Apokalypsis knihy.jeni A . that members o f the c h u r c h c o u l d n o t take p a r t i n the state. 4 v . q u o t i n g from LukaS's Vykladove na 2 " ** " Odpis.

a n d at the same time 3 0 Odpis. 14. 8. . Spis Odpis. W e participate i n this. w h o regarded c h u r c h a n d state as m u t u a l l y opposed t o each other. for this reason they were n o t c u t off f r o m the f a i t h ' . indeed. i n w o n d r o u s fashion t w i s t i n g a n d falsifying the s c r i p t u r e s . i n any unrighteousness. as t h e T a b o r i t e s a n d others have h a d . I n spiritual matters the Brethren h a d separated themselves f r o m the other C h r i s t i a n churches o f East a n d West w h e n these were a l l f o u n d w a n t i n g . 5. since i t happened even i n the early church. I t is o n l y t h a t some o f o u r members are engaged i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g the c i v i l power i n courts a n d i n offices . 1 3 v . n o scripture t h a t runs c o n t r a r y t o this. exercise t e m p o r a l power a n d enter the service o f the state? 'Those [answered L u k a s ] w h o have already j o i n e d us o r w h o w o u l d like t o d o so.' h a d taken office ' w i t h o u t h a r m t o their salvation. rather m i g h t they expect t o be rewarded i n heaven f o r their good deeds i n succouring the p o o r a n d the oppressed. whose influence a n d p r o t e c t i o n was m u c h needed by the U n i t y to secure i t f r o m renewed persecution. a n d there is. fols. being set i n a u t h o r i t y a n d unable t o escape f r o m i t . w i t h their r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o attempt first t o avoid c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h the w o r k o f government. 'those w h o . fol.1 4 v . 2 . were to be removed. 2 v . 3 2 31 A middle r o a d between the t w o extremes seemed t o L u k a s t o be the Despite the very measured terms i n w h i c h these conditions are f o r m u lated. . I n regard to the c i v i l power. swita. .T H E B R E T H R E N . ' soundest doctrine. 'Even t h o u g h they m i g h t receive payment a n d money here f r o m their service w i t h the c i v i l power. however. 30 A m o n g his contemporaries Lukas observed t w o erroneous viewpoints o n the relationship between C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d the state: 'the h i g h a n d the l o w . are forced to p e r f o r m some lesser functions a n d activities o f this a u t h o r i t y ' should n o t be considered t o have infringed i n any way the m o r a l code o f the U n i t y . b u t w i t h o u t t a k i n g p a r t . ' members o f the U n i t y o f Brethren. 31 o mocy 32 . T h e n there were those w h o extolled the c i v i l power 'inordinately. Secondly. the p o s i t i o n o f his opponents i n the present controversy. o f t a k i n g up the sword i n defence o f the f a i t h . Lukas's i n t e n t i o n is quite clear. ' should be allowed t o remain i n office. AND T H E OATH 195 faith's sake. . I n exactly w h a t circumstances m i g h t 'the f a i t h f u l . first. There was. . L u k a s w r i t e s : W e have n o t c u t ourselves off. the one most consistent w i t h Christ's teaching. ' as he calls t h e m . n o r have we the i n t e n t i o n . . fols. n o t o f their o w n free w i l l . T H E CIVIL POWER.' Indeed i t h a d often been their d u t y t o do so. Obstacles i n the way o f gaining new converts f r o m a m o n g the nobles a n d gentry.

fol. Therefore some members o f our U n i t y have become aldermen and judges and mayors (fojtove).. continued t o grant the doctrines o f the M i n o r Party. . 56. . g r o w i n g i n affluence a n d influence b u t d r a w n thereby i n t o increasingly close contact w i t h the j u d i c i a l a n d administrative machine.e. ' doctrines. 1 0 . a n d i t was f o r them we separated and set u p o u r o w n organization. since 'the scriptures p r o c l a i m other things as the o r i g i n and f o u n d a t i o n o f belief and salvation. bearing others' burdens a n d thus fulfilling Christ's teaching. see C h a p . 3 4 The theoretical reason f o r this l i m i t e d tolerance. H e has permitted us t o t h i n k t h r o u g h to a sound conception o f the c i v i l power i n Christendom . p. 7v. Such doctrines should never be made a touchstone o f salvation. we are i n every way closer to the scriptures. B u t the M i n o r Party. w o u l d be made smoother. lay i n their view o f w h a t constituted the essence o f U n i t y doctrine (puvod Jednoty). writes Lukas i n reply. i n t h r o w i n g over the p o l i t i c a l and social ideology o f the O l d Brethren. i f they were w i l l i n g to remain. 56v. w h o have acted r i g h t l y and j u s t l y . the M a j o r Party had abandoned the fundamental principles o n account o f which the U n i t y h a d o r i g i n a l l y b r o k e n away f r o m the U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h . AND T H E OATH the p a t h o f the t o w n Brethren. t h e s i m i l a r s e n t i m e n t e x p r e s s e d b y B r o t h e r M i c h a l at the c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e Odpowld na spis Kalencuo. sanctified as they were by the a p p r o v a l given t h e m by ChelCicky. n o t M a m m o n . 149. and neither censure n o r condemn those placed i n a u t h o r i t y . some o f these have also been [our] teachers . C f . These aldermen and mayors.' we are ready t o accept 'as fellow Christians people o f g o o d w i l l .. . as has been seen. the right t o exist as a m i n o r i t y position w i t h i n the U n i t y . " . na spis Kalencuo. . therefore. 'regarded the disparagement o f the [civil] power and the o a t h ( w h i c h i n ** " 5 5 36 I n l i k e manner they were prepared t o retain w i t h i n the U n i t y . B u t i n fact such ideas arose ' f r o m the flesh. they had never belonged t o the essential tenets o f their faith. 3v. . G o d o f his love has delivered us [writes Lukas] f r o m these errors [i. 'consider the doctrine o n [civil] power and the o a t h as the o r i g i n ' o f the U n i t y . fols. have been serving n o t t w o masters. b u t the one G o d and H i s L a w . Rehof and the O l d Brethren. f o r instance. claimed o n behalf o f the M i n o r Party that. Since. THE C I V I L POWER. . o f the M i n o r Party concerning the c i v i l power]. . . 9 . 8. 33 The M a j o r Party. A n d i f their conduct has been w o r t h y o f i t . C o n f e r e n c e o f R y c h n o v (1494). w h i c h L u k a s and his party were ready to grant their opponents. 35 The M i n o r Party. . I V .196 T H E BRETHREN. fols. w i t h their eyes fixed exclusively o n one issue. Kalenec. those w h o still held to the o l d Odpowld Odpis. . a n d not f r o m G o d ' .

' according to y o u r o w n principles and those o f y o u r master. Odpis. i t w o u l d have been h a r d to continue t o h o l d his w o r k s i n the same h i g h esteem. They arose i n h i m ' b y reason o f the w a r l i k e Taborites. fol. Chelcicky's example made L u k a s anxious t o destroy his standing w i t h the Brethren Indeed.' W h y indeed d i d they remain w i t h i n the C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y enjoying the benefits o f citizenship. c o u l d n o t be accepted w i t h o u t danger o f underm i n i n g the f r a m e w o r k o f civilized society. Chelcicky? W i t h a strange ignorance o f the early history o f the U n i t y Lukas denied that there had ever been a single m a r t y r for the anti-state views o f the M i n o r Party. fol. f r o m c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f the abuse o f the name o f religion d u r i n g the f r a t r i c i d a l warfare o f his t i m e . had helped t o b r i n g h i m as a y o u n g m a n to the U n i t y . 1 7 . 3 7 . 9 . 7v. ' B u t at the same time he considered that ChelSicky's rejection o f the c i v i l power. Lukas went o n . b u t i n practice they themselves 'made use o f this power w h i c h they despise. AND THE OATH 197 actual fact were instituted by G o d and b r o u g h t to fulfilment by Christ i n H i s higher righteousness) as alone c o n s t i t u t i n g the gospel o f C h r i s t . 38 F o r their u n c o m p r o m i s i n g attitude. . his denial o f the need f o r any coercive a c t i o n i n a C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y . being disgusted b y a l l this. as the M i n o r Party seemed t o consider. 4 v . 18. a n d i n later life the former was to have little g o o d t o say f o r the teachings o f the m a n whose writings. while n o t prepared to undertake its obligations. asked Lukas sarcastically: ' W h y d i d y o u n o t rather go o u t a m o n g the pagans. 13v. ChelCicky was largely responsible. Lukas's m a i n assault is n a t u r a l l y directed m a i n l y against the former's views o n state and society. 3. while at the same t i m e rejecting i n practice the core o f his teaching. Luka§ claimed.THE BRETHREN. Such views. t h o u g h t L u k a s . more than a n y t h i n g else. fols. i n connection w i t h the evil use o f the [civil] p o w e r . fols. T H E CIVIL POWER. t h o u g h indeed. to show where the r i g h t l a y . considering the central p o s i t i o n w h i c h his pacifist anarchist ideas have i n Chelcicky's general p h i l o s o p h y o f life. A p a r t f r o m attacks o f a personal character accusing Chelcicky o f n o t l i v i n g u p to the h i g h ideals w h i c h he preached i n his w r i t i n g s . arose f r o m the conditions i n w h i c h ChelciSky h a d lived. Spis o mocy swlta. where y o u m i g h t enjoy their p r o t e c t i o n . he con¬ " " Ibid. since n o t o n l y d i d they consider that Christ's condemnation o f the c i v i l power left pagans still free t o exercise i t . Doubtless the continuous q u o t i n g o n the p a r t o f the M i n o r Party o f o f b o t h camps. his overemphasis o f the virtues o f suffering a n d poverty and the rustic life. neither suffering n o r smallness i n numbers were sufficient i n themselves. a n d . ' 37 They were n o t even consistent.. Ibid. Luka§ admits t h a t there was ' m u c h t h a t was useful i n his w r i t i n g s . he c o n t i n u e d ..

h a s p o i n t e d o u t that. p p . op. a refusal Odpowed 105). bratrskem T h e literary h i s t o r i a n . f o r i n s t a n c e . several e v e n o f L u k d S ' s later w o r k s . .. dejepisectvi. p p . 2 v . seeking t o model the c o m m u n i t y o f the Brethren according t o the pattern f o u n d i n his writings. which both m e n regarded as a n institution irreparably corrupted b y its alliance w i t h the p o w e r s t h a t be. J . K r o f t a . ' n o one should c o n duct himself according t o [Chelcicky's] w r i t i n g s . come more and more t o dominate the whole controversy between the M a j o r a n d M i n o r Parties i n the U n i t y . 1 4 . T h e U n i t y w h i c h had taken the political a n d social teachings o f the village philosopher as its o w n . 24.. despite h i s r e n u n c i a t i o n o f C h e l i i c k y ' s t h e o r i e s . therefore. I n its scope i t overlapped b o t h the theoretical problems and the more practical issues. 3 7 4 . w a s v e r y s i m i l a r . 6 v . 1 0 4 . w h i c h ChelCicky a n d his disciples h a d always regarded as the antithesis o f the C h r i s t i a n way. I t was to be the question o f the v a l i d i t y o f t a k i n g oaths that was t o become the symbol d i v i d i n g the t w o parties. Since. p. f o r m i n g a connecting l i n k between the t w o categories. f r o m the middle o f the last decade o f the fifteenth century onwards. C.7 6 .198 THE BRETHREN. P a l m o v . cit. op. the p e r i o d o f the O l d Brethren and the new epoch w h i c h was n o w beginning i n the U n i t y ' s history were divided b y a deep gulf. was able t o p r o v i d e the new U n i t y w i t h this theoretical justification o f the r e v o l u t i o n w h i c h h a d taken place i n their m i d s t . 4 0 na spis Kalencuo. S a f a f i k a s t u d i e o P e t r u C h e l c i c k e m ' . II The question o f the permissibility o f o a t h t a k i n g f o r t r u e Christians h a d . indeed. t o the R o m a n C a t h o l i c c h u r c h . Spis o mocy swita. b u t i t h a d replaced t h e m b y a set o f principles approving the very way o f life. ' 39 Thus the wheel had come f u l l circle. B u t b o t h ideas w e r e . C.. C f . 1874. b o t h i n f o r m a n d i n spirit. b o t h i n theory a n d i n practical behaviour. 2 2 5 . c o m m o n t o the m e d i e v a l s e c t a r i a n t r a d i t i o n represented by the Waldenses. ' P . T h e i r a p p r o a c h . AND THE OATH demned a n d despised i t as u n c h r i s t i a n . fol. I t was a question w h i c h almost all m i g h t sometime be called u p o n t o face. 28v. f o r he himself was n o t under the rule o f s a l v a t i o n . Odpis. 29 p. T H E CIVIL POWER. I I . M. Oaths were demanded u p o n entrance i n t o the most h u m b l e offices: refusal might mean severe and repeated punishment. O fols. a r e r e m i n i s c e n t o f C h e l i i c k y . V l c e k . indeed. I t was j u s t this p r o b l e m t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l Brethren i n their relationship to society had most frequently t o grapple w i t h i n their everyday lives. 40 F o r . ' Therefore. had n o w n o t o n l y ceased t o give these doctrines any special place i n their society. more t h a n any other leader o f the M a j o r Party. cit. I t was Lukas w h o . a s w a s their i d e a l i z a t i o n o f the w a y o f p o v e r t y a s p e c u l i a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the p r a c t i s i n g C h r i s t i a n . ( q u o t e d i n JireCek.

2 2 7 . op. i t represented a radical cleavage o f o p i n i o n over some o f the most fundamental issues w h i c h have faced m e n i n their relationship to society. while the M i n o r Party were often k n o w n also as 'the n o n jurors. B o t h parties w r o t e at considerable length o n the subject o f oaths. therefore. 2 2 8 . the p r o b l e m came m o r e a n d m o r e t o the f o r e . d i d n o t possess the same urgency d u r i n g the early years o f the U n i t y ' s existence as i t was to have later. tit.B a r t o S . i t was the one question w h i c h overlapped all the other problems. is a c o m p o u n d o f passion a n d righteous i n d i g n a t i o n . m i n g l e d w i t h somewhat chaotic argument based p r i m a r i l y o n a literal interpret a t i o n o f Christ's words i n the Sermon o n the M o u n t [ M a t t h e w V . indeed. t h o u g h they rarely dealt w i t h the question i n their writings. As m i g h t be expected f r o m university-trained theologians. G o U . I t was. had f o l l o w e d the Waldenses i n rejecting oaths as u n c h r i s t i a n . or later o f Jan Kalenec. T h e M a j o r Party. 172. the M a j o r Party w h i c h attempted i n the first place to define the nature o f an o a t h . W i t h the outbreak at the beginning o f the nineties o f the controversy over the U n i t y ' s attitude t o society a n d the state. p p . however.. became the ' j u r o r ' B r e t h r e n . an abandonment o f the U n i t y ' s separation f r o m the c o m m u n i t y . THE C I V I L POWER..THE BRETHREN. o n the other h a n d . Acceptance by the Brethren o f the o a t h meant i n essence a reconciliation w i t h the existing c o n d i t i o n o f society. op. B u t ChelSicky and Rehof. tit. The p r o b l e m . 173.' 4 1 Earlier. ' A n o a t h [writes L u k a s ] is the c o n f i r m a t i o n 4 1 M i i l l e r . T h e M i n o r Party's case. 4 2 . i t q u i c k l y came to be accepted as a party slogan easily understood b y the most simple. was n o t a b a r r e n theological dispute over a f o r m a l i t y . h o w ever. a n d the early Brethren had likewise refused o n principle t o take oaths when these were demanded o f t h e m .K r o f t a . therefore. I t was i n p a r t a reflection o f the age-old conflict between u r b a n a n d r u r a l societies. too. w h i c h had been enjoyed by an earlier generation o f Brethren. pp. since. The struggle over the o a t h . signified a r e t u r n t o the simple life o f an agrarian society. as has been seen. o f its passive negation o f the state. as given i n the polemical tracts o f J a k u b and A m o s . A continued rejection o f the o a t h . when the n u m b e r o f Brethren settled i n the towns h a d greatly increased. the p r o b l e m o f o a t h t a k i n g h a d remained i n the background. leaders o f the M a j o r Party l i k e Lukas and K r a s o n i c k y presented a better argued and a more systematic presentation o f their a t t i t u d e . AND T H E OATH 199 o f oaths was involved i n almost every p o i n t i n dispute between the t w o parties. 42 F r o m a n issue o f only secondary importance i t was t o become a p a r t y cry i n the bitter ideological strife w h i c h eventually split the U n i t y . 33-37].

and that H e is able t o avenge a lie. ... A l l false oaths or oaths t a k e n i n the name o f any lesser being than G o d himself were strictly f o r b i d d e n . I t is t o call u p o n G o d as a witness. A n o a t h . when one m i g h t be compelled by the fear o f the person w h o summons a witness. Krasonicky's s i m i l a r definition. fols. A second justification made i n the O l d Testament for o a t h taking lay i n the fact o f h u m a n imperfection w h i c h .. 154 ( q u o t e d b y P a l m o v . 2 2 8 . therefore. they said. i n those times the Jews were p e r m i t t e d t o take oaths t o avoid the sin o f idolatry involved i n swearing by strange gods.' Lastly. B u t . op. d i d not attempt to deny that the Jews had been permitted b y G o d t o take oaths.7 8 . 9 6 . I V . V I . 165). fol. b u t only to purge them o f the abuses w h i c h i n the course o f the centuries had ** ** *» A .. he anxious lest he be considered a liar and a perjuror (kfivy priseznik). p u t a completely different interpretation o n these passages.3 7 ] . I I . .K r o f t a . as he h a d f o r b i d d e n t h e m to use evil means t o combat evil.. 45 LukaS and his school. often made men l o a t h t o believe even the t r u t h unless backed by an oath. J .. They were o n l y t o 'swear by H i s n a m e ' [Deut. F o r t h e m Christ's i n t e n t i o n had n o t been to change or supplement the teachings o f the O l d Testament. 13]. f o r pagans i t is allowed o n a l l occasions. 154v. t h a t G o d knows that w h a t is said o r done o r to be done is the t r u t h . o n account o f the frequent occurrence o f false witness. THE CIVIL POWER. indeed.e. Ibid. I t was only such matters as needed correction that Christ dealt w i t h i n his teachings. he showed how his o w n differed f r o m i t [ M a t t h e w V . was justified 'for the c o n f i r m a t i o n o f the t r u t h . Cf. p. F i r s t he had given the o l d Jewish doctrine o n the matter and then. .' 44 The M i n o r Party. he w o u l d have left the Jewish commandments as they were and n o t mentioned them at a l l . writes L u k a s . First. o n the other h a n d .' 43 B o t h Lukas and K r a s o n i c k y frequently q u o t e d cases o f o a t h t a k i n g i n the O l d Testament. i n other words. oaths were also justified i n the O l d Testament ' i n order to reconcile differences between people. 7 7 . cit. 7 3 v ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l . op. AND THE OATH [i. 154.200 THE BRETHREN. 'The o a t h [writes their anonymous c h a m p i o n i n his Odpor smyslu druMmu\ some occasions . 9 0 v . 2 2 9 ) . i n w h a t manner is the I f Christ had meant Christian righteousness higher than the Jewish?' Christians to swear. o f a statement] i n a process o f law by God's knowledge and testimony. is forbidden by C h r i s t t o Christians. Ibid. 7 3 . tit. i n the succeeding verses. . while for the Jews i t is permissible o n I f Christians may swear. Christ t h r o u g h his teaching o f 'the higher righteousness' h a d forbidden his followers to swear under any circumstances. . 3 3 . p p . B . done either w i t h G o d ' s a p p r o v a l o r even at his express command. fols. fol.

fols. ' H e c o u l d n o t possibly p u t o n one side t h a t w h i c h had been c o m m a n d e d to the Jews. 46 I t was such an a t t i t u d e t h a t Christ sought to rectify. where the M i n o r Party. The scribes a n d the pharisees h a d n o t observed either o f the t w o commandments concerned w i t h o a t h t a k i n g [Exodus X X . f o l l o w e d the example o f the early Brethren. like the Mennonites and the Quakers a n d certain other p o s t .non iurare omnino . n o t i n every instance where an oath may be d e m a n d e d .' 47 The M a j o r Party were obliged t o give certain passages a rather forced interpretation i n order to fit t h e m i n w i t h their v i e w p o i n t . 59v. t a k i n g the commandments t o apply only against swearing by pagan g o d s . 8 0 . This was strongly denied by the M i n o r Party. 44 " . b o t h classical scholars o f a sort a n d wellread i n the L a t i n c h u r c h fathers. 34]. ' C h r i s t [writes K r a s o n i c k y ] taught n o t h i n g i n regard to the m o r a l commandments. therefore. L u k a s a n d K r a s o n i c k y . Spis o mocy swita. T H E C I V I L POWER. I V . fol. yea. A .T H E B R E T H R E N . 7. . T h e words used there . 157. B . J . that so l o n g as the matter witnessed was true.' 4 8 They d i d n o t preclude a follower o f Christ f r o m swearing under certain clearly defined conditions. then the o a t h was thereby justified. H e h a d come t o fulfil a n d n o t t o destroy the L a w a n d the Prophets.R e f o r m a t i o n sects i n later centuries. f o r they had imagined that God's ' p r o h i b i t i o n ' applied merely t o the external character o f the o a t h a n d n o t at a l l t o its actual contents. J .' i. 8 3 . 48 T h e y were intended b y C h r i s t . regardless o f the m o r a l nature o f its contents. 59. 8 I v .. fols. Nay. ovSem. 5 8 v . i n g i v i n g these words a literal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 16]. C f . The m a i n s t u m b l i n g block lay i n the w o r d s : 'Swear n o t at a l l ' [ M a t t h e w V . a n d the Waldenses before t h e m . Secondly. n a y : for whatso4 4 Spis Ibid. o mocy swgta. h a d recourse t o the Vulgate.they interpreted as m e a n i n g : 'Swear n o t i n all things. he h a d also s h o w n t h e m the way they should behave i n such circumstances. a n d the i n t e n t i o n o f fulfilment was present. . AND T H E OATH 201 g r o w n u p a r o u n d t h e m . T h e p h r a s e i n C z e c h w a s nepfisahati fols. i t was claimed. They t h o u g h t . w h i c h was n o t contained i n e m b r y o i n the n a t u r a l o r i n the w r i t t e n l a w . 7 9 . 156. N o t o n l y h a d C h r i s t meant t o f o r b i d his followers to swear under any c o n d i t i o n s .e. fols. H a d H e n o t s a i d : ' B u t let y o u r c o m m u n i c a t i o n be. 155v. 9 1 . 4 7 A . B . Yes. t o counteract the c u s t o m o f the scribes a n d pharisees ' t o take an o a t h i n every m a t t e r w h i c h was true. they were prepared t o swear i n the name o f things created by G o d . ' H i s teachings were designed t o p u t this law i n a clearer l i g h t a n d to remove the imperfections w h i c h later interpreters h a d i n t r o d u c e d . 6 8 . I V .

'The o a t h is n o t sent f r o m G o d like his other commandments to be used freely w i t h o u t compelling need f r o m someone else. B u t he w h o seeks o u t explanations i n simple matters. ' i f i t was not a sin to swear under pressure. 2 2 9 ) .. . . F o r . . useful and necessary.8 1 . J . f o l . either. B . non in omni causa a n d the Czech .' Lukas replied that this w o u l d be true o n l y o f an unrighteous oath. Ibid. . . I f they once enter u p o n explanations o f words they w i l l have little success a m o n g simple people. 157. 9 6 . never l i g h t l y .. i n t VIVIL POWER. 60 The M a j o r Party. fols. o f any h a r m arising o u t o f the o a t h .^. . . I n this way the Brethren have n o w begun variously t o interpret the L a t i n w o r d omnino . o f a l l o w i n g the o a t h . i t seems t o me. ' n o t f o r every reason.' There must be n o question. first. i n the second place. 37]? This was the pattern to be followed. p.' 61 T o the objection b r o u g h t up later b y Kalenec i n the 1520's t h a t . d i d n o t countenance every k i n d o f o a t h . undue license. . . . Q u o t i n g C y p r i a n i n support o f the M i n o r Party's position.. about w h i c h they used to t a l k m u c h i n their congregations. I n a l l cases they were n o t t o infringe any o f the rules l a i d d o w n i n the O l d Testament. 7 3 v ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l . B u t I believe. may be suspected o f inserting there something o f his o w n devising.K r o f t a . . . few o f t h e m are fit f o r coping w i t h such a t a s k . .. i f these w o r d s were considered w i t h o u t . the r i g h t must be o n the side o f the person t a k i n g the o a t h : the matter i n question m u s t be 'just. t h e n n o sins w o u l d h a r m people i f committed under compulsion. t h a t simplicity. . w i t h the a i m .. f o l l o w i n g the R o m a n interpretation t h a t . I t is m y o p i n i o n [he writes] that.. 156v. . the author o f the ' O d p o r smyslu d r u h e m u ' gives a well reasoned presentation o f their case against w h a t they considered the sophistries o f their opponents. righteous. T h i r d l y . w o u l d serve the B r e t h r e n best. should be certain that w h a t they were swearing contained the whole t r u t h and o n l y the t r u t h . ' w i t h o u t extreme need either o f oneself or one's fellows. T h e y attempted t o define the type o f oaths w h i c h i t was permissible for Christians to take. where the words themselves are simple. .' B u t i n m y o p i n i o n . Besides this. i n Czech nikoli. tit. there w o u l d be n o need f o r so m a n y useless i n t e r pretations. . I V . a n d even i f they d i d w a n t t o e m b a r k u p o n [this] . .v^-.. . . although I d o n o t possess a great deal o f classical learning. they d o n o t need interpretation. There w i l l be as m a n y interpretations as there are glosses. The commandment concerning the oath is given o n account o f «° " A . . AND T H E OATH ever is more than these cometh o f e v i l ' [ M a t t h e w V .. . oaths s h o u l d be taken only i n cases o f dire necessity. . . 7 8 . omnino m a y be paraphrased i n L a t i n as nequequam . 159v. op. the L a t i n meant . indeed. . 96v. . 158. t a k i n g away n o t h i n g that is anyone else's or giving anyone a n y t h i n g that is not his. i t is true. Christians..

w h o takes an o a t h is n o t b o u n d t o d o a n d 62 55 B u t this p r o h i b i t i o n d i d n o t o f course apply t o those whose offices entailed the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f oaths i n Odpis. . One o f the faithful. N a y .' the course o f their legitimate duties. . however. . 6 9 v . ' A m o n g the f a i t h f u l [ L u k a s explained] there is n o need o f the o a t h . B . f o r instance. . by the secular clergy. were never t o be used between one B r o t h e r a n d a n other. suspected others o f n o t d o i n g so e i t h e r . so that their c o m m u n i c a t i o n be. Odpowid 53 o mocy " " A . . J . 158v. I n a d d i t i o n there were. I t was n o t t o preclude either c o n f o r m i t y t o a somewhat lower standard i n their relations w i t h the outside w o r l d o r to g r a n t i n g a l i m i t e d recognition t o that w o r l d . i n I t is essential f o r p u t t i n g an end to disagreements 53 Lukas's o p i n i o n . there were m a n y kinds o f oaths w h i c h were still f o r b i d d e n to the Brethren. I t does n o t make any difference. A . T H E CIVIL POWER. The M a j o r Party m a i n t a i n e d therefore t h a t . therefore. a n d f o r i t is substituted the current medieval idea o f t w o levels o f Christian l i v i n g . I n the ideas n o w c u r r e n t i n the U n i t y this higher way o f life was t o be restricted t o the dealings o f the Brethren a m o n g themselves. 6 7 v . 9 8 v . 6 6 . na spis Kalencuo. .' 52 T h e object o f p e r m i t t i n g oaths i n a Christian society. b y members o f the U n i t y a m o n g themselves. t h o u g h oaths m i g h t be taken b y members o f the U n i t y under c o m p u l s i o n i n certain c i r c u m s t a n ces. simple children o f G o d w h o s h o u l d order their affairs according to the L a w o f Christ. t o a lesser degree. fols. Spis Ibid. yea. was ' t o help f a i t h a n d the hope o f fulfilling promises a n d testimony. therefore. . 34. AND T H E OATH 203 h u m a n imperfection f o r the c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t r u t h a n d for the sake o f harmony. I V . various cruelties a n d evils connected w i t h the i m p o s i t i o n o f oaths w h i c h were nevertheless i n accordance w i t h the l a w o f the l a n d . T r u e Christians s h o u l d never i n their private disputes demand oaths o f others. fols. ' Oaths. J .T H E BRETHREN.' Oaths were o n l y justified i n the larger Christian c o m m u n i t y because o f the presence there o f 'bad people . 9 7 . I n the Catholic C h u r c h the higher way o f life was to be f o l l o w e d o n l y by m o n k s a n d . a n d lovers o f the w o r l d . fol. since they are a l l members o f one another. fols. B . fol. 'whether y o u t h i n k he w i l l swear t r u l y o r falsely. 54 The o l d Brethren idea o f restricting the conception o f a Christian c o m m u n i t y t o those w h o f o l l o w e d literally t h e strict r u l e l a i d d o w n by C h r i s t i n the Sermon o n the M o u n t is here abandoned . fols.. 3 4 v . 8 . between people a n d reconciling conflicting v i e w p o i n t s . ' w h o were n o t accustomed t o speak the t r u t h a n d . Yea. swita. nay. . 6 9 . says K r a s o n i c k y .

5 8 Historically. AND T H E OATH fulfil whatever is contained i n c i v i l a n d m u n i c i p a l laws c o n t r a r y t o God's laws a n d judgements.. op. were neither g o o d n o r bad i n themselves: i t depended on the conditions i n w h i c h they were taken. Ibid. i t is h a r d t o deny the force o f the M i n o r Party's assertion t h a t i t was the changed circumstances i n w h i c h the Brethren f o u n d themselves. says L u k a s . For oaths. lead t o this. then this evil was transformed i n t o a g o o d a n d just thing. was simply one o f expediency. b u t carries o u t the L o r d ' s w i l l and serves G o d . fol.. 160v. so l o n g were oaths w r o n g . So l o n g as the Brethren were n o t faced w i t h the need to swear. . . Ibid. 99v. . was a necessity i n view o f the general wickedness o f m a n k i n d . 7 4 ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n ibid. cit.K r o f t a . p. B u t they h a d n o w come t o believe that the t a k i n g o f oaths. Indeed. b u t i t is a n evil act w h i c h arises o u t o f evil t h a t is w r o n g . 231). a good act done because o f evil is n o t itself evil. however. i f they are well made. They still held. i n l i k e manner may the oath be t a k e n f o r good o r f o r evil.. f o l . 67 The M i n o r Party had accused their opponents o f a l l o w i n g oaths f o r the same reason as they had justified p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state: to escape persecution a n d to o b t a i n certain material advantages f o r the U n i t y . i n this spirit m a y an o a t h be made and kept. This was vigorously contested by L u k a s a n d his p a r t y . Just as the c i v i l power [wrote K r a s o n i c k y ] while h a v i n g its o r i g i n i n evil. n o r indeed should these laws. 84 I n cases o f d o u b t the Brethren should consult w i t h their spiritual advisers t o ascertain whether the o a t h demanded m i g h t r i g h t l y be made. a n d he w h o so administers i t does n o t sin. fols. . Those whose j o b i t was t o advise the Brethren should first be sure i n their o w n minds what kinds o f oaths were permissible f o r Christians. . w h o " " " Ibid. that i t was allowed by G o d to prevent still greater evils f r o m arising... They w a n t God's c o m m a n d m e n t [wrote the a u t h o r o f Odpor smyslu druhemu] t o go i n line w i t h their o w n needs. 103 ( q u o t e d i n G o l l . fols. B u t wherever the c i v i l laws coincide w i t h God's justice and are n o t c o n t r a r y to Christ. . i t was claimed. This is b r o u g h t o u t b y L u k a s himself. is nevertheless set u p w i t h a good i n t e n t i o n and a g o o d a i m . 74v. t h a t h a d b r o u g h t about the change i n their views o n these subjects. like p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state. the former w r o t e . Secondly. Their attitude. . 83v. C f . where i t was increasingly difficult t o escape the o b l i gations o f office a n d o a t h t a k i n g .204 THE B R E T H R E N . the Brethren must suffer i m p r i s o n m e n t and death rather than obey. 84. t h a t where some act was definitely f o r b i d d e n b y G o d . THE C I V I L POWER. p. b u t when the necessity arose. they must enquire i n t o the exact circumstances o f the o a t h i n q u e s t i o n . 2 2 9 ) . .

o f a more practical nature had been t a k i n g place w i t h i n the U n i t y that were t o t r a n s f o r m i t f r o m an obscure sect existing o n the fringe o f the c o m m u n i t y i n t o one o f the three leading denominations i n the l a n d a n d a force o f first-rate country. T h e real stakes h a d become overlaid i n the minds o f the protagonists b y a secondary issue. one moreover w h i c h c o u l d i n fact o n l y be solved b y a learned theologian or philologist. " Odpowid na spis Kalencuo. argument over the l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f certain passages o f scripture f o r the struggle f o r a whole p o l i t i c a l philosophy. the leaders o f the M i n o r Party h a d s h o w n themselves bad tacticians i n a l l o w i n g their m a i n a t t e n t i o n t o be centred o n a single issue. I n the controversy over the o a t h . T H E C I V I L POWER. A t the same time. C o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h the theoretical controversy o n the v a l i d i t y o f the o a t h and the c i v i l power i n a C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y . w h i l e the lords w h o sympathized w i t h the Brethren [appealed] w i t h t h r e a t s . T h e M i n o r Party h a d substituted a s y m b o l f o r reality. importance. . changes. cit. ' 59 Pressure f r o m above a n d below was i n fact largely responsible f o r t h e i n t e r n a l r e v o l u t i o n . t o o . w h i c h c o n t i n u e d to u p h o l d the ideals o f the early Brethren. ' w h e n m a n y years before certain [ o f the Brethren] encountered great difficulties i n connection w i t h the o a t h . however. o f the negative a t t i t u d e to the state w h i c h h a d been inherited f r o m ChelSicky and Rehof.T H E BRETHREN. the U n i t y was largely t o abandon its character as a protest against social injustice and its passionate advocacy o f the rights o f the c o m m o n m a n . became before l o n g the m a i n p o i n t o f difference between the t w o parties. a n d as a r a l l y i n g cry f o r those w h o c o n t i n u e d f a i t h f u l to the doctrines o f the first generation o f the Brethren. AND T H E OATH 205 later wrote t h a t . T h e members o f the M i n o r Party. i n the p o l i t i c a l a n d c u l t u r a l life o f the T h r o u g h these changes. were at the same t i m e forced o u t i n t o the wilderness. By the m i d d l e o f the sixteenth century the social philosophy f o r w h i c h they stood h a d disappeared almost completely f r o m Czech n a t i o n a l life. w h i c h was t o sanction o a t h t a k i n g along w i t h m a n y other p o l i t i c a l a n d social actions h i t h e r t o f o r b i d d e n t o the Brethren. loc. many appealed t o the Brethren w i t h scriptural proofs. the accusations o f hypocrisy and personal cowardice w h i c h the M i n o r Party b r o u g h t against the leading theoreticians o f the M a j o r Party may be discounted. Even more significant was the fact that the p r o b l e m o f o a t h t a k i n g . as w e l l . Discussion over the exact meaning o f the words used by C h r i s t was n o t l i k e l y t o keep alive f o r l o n g the enthusiasm o f their simple followers. w h i c h h a d o r i g i n a l l y served merely as a s y m b o l o f a whole philosophy o f society.

o f considerable difficulty for the U n i t y . T h r i t y years later they were almost forgotten and the very memory o f the struggles w h i c h rent the U n i t y was already f a l l i n g i n t o oblivion. w h i c h i m p r i n t e d itself o n the h i s t o r y o f the U n i t y and controlled the direction i t t o o k d u r i n g these years so v i t a l f o r its future e v o l u t i o n . 1518). 1 5 0 1 ) . his successor a n d the v i r t u a l refounder o f the U n i t y . 1 4 9 5 ) . Though several Brethren d u r i n g this period suffered death for their faith and many more imprisonment. the fact that conditions were easier i n M o r a v i a 1 M i i l l e r . a n d this w a s e v e n m o r e true o f the r e m a i n i n g U n i t y leaders. p. t o o . E v e n K r a s o n i c k j ? (d. 175. 8 They were years. Legislation against the Brethren culminated i n 1508 i n the socalled Manddt Svatojakubsky. 1 4 9 8 ) . ' 1 f o r i t was his personality more than that o f any other m a n . 1 5 0 0 ) . a great enemy o f heresy. its books confiscated and its p r i n t i n g presses shut d o w n . and that o f Lukas. W i t h the marriage o f the impressionable Vladislav I I t o A n n e de Foix-Candale. * A r o u n d the t u r n o f the c e n t u r y d e a t h h a d r e m o v e d a n u m b e r o f the l e a d i n g p e r - sonalities i n the U n i t y : T a b o r s k y ( d . w h o w e r e a c t i v e d u r i n g a l l o r the greater p a r t o f t h e p e r i o d o f L u k a T s s u p r e m a c y . 1507). p l a y e d a v e r y s u b o r d i n a t e role in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e l a t t e r . 1532) a n d T u m a P f e l o u i s k j ? (d. I . Dljiny Jednoty bratrski. M a t e j (d. indeed. This period has been w e l l named by M u l l e r 'the era o f B r o t h e r L u k a s . were ordered t o be taken against the U n i t y priesthood. K l e n o v s k t f (d. o f great strain and stress. I n the second h a l f o f the last decade o f the fifteenth century these doctrines had been the subject o f fierce controversy a m o n g the Brethren. Severe measures.B a r t o S . a n d this controversy fills the pages o f the U n i t y ' s history f o r this period.VII THE NEW UNITY The t h i r t y years between the death i n 1498 o f Klenovsky\ the o r i g i n a l leader o f the revolt against the ideals o f the O l d Brethren. E l i a S ( d . 1 5 0 3 ) . saw the r e v o l u t i o n i n the U n i t y ' s p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines b r o u g h t t o completion. a n d P r o k o p ( d . a time o f renewed persecution ensued. by w h i c h a l l the U n i t y ' s churches a n d congregations were to be closed and its c o m m u n i o n services p r o h i b i t e d . M i c h a l (d. . i n 1528.

t h o u g h the gist o f their arguments must have been k n o w n to m a n y at second-hand. t o instruct its members as t o h o w they should conduct themselves i n everyday life under the new dispensation. The U n i t y for the last century o f its existence. a n d completing. was. T h e theoretical apologia f o r the new doctrine. T a b o r s k y and P r o k o p . was largely the creation o f Brother L u k a s . by K r a s o n i c k y . the U n i t y o f Brethren. T h e c o n t r o versy d u r i n g subsequent years.T H E NEW UNITY 207 enabled most members o f the I n n e r C o u n c i l to find refuge there u n t i l the death o f Vladislav I I i n 1516 a n d the succession o f his son L u d v i k . w i t h the failure o f the Conference o f Chlumec. b y 1496. A t once the need was felt t o w o r k o u t their detailed a p p l i c a t i o n . remained very largely o n the plane o f practical b e h a v i o u r : i t dealt p r i m a r i l y w i t h the relationship o f the i n d i v i dual Brethren t o society as a whole. b r o u g h t the persecution to an end. was t o show. T h i s is nowhere more true than i n the realm o f p o l i t i c a l a n d social theory a n d practice. begun i n the nineties under the leadership o f Klenovsky. before its suppression d u r i n g the reaction w h i c h followed as a result o f the Battle o f the W h i t e M o u n t a i n . once again under Lukas's i n s p i r a t i o n . l i k e the official U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h . I n the period 1518-24 leading Brethren were i n friendly contact w i t h L u t h e r and Erasmus. t o o . as its subsequent development Humanism. B u t the schism i n the U n i t y had o r i g i n a l l y arisen o n a practical issue: the right attitude t o be taken u p by the L i t o m y s l Brethren i n face o f the various demands o f the authorities f o r their c o l l a b o r a t i o n . I t had been L u k a s w h o had been responsible f o r carrying t h r o u g h . T h e ten years o f y o u n g K i n g L u d v i k ' s reign saw further momentous changes i n the U n i t y ' s e v o l u t i o n . and a l t h o u g h L u k a s to the end o f his life stoutly m a i n t a i n e d the U n i t y ' s completely separate identity and m u c h o f the o l d t r a d i t i o n a l o u t l o o k i n the purely religious sphere. t o a lesser degree. w h i c h was contained i n the series o f theological tracts composed by L u k a s and. i t is u n l i k e l y t h a t these learned tracts were read by the rank-and-file o f either side. the r e v o l u t i o n i n the U n i t y ' s attitude t o state and society. by n o means untouched by either o f the new currents o f t h o u g h t : the religious R e f o r m a t i o n o r secular . was supplemented b y a n u m b e r o f practical decisions taken b y the U n i t y . As has been seen. The theoretical arguments were p r o b a b l y destined m a i n l y f o r the priests and the leading laymen o f each p a r t y . a m i n o r w h o spent most o f his t i m e i n his other K i n g d o m o f H u n g a r y . the new doctrines had definitely w o n predominance i n the U n i t y .

f o r a l l trades and professions a n d a l l walks o f life . d u r c h d a s i m J . . op. die ältere Z e i t e i n W e r k z u G r u n d e . G r e g o r s eine b i n d e n d e Autorität a b g e s p r o c h e n w u r d e . however. 3 4 1 . G ö l l . t h e C z e c h U n i t y . s o m e w h a t s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f the decrees o f LukâS. except 'under guidance f r o m the L o r d ' s words.K r o f t a . w h i c h attempted to regulate the new code o f social behaviour incumbent o n U n i t y members. w a s p l a y e d a m o n g the P o l i s h A r i a n s b y the d i s c o u r s e s given b y t h e i r leader..' Kfesfanskâ 1953. ' H o d n o c e n i LukâSovych Z p r â v knfezskych. were p r o m u l g a t e d d u r i n g B r o t h e r Lukâs's lifetime. D e r G e i s t d e r alten Unität ist i n diesen D e k r e t e n n i c h t m e h r z u finden. they give expression. 1 9 6 . 1617 die A r b e i t u n t e r n a h m . G o l l . . cit. 8 4 . the r i c h . J . pp. 1495 d e n S c h r i f t e n knSiski. w a s p r i n t e d i n 1 5 2 7 . 5 w h i c h w a s the w o r k o f B r o t h e r LukäS. T h e noble. p. D i e D e k r e t e b r i n g e n die Beschlüsse d e r S y n o d e n u n d des E n g e n R a t h e s bis 1531 n i c h t i n c h r o n o l o g i s c h e r . Quellen und Untersuchungen zur der Böhmischen Brüder. a Jednota a m o u n t o f m a t e r i a l d a t i n g b a c k before 1495 w a s a l s o i n c l u d e d i n the c o l l e c t i o n o f See Müller-Bartoä. 1 8 3 . p. Cheliicky p. judges a n d the rest possess . therefore. officials. . V I . erst m i t d e m J a h r e 1531 folgen i n d e r S a m m l u n g die vollständigen T e x t e i n c h r o n o l o g i s c h e r O r d n u n g .9 1 . D o b i â S .208 T H E NEW UNITY and t h r o u g h a gradual process o f e v o l u t i o n the full consequences were t o be d r a w n f r o m w h a t had at first been stated only hesitantly and halfheartedly.. t o the r e v o l u t i o n i n ideas w h i c h he and the other leaders o f the M a j o r Party effected d u r i n g this p e r i o d . . das bereits z u r Z e i t des Geschichte n i c h t i n i h r e r ursprünglichen F a s s u n g . pp. op. U n f o r t u n a t e l y these decrees have n o t come d o w n i n their o r i g i n a l f o r m n o r are they arranged i n chronological order. dass j e n e s D e k r e t . 4 The general purpose o f this series o f decrees a n d other similar d o c u ments was described b y Lukas himself i n 1523 i n the f o l l o w i n g w o r d s : Be i t k n o w n that this [civil] power is n o t p e r m i t t e d to members o f the U n i t y . s h o u l d order his life by t h e m . A r o l e . Dekreiy Jednoty bratrske.9 0 . Few o f t h e m are indeed dated. 3 A l l those under discussion here. J a h r g e n a n n t . 5 ' 4 Müller-Bartoä. cit. w r i t t e n instructions (zprâvy) regarding the reservations a n d conditions under w h i c h they m a y exercise such power. p p . d a s ganze W e r k eröffnet. 5 7 . Spis o mocy swita. t h o u g h i t is clear that the most i m p o r t a n t g r o u p originated i n the last three years o f the fifteenth century a n d the first few years o f the sixteenth. 3 6 : ' L e i d e r besitzen w i r diese D e k r e t e b i s 1530 D e r S a m m l e r . .' T h e Zprâvy m a t t e r w a s u s e d e a r l i e r i n the Dekrety decrees. 111686 discourses which m a r k e d . E s ist b e z e i c h n e n d . a n d m u c h o f t h e s a m e a n d i n Lukââ's Odpis proti odtriencom. C f . a t R a k ö w i n 1601 a n d 1602. stoleti. Zprâvy knliske h u n d e r t e a u f G r u n d eines S y n o d b e s c h l u s s e s v. fol. legte für LukâS v o n P r a g e n t s t a n d e n w a r . according t o his a b i l i t y . a series o f decrees was promulgated by U n i t y synods or by the Inner C o u n c i l . a n d each. XX. the m i g h t y . F r o m 1497 onwards. I . s o n d e r n i n s y s t e m a t i s c h e r O r d n u n g : i h r erster T h e i l enthält e i n e U b e r s i c h t d e r L e h r e u n d V e r f a s s u n g d e r Unität z u r Z e i t des LukäS. revue. T h e Brethren have these f u l l instructions f o r a l l classes and ranks. . A small v XV. F a u s t u s S o c i n u s . der i n 17. V I I .

. 7 See K o t . o f its negation o f state and society. as seen f r o m the v i e w p o i n t o f the M i n o r Party ( w h i c h is given i n the report o f the U t r a q u i s t priest. i m p r i s o n . i f unsympathetic.. collaborate w i t h the w o r l d as far as the executioner. c o u r t s o f l a w a n d the d e a t h p e n a l t y . etc. a n d the policy a definite b r e a k w i t h e a r l i e r s o c i a l r a d i c a l i s m r a n g e d o v e r a n u m b e r o f subjects. " P s a n i j a k e h o s k n e z e J a n a A p p o l i n a f s k e h o . provided they acted for the public welfare a n d not to revenge personal wrongs. ' Casopis Ibid. c i v i l office. 2 . 1882. i n the M a j o r Party's o p i n i o n . that he may take an o a t h . even f r o m u s u r y . i t was a sin n o t t o carry o u t their obligations. I n essentials i t gives a n accurate. polityczna ' 68. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f active resistance t o evil o n the p a r t o f the p r o p e r l y constituted authorities.' was indeed 7 somewhat tendentious i n tone. 6 7 . ' T h e i n j u n c t i o n n o t t o resist evil was meant by C h r i s t o n l y f o r 'the c o m m o n people. Jan Bechyfika). n o . fortresses a n d towns. alderman. that he may w i t h love i n his heart hang. . go t o the wars. defining f o r the future the rights a n d obligations o f U n i t y members towards society. pp. deliver u p criminals t o be p u t t o death. . p p . . every member is t o be l o o k e d u p o n as a Brother. . that there is n o reason w h y men s h o u l d n o t earn a l i v i n g as best they can. t h o u g h correctly reflecting the attitude o f the M i n o r Party t o the changes t a k i n g place. picture o f the views o f the M a j o r Party as they f o u n d expression i n the series o f decrees passed under Lukas's inspiration. p r o p e r t y a n d usury. the M a j o r Party were to be condemned f o r n o w advocating i n these decrees: T h a t a brother may be a c i v i l official. 6 7 .T H E NEW UNITY 209 O n the other h a n d . t h a t the Brethren may inflict every manner . may j o i n the B r e t h r e n and continue t o deal o u t vengeful punishments. . historicky. that a l o r d . . 8 0 . . that anyone u n w i l l i n g t o take an o a t h to c o n f i r m the t r u t h is c o m m i t t i n g a sin and t h a t the L a w is being fulfilled by [swearing]. o f penalty so l o n g as they are n o t responsible f o r the death o f a n innocent person. w h i c h Bechyfika calls 'the articles o f the new dispensation (artikulove noveho svo/evj/). 8 This hostile s u m m i n g u p o f the new doctrines. having castles. . deal i n strong l i q u o r a n d trade generally. . judge. indeed. regardless o f his deeds. chain u p . and suffering was valued m o r e highly t h a n was w a r r a n t e d . standards o f living a n d c h u r c h discipline in general. ' I t seems [announced one o f the decrees] that there was insufficiency.8 5 . i n c l u d i n g self-defence a n d w a r . that so l o n g as he has n o t actually been excommunicated (vyobcovdn). . participate i n courts o f law. . T h e v i r t u e o f patient suffering h a d . p. t h a t c i v i l power w i t h its laws and punishments may find a place i n the U n i t y .. w h o h o l d n o c i v i l office. been exaggerated by the U n i t y i n the past: i t had f o r m e d the kernel o f its doctrine o f non-resistance.' F o r those whose d u t y i t was to enforce the law. o a t h s . Ideologja i spoleczna Brad Pohkich.

. w h o executed the commands o f their superiors and were for the m o s t p a r t i n direct contact w i t h the o r d i n a r y populace. w h o must give account t o H i m f o r w h a t has been entrusted to t h e m ' and that m e n were ' n a t u r a l l y equal. m a y have a place a m o n g u s . indeed. and those h o l d i n g office w h o wished t o become Brethren.' T h e y m u s t n o t be idle o r self-indulgent. therefore. were confirmed i n their positions by a decree o f 1499 w h i c h . d i d little more than repeat i n slightly less ambiguous language the decisions o f earlier synods. . remembering always that a l l those set i n a u t h o r i t y were o n l y "God's servants. Odpis. They m u s t never seek 'revenge i n their o w n q u a r r e l . p r o v i d e d they steer clear o f other sins . ' s h o u l d realize that they have been called to this w o r k i n order t o serve and that. they were acting r i g h t l y . 8 7 . aldermen o r judges w h o are engaged i n this f o r suitable reasons a n d cannot get o u t .' T h e i r ultimate object was to fulfil God's w i l l o n e a r t h . Officials were. As elsewhere there was the inevitable repetition o f the i n j u n c t i o n to a v o i d office where possible. Concerning the c i v i l power [ i t was stated] according t o previous j u d g e ments we also acknowledge that . H e was n o t t o seek his o w n glory t h r o u g h entry o n office n o r was he to consider himself superior o n that account. Their a i m must be i m p a r t i a l justice towards a l l . 57. Ibid. . o r use their office f o r their o w n p r o f i t . those lords o r officials. c a r r y i n g o n their occupations . was reflected i n a l l the decrees issued over the t h i r t y years d u r i n g w h i c h Luk⧠v i r t u a l l y controlled the destinies o f the U n i t y . A C h r i s t i a n ruler. n o t h a r m i n g each other and free f r o m disturbers o f the peace. i n the first place. . 9 A separate set o f instructions was issued f o r officials o f the lower grades.. 5 7 v . ' The a i m o f their a d m i n i s t r a t i o n was to enable their subjects to 'live o u t their lives i n peace. 9 0 . b u t those lords w h o h a d a • • Dekrety. enjoined to take service only ' w i t h a l o r d l o v i n g righteousness a n d w i t h a hatred o f injustice w i t h its avarice and cruelty. p. n o t only actual members or sympathizers o f the U n i t y were indicated. 8 Detailed instructions were l a i d d o w n as t o the manner and spirit i n w h i c h such a C h r i s t i a n office holder should carry o u t his duties.' By this. Those summoned t o take office. t h r o u g h service t o the people. was n o t a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n terms. Those Brethren w h o held office. a n d use their power properly t o the end appointed by G o d . . a remnant o f the o l d ideology w h i c h was t o lose a l l meaning w i t h the passing o f time.210 THE NEW UNITY o f state affirmation w h i c h went w i t h i t . then. presumably. p p . fols. 91 . the purpose o f c i v i l a u t h o r i t y was the welfare o f the o r d i n a r y citizen. ' I n the view o f the U n i t y . . c o r r u p t o r cruel. .

T H E NEW UNITY 211 r e p u t a t i o n f o r treating their tenants well a n d seeking a fair a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f justice o n their demesnes. B u t n o w t h a t c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n the w o r k i n g o f that system was w i t h i n certain l i m i t a t i o n s allowed even the strictest member o f the U n i t y . . h o n e s t a n d g o o d . t o r e m a i n unswayed by any personal motives i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f justice a n d never ' t o accept gifts. therefore. t h e n . A n undated decree. whether representing c r o w n . intends . t o o . . Officials w h o were members o f the U n i t y were t o serve their lords l o y a l l y a n d honestly.' They were n o t t o be h a u g h ty i n their bearing a n d to concern themselves n o t merely w i t h their lord's profits. a n d p r o v i d e d he neither demands the o a t h himself n o r compels anyone to i t . being forced b y one w h o is n o t a member o f the U n i t y t o c o n f i r m . . was closely concerned w i t h the carrying-out o f a system o f justice. declares t h a t : A t first i t was h e l d t h a t under n o circumstances was [an o a t h ] t o be made. b y 10 Ibid. ' T h e latter is p o s s i b l y a n o l d e r v e r s i o n m o r e i n h a r m o n y w i t h the e a r l i e r d o c t r i n e a b a n d o n e d o n l y s e v e r a l d e c a d e s before. 9 3 . They were. w h e r e the qualifies t h i s b y Dekrety a d j u r e s officials to ' o b e y t h e i r l o r d i n e v e r y t h i n g . indeed. i t became necessary f o r the U n i t y t o issue some rules o f c o n d u c t f o r those Brethren w h o were engaged therein. 9 2 . . t o speak the simple t r u t h a n d d o justice. b u t also w i t h the welfare o f his tenants. ' 10 T h e h i g h m o r a l standards w h i c h the U n i t y imposed o n its members made t h e m . c i t y o r feudal l o r d .' either ' i n the acquisition o f profits o r i n the government o f m e n . w h i c h b l i n d a n d hide u p righteousness. T h i s h a d been one o f the chief considerations leading Chelcicky" a n d the early Brethren t o reject the whole state system as inconsistent w i t h the C h r i s t i a n way o f life. that when a m a n . t o deal j u s t l y w i t h the people a n d n o t to oppress t h e m . n o t t o consent t o a n y t h i n g 'against justice a n d their o w n conscience' o r t o be p r i v y t o a n y t h i n g ' c o n t r a r y t o their salvation.5 9 v . was t o be p r o p o u n d e d at m u c h greater length i n the w o r k s o f L u k a s a n d K r a s o n i c k y . the case . ' They were. p p . . .. The first d u t y o f a newly appointed official. I t is i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t . since i t was an unchristian t h i n g . s u m m a r i z i n g succinctly the w h o l e position i n regard t o oaths w h i c h . as we have seen. Odpis. . extremely sought after b o t h b y the owners o f landed p r o p e r t y i n order t o manage their estates o r townships a n d b y their f e l l o w citizens i n the larger cities as their elected administrators. was to take the oath o f office. w h i c h was often harsh a n d crude a n d sometimes extremely cruel i n the punishments inflicted. F i n a l l y . Every official. they were to 'observe the obligations a n d customs o f the U n i t y a n d n o t to be ashamed o f their B r o t h e r h o o d . T h e U n i t y has altered t h i s : t h a t is t o say. as has been seen. fols 5 8 v . ' the Odpis a d d i n g the adjectives 'just. a v o i d i n g any unrighteous a n d unjust act.

such as had largely inspired the objections o f the O l d B r e t h r e n t o swearing as p a r t a n d parcel o f the u n c h r i s t i a n c i v i l power. therefore. They were to remember that they w o u l d finally have t o account before G o d f o r a l l their actions.. w h y . . so that they may n o t be opposed to each other. 12 These r e m a i n i n g reservations against o a t h t a k i n g were thus devoid o f any social content. They should n o t be swayed at all by o u t w a r d appearances or fine words o r by the acceptance o f any bribe o r by any personal predilection o r ties o f friendship. as well as the time. i t was claimed... h a d the sanction o f the scriptures behind i t ..w h i c h was indeed fairly frequent i n the Czech lands at that p e r i o d . and. they s h o u l d endeavour t o ' b r i n g the c i v i l laws . e n q u i r i n g and weighing u p correctly the c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence (priciny okolostojici) w i t h o u t any i m p r o p e r bias. therefore. They were.' A n i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the h u m a n i t a r i a n i s m w h i c h was t o distinguish the p o l i t i c a l t h i n k i n g o f the U n i t y . w h i c h was to distinguish 'between one case and another t h r o u g h hearing each side. The U n i t y had n o w granted the legal system a definite place w i t h i n the Christi a n c o m m u n i t y : its f u n c t i o n i n g . op. . a n d therefore i t was r i g h t f o r the Brethren openly t o resist such a demand . by whose help. w i t h o u t h a r m to each other and freed f r o m disturbers o f the peace. . p. A second i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n o f most officials was t o participate i n some capacity i n courts o f law t r y i n g cases o f v a r y i n g significance. etc. They were t o have a clear understanding o f the purpose o f courts o f law. cit. even after its social radicalism h a d been 11 Dekrety. or be overawed by the p o s i t i o n o r influence o f any o f the persons concerned.. fol 6 4 .' Otherwise. ' w h o m G o d w i l l n o t suffer b u t gives over to vengeance. what. See a l s o Odpis. p.' Special advice was given t o those w h o actually served as judges i n the courts. 8 3 . i n t o line w i t h G o d ' s commandments a n d judgements. 87. t o take care to be responsible f o r the deaths o f none save those unrepentant criminals.212 T H E NEW UNITY calling u p o n the name o f G o d . place. C f . T o swear by these was t o i n c u r 'the sin o f i d o l a t r y ' . first t a k i n g i n t o consideration ' w h o . 8 2 .a n d to suffer the consequences o f their refusal. " p. 11 I n practice only t w o kinds o f oaths were still f o r b i d d e n the B r e t h r e n : those s w o r n on the saints or by the V i r g i n M a r y . K o t . they m i g h t c o n demn someone w h o was innocent i n the eyes o f G o d . ' t h r o u g h their o w n lack o f knowledge or the s t u p i d i t y ' o f the c i v i l law. Ibid. he does n o t break G o d ' s commandments by d o i n g this w i t h the solemnity o f a judgement a n d o n t r u t h and j u s t i c e . when. I t had been instituted 'so t h a t the subject people m i g h t carry o n their l i v e l i h o o d i n peace and live together i n society .' They were n o t t o give j u d g e m e n t u n t i l they had heard a l l the evidence. person a n d reason' o f the offence.

K r o f t a . a m a n should. n o t only u n c h r i s t i a n . secondly. i n the case o f harsh punishments a n d the death penalty i t was actually i n conflict w i t h the other alleged a i m o f justice. pp. This was n a t u r a l i n a pagan c o m m u n i t y . Ibid. L u k a s adds an interesting i t e m i n his Zprdvy.THE NEW UNITY 213 discarded. . ' B u t these matters [the decree rather helplessly adds] are very unclear a n d . 6 1 . wherever possible. I n this way 'they can preserve love and friendship. i n their view. . 2 2 1 ) . 96. is t o be f o u n d i n the d i s t i n c t i o n t o be made between the motives w h i c h led t o the commission o f an offence. pp. I t was punishment rather t h a n r e f o r m a t i o n t h a t . they said. 94. L u k a s also says i n this A d v i c e . t h a n deliberate and calculated misdeeds. 61v ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l .. steer clear o f having t o give judgement concerning t h e m . were t o be treated m o r e leniently. F i r s t .a b i d i n g b y the i n f l i c t i o n o f various punishments o n the w r o n g d o e r a n d .. wherever possible. op. cit. W i t h the latter a i m the M i n o r Party a n d their teachers c o u l d have had n o q u a r r e l . m o r e detailed versions o f those given i n general t o those w h o had t o act o n occasion as j u d g e s .' w h i c h was the Christian s o l u t i o n . was t o a v o i d such offices altogether ' o n account o f the m a n y dangers w h i c h generally accompany t h e m . t o lead b o t h parties to accept a m u t u a l l y satisfactory conclusion. Odpis. . the r e f o r m a t i o n o f the wrongdoer himself by m a k i n g h i m once m o r e a decent member o f the c o m m u n i t y . therefore. 91.was also denied b y those w h o t h o u g h t like the M i n o r Party. B u t the first purpose was. ' 15 The m a i n objects o f the m o d e r n j u d i c i a l system are t w o f o l d : the p r o t e c t i o n o f the innocent a n d l a w . a n d w i t h complete c o n t r o l over h i m s e l f H e was t o excel others The 14 i n w i s d o m a n d prudence a n d t o be capable o f sound judgement. The validity o f a t h i r d m o t i v e for instituting courts o f law . where such judges a n d aldermen as were members o f the U n i t y were required to seek to act l i k e arbitrators i n a dispute a n d . Crimes w h i c h arose ' f r o m inadvertence o r f r o m excessive passion or f r o m incitement. 93. remaining injunctions are m a i n l y elaborations. d o m i n a t e d the legal procedure o f their day. where c o n t r i t i o n was shown.the settlement o f disputes between otherwise law-abiding members o f society . 9 5 . u n c o r r u p t e d b y anger and greed . p.' f r o m accidental circumstances rather t h a n f r o m an evil way o f life. " " " Dekrety. they w o u l d have claimed. the relevant decree lays down that or such offices should be filled by 'a suitable person. B u t the course most i n line w i t h C h r i s t i a n doctrine. ' 13 F u r t h e r regulations defined more specifically the duties a n d functions o f those Brethren w h o were chosen t o be village magistrates (rychtdri) aldermen {konsele). fol.

was prepared t o a l l o w a r b i t r a t i o n w i t h i n the church. beating. . I n connection w i t h every punishment i t is proper t o avoid cruelty.' Heavier punishments m i g h t take three basic f o r m s : d e p r i v a t i o n o f property. t o effect'the r e f o r m a t i o n o f the c r i m i n a l . too. t h o u g h even Chelcicky. . T h e judge were first t o endeavour. T h e note o f hesitancy a n d uncertainty as to h o w far the new doctrine m i g h t be carried. . starv a t i o n . M i l d e r forms o f punishment were recommended. T h e motives o n account o f w h i c h the offence was c o m m i t t e d were t o be taken i n t o consideration. . i t is proper t o k n o w God's judgement as to whether he deserves i t by reason o f this crime o r not . as h a d been taught i n the O l d Testament. m u s t fit the c r i m e : n o more m i g h t be taken i n compensation t h a n a n equivalent o f the i n j u r y done. is especially strongly m a r k e d here. . for instance. and even m o r e o f life. are various a d d i t i o n a l injunctions o n the same " Dekrety. revenge. those w h o can be deterred f r o m their evil d o i n g neither b y exhortation n o r b y shame n o r by a fine. . Concerning punishment by b o d i l y t o r t u r e . should be exercized neither against the prohibitions o f the O l d a n d N e w [Testaments] n o r i n support o f spiritual concerns. t h a t continued t o vex the minds o f U n i t y members even after they had discarded the strict application o f the o l d doctrines. t o o . B u t i t was the severer penalties i n v o l v i n g c o r p o r a l punishment a n d the loss o f l i b e r t y . * 1 There are several interesting variations i n the different wordings o f this decree. . such as h o l d i n g the wrongdoer u p to p u b l i c censure o r reproving h i m i n private. i m p r i s o n m e n t .4» IT T H E NEW UNITY but i t had no place i n a social order w h i c h claimed to be C h r i s t i a n . and o f the death penalty i n particular. As t o deprivation o f limbs. b u t alone t h r o u g h dread o f this. too. 92. o f h o n o u r . l i m b and even life. 91. shackling [says one o f the decrees] they may only be practised u p o n . I t was above all the p r o b l e m o f legal punishment. . I n the first case. care was t o be taken t h a t n o desire f o r personal p r o f i t entered i n t o the sentence o f confiscation. and whether he cannot be led away f r o m his evil d o i n g by some other means. t h a t were most difficult t o square w i t h the Christian gospel. . i f possible. T h e punishment. and w i t h these i n m i n d punishment was to be administered ' w i t h m o d e r a t i o n and prudence. a l l c o m m o n at t h a t t i m e . apparent indeed i n most o f the decrees issued o n social questions d u r i n g the p e r i o d immediately f o l l o w i n g the schism. o r o f liberty o r life a n d l i m b . hatred a n d other forms o f unrighteousness and to do justice w i t h mercy . pp. b u t only the wish t o see justice done. o f interest. . anger. [civil] power.

to act circumspectly (JbdzlivS se miti) and as far as possible to have n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h i t . ' I n another place he advises against 'excessive cruelties' i n the i n f l i c t i o n o f certain p u n i s h ments. . cit.' 1 7 L u k a s i n his Zprdva soudcim svStskym recommends 'the penitent (kajicy) m a n to escape f r o m this judgement [i. 39. ' s h o u l d take care n o t to j u d g e always according t o the letter o f the l a w alone. especially when this is cruel.e. T h e y must bear i n m i n d t h a t they should p u t their neighbours' salvation before the things o f the flesh . so t h a t some should heed us t h r o u g h fear o f i t . Odpis. m i n d .' [ M a t t h e w V . let h i m have the cloak also. a f i t t i n g punishment f o r c o m m o n thieving p r o v i d e d this was n o t accompanied by violence. Calling i n the a i d o f the authorities. a n d n o t t o be present at executions o f his o w n free w i l l . p p .K r o f t a . fols. a n d one w h i c h w o u l d otherwise have entailed expulsion . was n o t n o w forbidden the Brethren p r o v i d e d i t was n o t a question o f a purely religious matter. except i n c o n nection w i t h religious persecution. p p . A l l should have a free w i l l i n this matter. where this w o u l d promote justice and may be done w i t h o u t further h u r t . The decree on the duties o f village magistrates and aldermen. A n d i f any m a n w i l l use thee at the law. o f death] where he m a y . They a l l serve to b r i n g o u t the underl y i n g disquietude w h i c h continued f o r some t i m e a m o n g the Brethren as t o the C h r i s t i a n character o f the penal system o f their day. The death penalty was n o t . " " Ibid. 2 2 0 .THE NEW UNITY 215 subject to be f o u n d i n other decrees. advises these officers. merciless a n d i n some respects u n j u s t . . since such a matter needs a judgement f r o m G o d . speech o r a c t i o n . . f o r instance. B r e t h ren i n office. ' 18 B u t i t is clear t h a t the U n i t y ' s earlier testimony against the death penalty a n d the brutalities o f the penal system o f the day had o n the whole been abandoned. a n d take away t h y coat.. . op. therefore. for i t is H i s to kill. 9 5 . so t h a t above all they should n o t occasion i t by w i l l .the Brethren m i g h t n o w also participate i n courts o f law either as litigants i n c i v i l suits or as witnesses or i n the role o f lawyers. even t h o u g h this system was n o t yet accepted i n its entirety w i t h o u t a certain a m o u n t o f protest..this last a very u n l i k e l y circumstance i n a member o f the U n i t y . t u r n t o h i m the other also. f o r example. A p a r t f r o m appearing as judges o r i n the capacity o f accused . as Christ says: ' B u t whosoever shall smite thee o n t h y right cheek. Indeed we are n o t to make use o f the c i v i l p o w e r i n those matters w h i c h affect salvation. . 9 6 . 6 0 . they should be acquainted w i t h the Christian rule that i t is sometimes better t o endure an i n j u r y .6 1 ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l . 'as regards the death penalty. 40]. recourse t o the law. Concerning the t e m p o r a l affairs o f this life the Brethren may f o r sufficient reasons have recourse to [the authorities] i n their defence. . . 2 2 1 ) .

first be quite certain t h a t the r i g h t was o n his side and t h a t the quarrel c o u l d n o t be settled amicably o u t o f c o u r t . He was not t o press for the punishment. so l o n g as ' h u m i l i t y . 9 5 . however. and calumny a n d slander. I f a Brother was summoned to c o u r t ' f r o m anger and revenge. 'the faithful should be aware that they must not proceed t o c o u r t w i t h o u t the advice o f the elders. 9 4 . . then left i n peace. t o be kept o u t o f the courts a n d submitted instead to a panel o f arbitrators appointed f r o m a m o n g fellow members. discussed i n several o f their decrees. 20 p. c a l m . was t o be accepted w i t h o u t ill-feeling. . 2 2 1 ) . i n the last resort legal proceedings m i g h t be instituted w i t h a clear conscience.' he was to conduct himself t h r o u g h o u t i n a becoming manner. the language i n w h i c h these are framed is so loose. . Ibid. Once again. I n any case the decision o f the c o u r t . a Brother should. Disputes. open sinners. There must always be heresy i n order t h a t some may be t r i e d . O n c e a g a i n t h e Odpis . . o r i f t w o U n i t y members were unable t o f i n d suitable arbitrators w i t h i n their o w n society. between one U n i t y member and another were. I f these conditions were satisfied. 1 9 The conditions under w h i c h the Brethren m i g h t go t o c o u r t were. Odpis. even i f i t went i n favour o f the other party. especially i f he was o f an intemperate disposition. that i t is n o t always possible t o be sure o f the exact meaning intended by those w h o originally drew them u p . i t was n o t right t o take the matter t o c o u r t i f i t was o f a t r i v i a l nature.6 3 v ( q u o t e d i n p a r t i n G o l l . . . obedience a n d patience are preserved. bearing i n m i n d Christ's i n j u n c t i o n to repay good for evil a n d ready to suffer loss and injury. whether between one B r o t h e r and another or w i t h someone outside the U n i t y . fols. o f the one w h o h a d injured h i m . still less i f this involved the death penalty. vengeance a n d threats eschewed. I n other cases. and the aid o f the [civil] p o w e r should n o t be s o u g h t . " " Dekrety. I n a l l instances where legal action m i g h t be taken. rather than break one o f G o d ' s commandments. as under the O l d Brethren.K r o f t a . the t h o u g h t so unclear and the conclusions so often contradictory. or. i f they have been disciplined b y us for disobedience t o the church.before t a k i n g the decision t o proceed. too. op. 8 8 . as was usual w i t h a l l their contacts w i t h the outer w o r l d .' B u t even should the cause be a j u s t one.o r at least early i n the proceedings . p. 6 2 v . t h o u g h presumably the fact that ( his suit m i g h t end i n this way was n o t necessarily a reason for n o t p r o ceeding w i t h i t .216 THE NEW UNITY either t o be w i t h us o r .' w h o w o u l d judge o f the necessity i n the l i g h t o f the p a r t i c u l a r circumstances.. . is slightly n e a r e r the spirit o f the o l d U n i t y t h a n the v e r s i o n p p . . t o leave . cit. they s h o u l d be treated as . and even life itself..

The o l d U n i t y . They m u s t distinguish clearly i n their evidence between what was merely hearsay a n d w h a t they had observed themselves. together w i t h the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the police and j u d i c i a l systems. cit. 9 6 . 8 1 . op. p r o h i b i t e d its members f r o m p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n any f o r m o f warfare. as to whether their evidence contained ' a n actual certainty o r something heard o r a vague supposition f r o m something seen. w h i c h h a s c o m e d o w n to u s . I f they a l l o w h i m t o go ahead. he m u s t lay i t aside. ' The t h i r d capacity i n w h i c h Brethren m i g h t appear i n c o u r t . presumably f r o m one o f their elders. he was t o conduct his case so t h a t 'friendship o r love' w o u l d r e s u l t . ' I n c o u r t a member o f the U n i t y when acting as a lawyer had to observe a f a i r l y strict code o f professional behaviour. 97. defensive o r aggressive. was i n t h a t o f an advocate (fecnik). apart f r o m t h a t o f j u d g e o r j u d g e d . ' F i n a l l y .' Since there was m u c h that was unclear (mnohe nejistoty bezi) i n such matters. a n d one o f the major difficulties i n w h i c h l o y a l t y t o their previously accepted principles had involved the L i t o m y s l Brethren o f the Dekrety " Dekrety. they were t o take advice. B u t . care m u s t still be taken that greater evil should n o t arise than that w h i c h i t was intended t o avoid. 21 E q u a l l y abhorrent t o Chelcicky and the O l d Brethren h a d been a second f u n c t i o n o f the state w h i c h . he is as usual first to consult w i t h the elders. i f one was forced t o d o so o r was compelled by a sincere desire t o be o f assistance t o one's neighbour i n distress. as has been seen. he must still make certain t h a t 'he whose lawyer he is t o be has justice o n his side. H e was t o hear o u t the previous speaker to the end a n d n o t i n t e r r u p t his speech o r m a k e difficulties. pp. . between o n e a n o t h e r to a c i v i l c o u r t is m o r e definite i n its w o r d i n g . p . ' N o one [ i t says i n the Dekrety] m a y become an advocate by profession under penalty o f ecclesiastical censure. the best course was t o refrain f r o m g i v i n g evidence at a l l . I t s p r o h i b i t i o n o f B r e t h r e n t a k i n g d i s p u t e s C f . libellous o r vindictive speeches. f o r m e d one o f its most i m p o r t a n t activities.' B u t i f the l a w requires one o f the Brethren t o take o n this j o b . I f n o t . however. heard or assumed. Brethren must be o n their guard f o r any h i n t o f bribery or avarice or flattery.. f o r any lack o f charity or bloodthirstiness i n their readiness t o act as witness.' ' H e was t o refrain f r o m all unnecessary.' H e was t o behave honestly and soberly a n d ' n o t cause trouble to the j u d g e .C h r i s t i a n o r between the n o m i n a l l y C h r i s t i a n . whether against n o n . a n d o n every occasion they must refrain f r o m t a k i n g an o a t h o r r e q u i r i n g others t o d o so 'unless this was actually required by l a w . consenting t o bear witness. K o t .THE NEW UNITY 217 Before reluctantly Brethren m i g h t also appear i n c o u r t as witnesses. T h i s was the waging o f war against external enemies. he is n o t i n any way consciously to make o u t an unjust [case] t o be j u s t .

admonished t o a v o i d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n w a r altogether wherever possible. a distinction was made even here between j u s t wars o f defence and unjust wars. I n the second place. o r at home where they . however. t h a n ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a w a r i n w h i c h the right is o n the opposing side. b u t he o r his subjects suffer cruelty a n d h u r t f r o m another [ruler. 'Such a t h i n g [the decree goes on] appears m o r e tolerable . the radical break w i t h t r a d i t i o n w h i c h the new standpoint signified. . a further set o f instructions was issued f o r those forced t o serve i n the wars. for instance. this break was often concealed here t o o by the indecisive manner o f presentation.THE NEW UNITY about 1490 h a d been. T h e one against w h o m this happens is forced. cruelty. B u t curiously enough they were at the same t i m e advised. as i n the new U n i t y ' s other official p r o nouncements. wherever possible. . was defined as one where: The matter over w h i c h the war is fought is f r o m the side o f the one w h o summons to i t unrighteous a n d unjust. . A n unjust war. despite the fact t h a t . nevertheless. . t o t r y t o get appointed t o n o n combatant duties. t h o u g h the conditions o f a j u s t w a r are nowhere l a i d d o w n w i t h a n y t h i n g l i k e the exactitude. b y the waggons o r i n other services. The Brethren conscripts were. . t o take u p arms to defend justice a n d his o w n people. A t the outset. since a C h r i s t i a n m a y n o t be a partaker i n unrighteousness under the cover o f justice. this was n o t possible and there was no other way o u t . A j u s t war was merely defined as one where: the k i n g o r l o r d seeks and follows peace a n d does n o t give occasion f o r fighting. The decree defining the a t t i t u d e to be adopted by Brethren conscripted f o r war service (zprdva na vojnu jdoucim) brings o u t . perhaps even more clearly t h a n the other decrees dealing w i t h p o l i t i c a l and social behaviour. t o those tasks ' i n the a r m y where i t w o u l d be suitable for them. first. . a n d t o assist h i m i n this he may call u p o n the subject people. w r o n g or some s p i r i t u a l matter f o r w h i c h i t is fitting t o suffer patiently. . t o take their place i n the a r m y . first. continues i n his wickedness a n d w i l l n o t agree t o any truce. f o r instance. the Brethren were f o r b i d d e n t o enrol as mercenaries even i n a j u s t cause. If. a m o n g w h o m m a y be some o f the f a i t h f u l . w i t h a p p r o v a l f r o m o n h i g h . what t o do i n the face o f the repeated demands f r o m the authorities and their fellow citizens t o take a share i n the defence o f the t o w n o r i n certain circumstances i n t h a t o f the state as a whole. arising f r o m pride o n l y o r greedy desire. i f conscripted. o f C a t h o l i c theology. t o hire a substitute. w h o ] . o n the other h a n d . I n this decree the Brethren were. anger.

2 2 2 ) . unrighteous a n d unjust men. C f . w h i c h was still palely reflected i n its pronouncements. 1 2 1 . . since excessive bravery as w e l l as cruelty and l o o t i n g a n d b o o t y a n d avaricious desires a n d other unrighteousness were t o be shunned.' B u t . op. as far as the l o w e r ranks were concerned. 6 5 .e. .. 51. p. fols. fol. 8 2 . B u t the decree o n the subject was i n effect a hesitant compromise between the earlier absolute pacifism o f the U n i t y . and n o t the subject a n d obedient people. 7 9 . w h i c h consisted m a i n l y . 23 But whatever the nature o f the particular war. a n d the somewhat f o r m a l expression o f its abandonment i n practice. for i n w a r m a n y evils come t o pass. Jewish a n d C h r i s t i a n l a w s . and fighting b r o u g h t w i t h i t a m u l t i t u d e o f attendant evils. f r o m love o f renown or desire for gain. They were n o t t o proceed w i l l i n g l y t o these things [i.K r o f t a . is p r i m a r i l y responsible for whatever evil results c o n t r a r y t o G o d a n d justice. Odpis. the s i m i l a r p r o c e s s o f d i s c a r d i n g t h e i r e a r l i e r pacifist Spis o mocy swita. indeed. M e n died i n battle i n a state o f sin o r k i l l e d others . therefore. i f even this d i d n o t prove possible a n d they were compelled t o take an active p a r t i n battle.the decree uses the w o r d ' m u r d e r e d ' . s e e K o t . W a r . ' 22 On whom. . too. " " M Ibid.3 6 . cit. 1 2 2 . O f a l l wars c i v i l w a r 'against m e n o f the same language' was most t o be d e p l o r e d . 1 3 4 . fell the g u i l t f o r the w r o n g w h i c h inevitably arose as a result? 'Whoever starts a w a r [so runs the Advice] a n d compels the people t o i t . yet have n o t h o u g h t o f m u r d e r .i n a state o f s i n .THE NEW UNITY 219 m i g h t stand g u a r d i n the castle or fulfil other duties. rather strange for the m o d e r n reader t o find n o m e n t i o n made o f a n y w h o m i g h t volunteer f o r w a r service o u t o f c o n v i c t i o n o f the Tightness o f the cause.' t h a n against fellow Christians. op. tenets w h i c h t o o k p l a c e e a r l y i n t h e seventeenth c e n t u r y a m o n g the P o l i s h A r i a n s . pp. the m a i n b u r d e n o f g u i l t was t o rest o n the shoulders o f the ruler w h o started i t w i t h o u t j u s t cause and o n any w h o .' Less evil. n o r o f any unrighteousness. 6 5 v ( q u o t e d i n G o l l .' 24 I t is. then. m i g h t volunteer their services.. was still t o be regarded as i n itself a n e v i l ' c o n t r a r y t o the n a t u r a l . they were t o : A v o i d pushing themselves f o r w a r d as w e l l as the acquisition o f glory t h r o u g h bravery. 9 9 . cit. w a r service a n d its concomitants] b u t o n l y under compulsion w i t h the wish t o be free o f t h e m . A second reason f o r such an omission lay i n the nature o f the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the armies o f the day. T h e y were t o beseech G o d t o deliver t h e m f r o m evil. p.. was l i k e l y t o result f r o m w a r waged 'against the infidel T u r k s . 9 7 . 78. The least a m o u n t o f blame attached to 'those w h o being under c o m p u l s i o n cannot escape. 9 5 .

( q u o t e d i n G o l l . P f e l o u c s k y . T h i r d l y . The o l d U n i t y i n p r i n c i p l e h a d n o t acknowledged the existence o f class differences a m o n g the B r e t h r e n . q u i t e a c u l t o f Z i z k a w a s to a r i s e a m o n g t h e B r e t h r e n . Spis o puvodu lidech. I V . 5 2 . the experiences o f the religious wars w h i c h plagued the Czech lands d u r i n g a large p a r t o f the fifteenth century. A u g u s t i n K a s e b r o d i n 1508 the U n i t y w r i t e t h a t : ' I f Z i z k a h a d n o t d r i v e n [the R o m a n C a t h o l i c c r u s a d e r s ] f r o m B o h e m i a a n d M o r a v i a w i t h h i s flails. the leaders o f the victorious p a r t y i n the c o n t r o versy should devote considerable a t t e n t i o n t o f o r m u l a t i n g i n concrete terms the new attitude t o these problems. 115 bratrske a o .P a l m o v . p. there were i n fact few ready t o take the final step. p.d a y w o u l d n o t h a v e been p o s s i b l e . op. V o l u n t a r y service i n defence o f the fatherland was o n the whole left t o the n o b i l i t y . I n t h e i r s e c o n d letter to D r . made the soldier's profession u n p o p u l a r a m o n g m a n y sections o f the p o p u l a t i o n w h o were unaffected b y the pacifist scruples o f the O l d Brethren or. attracted t o the U n i t y by its h i g h spiritual a n d m o r a l tone contrasting w i t h the deadness o f the contemporary U t r a q u i s t church. h a d meant that o f the m a n y p o t e n t i a l recruits f r o m the upper classes. ' . 4 7 . they had usually demanded o f those f r o m the upper ranks o f society w h o desired to j o i n the U n i t y that they should first renounce a l l that was associated w i t h such functions. 3 8 .K r o f t a . l i k e the new U n i t y after the schism.4 9 . 25 I n the theoretical system o f ChelSicky a n d the O l d Brethren a society based o n violence a n d war.220 THE NEW UNITY either o f mercenary soldiers serving f o r p r o f i t a n d w i t h o u t any fixed principles. 2 8 9 . especially where these were associated w i t h the exercise o f administrative or j u d i c i a l power. cit. Cheshkie svoikh chudych konfessiyakh. C f . as a result o f the changes i n doctrine w h i c h t o o k place i n the 1490's. Jednoty bratya v I .. 114v. the magnitude o f the break w i t h society w h i c h membership i n such cases entailed. The degree o f sacrifice. c o m m u n i o n i n two k i n d s e v e n t o . had consciously abandoned t h e m . L u k a s i n A k t a J e d n o t y B r a t r s k 6 . A s has been seen. I t was o n account o f their continued adhesion t o the strict views o f the early Brethren that the M i n o r Party were accused " N e v e r t h e l e s s . p p . w i t h the result t h a t very few members o f the n o b i l i t y were t o be f o u n d a m o n g their n u m b e r d u r i n g the early decades o f the U n i t y ' s existence. b r i n g i n g home the devastating effects o f w a r o n the life a n d economy o f the c o u n t r y . the o r d i n a r y citizen's h o r i z o n n o r m a l l y d i d n o t stretch m u c h further than the defence o f his village o r t o w n s h i p . w h i c h f o u n d its highest expression i n the organized oppression o f the state. was largely due t o the failure o f professing Christians t o eliminate class inequalities a n d t o replace an unjust social a n d economic order w i t h one m o r e i n line w i t h C h r i s t i a n principles. religious or n a t i o n a l . 5 9 ) . or o f peasants a n d townsmen conscripted for the purpose. fols. I t was n a t u r a l therefore that.

B . I t seems only r i g h t t h a t we s h o u l d love as o u r o w n whomsoever f r o m the r i c h .b o r n and learned h u m i l i t y . The O l d Brethren regarded the exercise o f any f o r m o f c i v i l power as a sin i n a C h r i s t i a n . v o l u p t u o u s ness a n d pride. w e l l . undergoing shame a n d danger w i t h us. since i t can be a m o n g the p o o r that there is carousing. [the M a j o r Party] advocated as a proper means t o increase the numbers i n the U n i t y . . danger l u r k s . ' 2 8 T h r o u g h their wealth and influence the presence inside the U n i t y o f comparatively large numbers o f 'the rich and well b o r n .6 6 .THE NEW UNITY 221 by their opponents o f preventing 'the penitent f r o m entering' the U n i t y . noble a n d learned . pp. a n d are ready t o c o m p o r t themselves o n a n equal f o o t i n g w i t h the p o o r a n d the unlettered. . whenever they s u b m i t t o . I t was i n this new spirit that the decree regulating the reception i n t o the U n i t y o f members o f the n o b i l i t y . the possession o f these was thereby automatically rejected. a n d rich as w e l l as p o o r . a n d are b o u n d by. ' T h i s resolution was directed i n p a r t i c u l a r against Rendl o f Ousava w h o . I V . was n o w free to acknowledge that the C h r i s t i a n virtues m i g h t be f o u n d a m o n g h i g h b o r n rulers as well as a m o n g l o w l y craftsmen a n d peasants. was framed. T h e victory o f the M a j o r Party signified a departure f r o m the perfecti o n i s m o f the O l d Brethren. i t was hoped. being still few i n n u m b e r s . O n l y one c o n d i t i o n was n o w imposed o n neophytes f r o m the upper ranks o f society. 27 There has been a subtle change o f emphasis here. p r o v i d e d they possessed the necessary m o r a l a n d religious attributes o f a member o f the U n i t y . 6 7 v . o n account o f his unwillingness to declare p u b l i c l y " " A . licentiousness a n d readiness to take offence. . i t is therefore proper t o leave the separation [i. . is able t o receive the teaching o f C h r i s t o r the apostles . Since even i n the most h u m b l e trades. . The new U n i t y . o f the rich a n d educated. fol. a m o n g spinners a n d weavers f o r example. . as i n the parable] t o the angels at the end o f the w o r l d . . . . J . . i n s t r u c t i o n a n d admonishment . . i t was the same w h e n we came together at the beginning. patience a n d obedience can exist. a n d since such power was an inevitable c o n c o m i t a n t o f r a n k and wealth.e. a step towards accomodation w i t h the w o r l d . o f the wheat f r o m the tares. w o u l d . having discarded its testimony against the exercise o f c i v i l power. that is. ' W h a t our predecessors once held to be w r o n g and a sin according to the scriptures. . while a m o n g the r i c h . ' to use the words o f the decrees. . . afford the Brethren as a whole protection i n times o f trouble and a better standing i n the c o m m u n i t y . 6 4 . Dekrety. ' I n 1503 i t was decreed t h a t everyone s h o u l d openly acknowledge his membership o f the U n i t y a n d n o t keep this h i d d e n . and falsehood a n d deceit are t o be f o u n d . Even i n Christ's day a n d under the apostles there were g o o d as w e l l as b a d [ i n the church].

D u r i n g the first few years after the M a j o r Party's r e t u r n t o power i n 1494 the new leadership had evidently n o t felt itself strong enough t o demand an open declaration o f membership f r o m new recruits a m o n g the r u l i n g class. 28 H i s influence o n the momentous decisions w h i c h the U n i t y t o o k at the Assembly o f Brandys i n 1490 has already been mentioned. even t h o u g h he was b o r n o f a noble severed a l l f o r m a l c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h the U n i t y . t o earn their l i v i n g by their o w n hands 'along w i t h the rest o f the people. R e n d l . Secondly. for w h o m the raison d'être o f their privileged position had i n fact disappeared. were required t o behave i n their station according t o certain principles w h i c h are outlined i n several o f the U n i t y ' s decrees a n d advices.. 2 3 6 . the privileges o f their b i r t h h a d been granted them i n order more easily t o fulfil their social functions a n d serve those p u t under their care a n d protection. ' Brethren f r o m the n o b i l i t y were. h i g h morals. h o w e v e r . i n the t h i r d place. p p . p. were especially enjoined to show a h u m b l e spirit. first. warned against c o n f o r m i n g too closely w i t h the w o r l d l y display o f their class. u n scrupulous and ambitious politicians o f the same type as R e n d l o f OuSava w o u l d have less scope f o r using the U n i t y as an i n s t r u m e n t for the furtherance o f their o w n private ends. so that the others m i g h t k n o w that they are t o imitate Christ i n h u m i l i t y and n o t p u f f themselves u p w i t h p r i d e . honesty and w o r k . . . op. H e called t h e m brothers and sisters. even u n t o a shameful and i g n o m i n i o u s death. was thereby excluded f r o m its fellowship. By the end o f a decade. 2 3 5 . They were. f o r w h o m the most noble o f a l l . whether b o r n i n t o the U n i t y or Brethren b y convincement. Members o f the n o b i l i t y . I n the U n i t y ' s view i t was only the obligations o f r a n k that justified its privileges. . p. cit. n o t to consider themselves superior t o t h e i r fellow Brethren o n account o f their b i r t h : B u t t o recognize that they were o n a n equality f r o m the p o i n t o f view o f nature w i t h the p o o r people.. n o tenantry to care for. gave himself . b u t t h r o u g h v i r t u e . 215. however. op. . . see G o l l . t o o . c o n t i n u e d to f a v o u r the B r e t h r e n e v e n after h e h a d ' F o r when someone has no [subject people]. o n behalf o f their " Ibid. M u l l e r B a r t o S . C h r i s t . They were t o show 'their n o b i l i t y n o t by their clothes o r their idle entertainments. . he does n o t achieve the end o f his n o b i l i t y .' and n o t to m a r k themselves o f f f r o m the w o r k i n g people by finer dress o r style o f l i v i n g . the s i t u a t i o n was i m p r o v e d enough f o r t h e m t o p u t f o r w a r d the open accession o f the n o b i l i t y as an essential p r e c o n d i t i o n o f their acceptance i n t o the U n i t y .. I n this way. stem. cit. 8 2 . Therefore those nobles i n the U n i t y w h o h a d n o estates t o administer. .K r o f t a . .222 THE NEW UNITY his allegiance t o the despised U n i t y .

30 The picture o f the ideal U n i t y nobleman w h i c h emerges f r o m the decrees and advices and other contemporary documents o f a similar character is one o f p a t r i a r c h a l benevolence. the U n i t y was n o w ready t o a d m i t t h a t inequalities i n social r a n k . 49 N o w h e r e . w h i c h h a d f o u n d expression ' i n m a n y ordinances (od mnohych svo/em). . T h e n follows the threat that i f U n i t y members f r o m a m o n g the o r d i n a r y people d i d n o t f o l l o w this advice. T h e egalitarian ideas o f the O l d Brethren i n this connection were now regarded as 'a f a i l i n g (nedostateky w h i c h i t was necessary to p u t aside.THE NEW UNITY 223 neighbours. indeed. T h e c o m m o n people. age and f u n c t i o n .. cit. a recog" " Odpis. a m o r e simple apparel and c u t is appropriate f o r t h e m . a n d w h o are accustomed t o different f o o d and c l o t h i n g f r o m the c o m m o n people. e t c ' A n undated decree f r o m a b o u t the t u r n o f the century gives an even clearer i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the degree to w h i c h the U n i t y was n o w ready t o come t o terms w i t h existing society: Those persons w h o come t o repentance f r o m the noble. fol. pp. 2 2 0 ) .K r o f t a . 'there is one k i n d o f raiment proper t o the peasant. be i n d u l g e d i n these matters . n o t take offence q u i c k l y or l i g h t l y at any slight to their d i g n i t y . i t is true.' They were t o disregard the o p i n i o n o f the w o r l d . . t o o . 98. indeed. 127. Dekrety. ornament o r manner o f l i f e . but s h o u l d be instructed that they m u s t behave as is proper i n such matters and.' they were liable t o i n c u r disciplinary action. 9 0 . m i g h t r i g h t l y f i n d expression. and steer clear o f any tendency t o show off their wealth and power i n dress. p p . warned n o t t o 'oppress the p o o r o r their people' i n order t o o b t a i n money t o dress t h e m selves u p i n finery a n d live o n a lavish scale. i t is apparent. since i t can help t h e m t o continue i n their repentance. Dekrety. There is. indeed. o f a consciousness o f the obligations o f the class to w h i c h he had been b o r n and bred towards those w h o m G o d had pleased to place i n a lower station i n life. 58 ( q u o t e d i n G o U . i n different styles a n d qualities o f c l o t h i n g w o r n . gentry o r burgher classes. were class distinctions at t h a t p e r i o d more easily noticeable than i n the matter o f c l o t h i n g . op. another to the burgher a n d still another for the nobleman. 8 9 . p. . B u t . B u t i n a d d i t i o n to the n a t u r a l differences due t o sex. T h e U n i t y was to issue several decrees impressing o n its members the necessity o f dressing soberly a n d w i t h o u t undue ostentation o r any tendency t o arouse lasciviousness. should. T h e noble a n d wealthy were. 97. as a decree o f 1506 says. and w a r n i n g Brethren engaged i n the c l o t h i n g i n d u s t r y t h a t those c o n n i v i n g at the p r o d u c t i o n o f luxurious o r immodest garments w o u l d be held equally responsible by G o d w i t h those w h o actually wore t h e m . however. f r o m the lower orders s h o u l d n o t copy their example. even a m o n g the Brethren.

and n o t p o u r o u t money o n their houses a n d horses and w o r l d l y ornament. I n regard t o their fellow Brethren o f i n f e r i o r station. they are theirs to govern a n d preserve and defend. . p a r t i c u l a r l y when they are a C h r i s t i a n p e o p l e . their wives. 38 Nobles were n o t t o justify acts o f oppression against their tenantry b y saying t h a t : They have bought them and they are inscribed i n the l a n d books (ve dckdch) and i n the registers a n d have been i n the possession o f their forefathers f r o m time i m m e m o r i a l . . . 9 9 . . 57v. . The n o b i l i t y had been set b y G o d i n a u t h o r i t y over t h e m : So that they m a y serve them. a n d i n exchange they m a y receive respect and dues for their sustenance. ' 31 'They are n o t to keep superfluous servants. w i t h guardians. . horses. . such as appearing i n court.. Therefore . . only for showing off o r for pride o r vanity. . b u t provide the latter. b u t t o give rather t o the poor among their p e o p l e . . . . 'They were n o t to s u m m o n t h e m to offices or to services against their conscience . .e. their tenants] are theirs to do w i t h as they please. o r other things. N o b l e m e n w h o j o i n e d the Brethren were reminded t h a t they were to use their wealth and privileged position f o r the g o o d o f the c o m m u n i t y . . . b u t rather should they spend their wealth o n necessities serving the g o o d o f their tenants. .' They were.so p r o m i n e n t a feature i n the writings o f ChelSicky" and the early Brethren. L o r d . I n reality they are G o d ' s . as is j u s t . Dekrety.224 THE NEW UNITY n i t i o n o f the n a t u r a l equality o f a l l m e n i n the eyes o f G o d . pp. B u t f o r this they w i l l have t o give a n account t o their . a n d n o t b u r dening their tenantry w i t h excessive dues a n d l a b o u r services. nobles i n the U n i t y were t o make use o f their greater opportunities t o f o r w a r d their c o m m o n interests. . acting as a father t o the servants. succouring the needy a n d helpless. 9 8 . they were to be obedient to the elders. t o administer their estates themselves a n d not as absentee landlords t h r o u g h their bailiffs. They must act as protectors o f their tenantry and n o t as their oppressors. o n t h e m selves. n o r take by force c h i l d r e n f r o m their parents o r money f r o m orphans. has gone completely.. c h i l d r e n and servants. they are n o t to imagine that they [i. . wherever possible.' They were also to consult the elders i n i m p o r t a n t business. . they must n o t cheat t h e m o f any p a r t o f their wages . b u t the note o f protest against manmade inequalities. . A l s o nobles belonging t o the f a i t h f u l should w i l l i n g l y provide food and d r i n k f o r p o o r persons. As regards members o f their household w h o likewise belonged t o « S ! Odpis. . . w h o w o r k for t h e m . fol. ' T h e y are to a v o i d v a i n show and extravagant expenditure .

6 2 ( q u o t e d i n M o l n a r . B . the peasantry were r a p i d l y losing their free status a n d s i n k i n g t o the p o s i t i o n o f serfs b o u n d t o the l a n d . 5 8 v ( q u o t e d ibid. L u k a S a n d h i s f e l l o w B r e t h r e n .' 35 i n exchange f o r w h i c h . p p . fol. members o f the r u l i n g class w h o adhered t o the U n i t y were t o devote their lives t o the people's welfare a n d p r o t e c t i o n . as i n the earlier days o f the U n i t y . b u t i n fulfilling the duties o f their station. p. 5 fols. 8 4 . T h i s s h o r t s t a t e m e n t is a c c o m p a n i e d b y the c o m m e n t f r o m a n u n k n o w n m e m b e r o f the M i n o r P a r t y t h a t ' h e r e t h e M a j o r P a r t y . dealing o u t punishment t o the wrongdoer. C f . 4 8 ) . " ' " A .). . LukdS s svymi bratfimi panuom skrojuji vhod plait'ek). D o b i a S . C h r i s t i a n holidays a n d festivals. fol. . eternal b l i s s . I n the M i n o r Party's view its a i m was n o w t o j u s t i f y ' i n C h r i s t i a n lords a separate way o f life a n d customs f r o m those o f the o r d i n a r y people. 38 'We consider [Luka§ wrote a b o u t 1498] such C h r i s t i a n nobles o r kings t o be happy.' against w h i c h Chelclcky h a d directed some o f his bitterest and most effective invective. b u t as they themselves keep fast-days. 'They are n o t t o p u t any obstacles i n the way o f their attending services. T h e 'happiness' o f the ' f a i t h f u l nobles' was n o t to lie i n the renunciation o f their p o s i t i o n a n d a u t h o r i t y . Ibid. whose name has cropped u p i n connection w i t h the M Odpis. and Sundays. 9 9 . op. w i t h the laws passed b y the B o h e m i a n diet i n 1497 a n d 1500. T h e U n i t y h a d i n fact r e t u r n e d t o the W y c l i f i t e conception o f 'the threefold people. as w e l l as b y r o y a l officials. p.T H E NEW UNITY 225 3 3 the U n i t y . c u t s its c l o t h to s u i t t h e n o b l e s (Tuto vetSi strana. 6 4 ) . i n an era when the laws were still enforced by the l a n d o w n i n g class. t h o u g h w i t h mercy and conscious o f their u l t i m a t e responsibility to G o d for their earthly stewardship. Dekrety. i t m i g h t pleaded. 4 7 . C f . while the towns were becoming increasingly dependent o n the landed aristocracy.' Its c o n t e n t s give a n excellent p i c t u r e o f w h a t t h e U n i t y n o w d e m a n d e d f r o m its n o b l e m e m b e r s . I V . the U n i t y h a d abandoned its protest against the whole system o f class differentiation and contented itself henceforth w i t h the a t t e m p t merely to ameliorate that system's most blatant injustices. 6 3 v . t h a t is. w i t h C h e l i i c k y ( C h a p t e r I . ' 3 4 A t a p e r i o d when. w i t h the hope here and i n the f u t u r e ' o f A s late as 1512 the p r o b l e m o f w h a t members o f the n o b i l i t y should d o w i t h their estates a n d their feudal rights o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o n j o i n i n g the U n i t y was threshed o u t again b y the I n n e r C o u n c i l at their meeting i n Brandys i n N o v e m b e r o f that year. they s h o u l d encourage t h e m t o o to fulfil their religious d u t y . Johanka z K r a j k u . cit. 5 8 . p p . they were t o h o l d divine service together w i t h t h e m . w i t h great cruelty o n the subject p o p u l a t i o n .8 6 .. BokslavSti bratfi. J . The p o s i t i o n was complicated by the fact t h a t the person a r o u n d w h o m the debate revolved was a w o m a n .

op. These followed i n the m a i n the general principles o u t l i n e d above concerning the conduct o f Brethren f r o m the n o b i l i t y . atonement was to be by giving to the poor. and herself f o r l o n g its close sympathizer before actually j o i n i n g . " Dekrety. still felt strong enough t o lay d o w n some f a i r l y stringent conditions before c o n f i r m i n g Johanka i n membership. she was t o 'install her brother i n her place t o manage and govern' according to these principles. were they i n the second place p u t t i n g i t to good use? N o clear definition. 4 2 . i f so.Op. M o l n a r r e g a r d s the U n i t y ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n . . The I n n e r C o u n c i l . she ' t o o k counsel w i t h the elders whether she should leave her castle. 8 8 . cit. one o f the U n i t y ' s protectors f r o m a m o n g the Catholic n o b i l i t y . ' A f t e r lengthy discussion i t was decided that i n p r i n c i p l e there was no reason w h y she should n o t continue as before t o keep possession o f her estates. K u n r a t K r a j i f z K r a j k u . was given o f precisely w h a t means were to be c o n sidered as justifiable o r exactly h o w wealth j u s t l y acquired m i g h t r i g h t l y be expended. however. was t h a t Johanka was n o t herself t o administer her estates. A s the owner also i n her o w n r i g h t o f a vast n e t w o r k o f estates a r o u n d M l a d a Boleslav and Brandys. I t should n o t have been obtained. i f this were impossible. 8 9 . M o l n a r . ' b y sinful means o r any k i n d o f unrighteousness or as a result o f w r o n g done to one's neighbours' o r by r o b b i n g and oppressing the p o o r a n d defenceless. One interesting v a r i a t i o n . was also a member o f the U n i t y . i t was asked. i t was said. . a s d i s t i n c t f r o m later r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s m e r e l y to exercise c h a r i t y . due probably t o the fact t h a t i t was a w o m a n w h o was involved. had they come by this wealth by just means and.. H e does n o t c o n s i d e r that J o h a n k a interfered i n the life o f the i m p o r t a n t U n i t y c o n g r e g a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d i n h e r t o w n of M l a d a B o l e s l a v a n d u n d e r the s p i r i t u a l c a r e o f B r o t h e r L u k a S . 77. w h o . The L a d y Johanka was the wife o f Jan o f Selmberk. p. R e s t i t u t i o n was t o be made i n such cases to the injured p a r t y or. however.226 T H E NEW U N I T Y discussions d u r i n g the conference o f Chlumec (1496). I n the f o l l o w i n g year the L a d y Johanka d i d i n fact sell her estates to her brother. together w i t h his wife. I m p r o p e r use o f wealth pp. a s i n this c a s e . whether f r o m the n o b i l i t y o r u n t i t l e d burghers.. i n the m a t e r i a l affairs o f its m a g n a t e m e m b e r s a s o n e o f the last vestiges o f the o l d r a d i c a l d e m a n d f o r s o c i a l j u s t i c e o n c e v o i c e d b y the T a b o r i t e s . 3 7 The same conception o f stewardship was present i n the decree defining the duties o f those U n i t y members. First. despite the serious p o s i t i o n i n w h i c h the U n i t y was then placed t h r o u g h the persecution w h i c h i t was undergoing a b o u t this t i m e . h a v i n g renounced the use o f her estates. and undeterred by the fact that Brandys itself where they were confering was o n Johanka's property. or continue t o enjoy t h e m . cit. however. p. w h o h a d either inherited wealth o r acquired i t by their o w n efforts.

. a n d subjects i n general i n relation t o their rulers. were instructed t h a t as members o f the Unity: " " Dekrety. f o r Brethren i n the towns to l a u n c h o u t i n t o enterprises w h i c h were t o b r i n g an increasing a c c u m u l a t i o n o f wealth i n t o their hands.' W e a l t h was n o t a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r any appearance o f superiority over the less w e a l t h y . . even a m o n g a l i m i t e d circle as at the very beginning o f the U n i t y o r a m o n g the monastic orders o f the medieval c h u r c h . a n d the wealthy were always to bear i n m i n d that riches by themselves w o u l d n o t help them t o enter the K i n g d o m o f H e a v e n . very occasional glimmers o f the o l d c o m m u n i s t i c doctrines w i t h w h i c h the U n i t y started. and o f protest against an unjust social order largely disappeared f r o m the official utterances o f the U n i t y i n the p e r i o d after the schism. p p . Ibid. enjoining honesty i n business and the a v o i d ance o f superfluous expenditure o n articles o f l u x u r y . therefore. 39 T h e way was n o w open. . f o r instance. indeed. T h e latter were above a l l urged to display a spirit o f obedience i n a l l things l a w f u l and o f p a t i e n t endurance o f w r o n g . 38 There were. w h e n i t was stated i n one o f the decrees that 'the earth .T H E NEW UNITY 227 occurred when. as. instead o f devoting i t t o help the p o o r and needy. i n regard t o their wealth. . t o b r i n g success i n the affairs o f this w o r l d . . W h i l e one set o f regulations sought t o define the general principles o f c o n d u c t f o r the r i c h a n d noble a n d those i n a u t h o r i t y . T h e element o f resistance. m i g h t themselves serve. a further series dealt w i t h the rights and duties o f Brethren w h o derived f r o m the w o r k i n g people. peasants and artisans a n d servants. the L o r d w i l l demand a n account. I n the future the o n l y l i m i t a t i o n placed by the discipline o f the U n i t y was the observation o f certain m o r a l standards as w e l l as the o b l i g a t i o n t o exercise charity o n behalf o f the poor. and i n v a i n d o some consider themselves guiltless. Forgiveness for such sins c o u l d o n l y be earned 'by almsgiving' a n d ' b y c o m i n g t o realize that. The peasantry as tenants o f the n o b i l i t y and gentry. they are o n l y G o d ' s stewards according to H i s w i l l and . p. produces f o r a l l a l i k e . albeit passive. 9 9 . Indeed. 123..' B u t the conclusion d r a w n is n o t any f o r m o f c o m m u n i s m o f goods. 100. i t was expended o n luxuries and r i o t o u s l i v i n g . as they have since done w i t h other religious sects elsewhere. w h e n they take t o themselves the c o m m o n g o o d things w h i c h they have f r o m G o d a n d d o n o t distribute them. such h i g h m o r a l standards. the p o o r and the needy. I t is merely an e x h o r t a t i o n t o give a l m s .

. we to be harried? 42 Their acceptance. . . . W h y then-are. gladly suffer w r o n g k n o w i n g that the L o r d has s a i d : 'Vengeance is m i n e : I w i l l repay' [Romans X I I . any suggestion t h a t the Brethren were c a r r y i n g o n the radical social t r a d i t i o n s o f the 'Picards' o r the dreaded Taborites. T h e y should refrain f r o m s t r i v i n g after equality . op. instead we either suffer or l o o k t o the l a w f o r rectification. We d o n o t h i n g against the government o f the w o r l d . they should show a readiness f o r every good deed . . I I .. p. n o t t a k i n g the vengeance o f wrongs i n t o o u r o w n hands . s e r v i c e i n the h o u s e s o f the n o b i l i t y m a d e it a d v i s a b l e . we pay [tithes] to the priests where we are settled. . . ... even t h o u g h we d o not make use o f their services. B . . we seek after peace and h a r m o n y between men. B r e t h r e n w e r e at least n o t to imitate the frivolities a n d l u x u r i o u s w a y o f life o f t h e i r m a s t e r s .K r o f t a . . T h e Brethren are t o be taught t o suffer things patiently i f ever i n any c o m m u nity (v obci) more is imposed u p o n one person t h a n u p o n the o t h e r s . P a l m o v . 3 4 0 : ' U n e p a r t d e responsabilité d a n s l a révolution q u i s ' a c c o m p l i t a l o r s e n B o h ê m e n e revient-elle p a s a u s s i à l'Unité? . . . as a result o f the changes i n U n i t y doctrine. . . Fin de l'Indépendence Bohême. malefactors. They must be subject to t h e m n o t o n l y o u t o f fear b u t f o r conscience' sake. cit. D e n i s . J . . fol.. never exercise a u t h o r i t y n o t p r o p e r l y entrusted t o t h e m b u t rather endure sufferi n g . 59v (quoted i n part in G o U . thieves o r traitors. p. 2 7 7 . 19]. a n d the s e r v a n t c l a s s respectively. neither swear nor curse. ibid. 'there are none i n o u r lands less free t h a n those w h o 41 may be sold and settled under the nobles.' yet the peasants 'must be subject i n the fear o f the L o r d according to the apostle's t e a c h i n g . since G o d wills this. They should be obedient. C f . it w a s urged. I . 4 1 4 * C f . a p p r e n t i c e s . Odpis. p. 4 1 v . 1 2 8 . fol. 217). those i n a u t h o r i t y ] are set u p f o r their g o o d also a n d t o preserve t h e m f r o m evil.228 THE NEW UNITY They should realize that the w o r l d order is ordained b y G o d f o r their o w n good . . 4 1 A . W e are n o t w i c k e d disturbers o f the peace. to a v o i d s u c h w o r k . 50 ( q u o t e d ibid. p. fol. Odpis. B u t i f t h i s w a s n o t possible. ' Any h i n t o f s t i r r i n g u p the peasantry against their masters was to be avoided at all costs. o f the framework o f the existing social order h a d given the Brethren the o p p o r t u n i t y b o t h to rebut charges made by the central authorities o f anarchy and p l o t t i n g a n d . . 44 43 Ibid. p. b u t surpass them i n honesty.. 40 Even t h o u g h . w h e r e the d u t y o f s u b m i s s i o n t o s o c i a l s u p e r i o r s is e n j o i n e d o n a r t i s a n s . i n the w o r d s o f B r o t h e r Matëj w r i t t e n at the end o f the fifteenth century. 2 2 0 ) . against its lands and kingdoms [states an u n t i t l e d U n i t y confession dan na rathauz i n 1507] we are subject t o H i s Majesty the K i n g a n d o u r lords. . 9 8 . T h e m o r a l dangers c o n n e c t e d w i t h op. cit. a n d t h a t the servants o f the w o r l d [i. at the same time. I V . pay their dues a n d taxes a n d show love towards g o o d a n d f a i t h f u l l o r d s . . . . C f . p p . they s h o u l d k n o w their place.e.3 0 . to p u t f o r w a r d a b o d y o f social teaching that w o u l d n o t frighten away l i k e l y converts a m o n g persons o f r a n k and influence.

C h e l c i c k y . f o r instance. frequently oppressing t h e m w i t h u n l a w f u l corvées a n d dues. p.b o r n a n d those i n a u t h o r i t y t u r n e d t o i t a n d rested i n the shade' o f the c h u r c h . he writes i n phrases reminiscent o f Chelôicky. unwelcome i n h i g h society. q u i t e i n the style o f the O l d Brethren. 4 5 44 .' 45 Elsewhere he writes t h a t i n the early c h u r c h . I V . n'a-t-elle p a s énervé l e u r f o r c e d e résistance et facilité l'établissement général d u servage?* 4 4 A . 2 7 . continued t o be d r a w n f r o m the poorer sections o f the c o m m u n i t y .'** But something o f this idealization o f the peasant. ' w i t h beasts.over the riches. O trojim Ibid. continued t o find expression i n the writings o f the U n i t y ' s new leadership d u r i n g the first few decades f o l l o w i n g o n the schism. as the numbers o f its adherents began t o increase ' m a n y o f the w e l l . even t h o u g h this class n o longer set the tone o f its social creed. and i n p a r t i c u l a r f r o m the peasantry.T H E NEW UNITY 229 T h e m a j o r i t y o f the U n i t y ' s f o l l o w i n g . however. C f . fols. J .. T h e Brethren. power a n d learning o f this w o r l d . Lukâ§. B . A similar process. 133. even before Constantine's day. ' fol.as i n his o p i n i o n i t still d i d a m o n g the Brethren o f his day . since 'once more the devil had t r i e d t o instil the v a n i t y o f the w o r l d i n t o the U n i t y t h r o u g h persons o f b i r t h a n d h i g h r a n k . is c o n t i n u a l l y inveighing against the oppression o f the p o o r by the r i c h and p o w e r f u l . despite the increasing conservatism w h i c h coloured most o f its utterances o n social topics. a m o n g the despised. ' 48 A m o n g the leaders o f the M a j o r Party a n even m o r e ardent advocate o f the earlier simplicity was t o be f o u n d i n o l d Tûma Pfelouôsky w h o . T h e p r o u d a n d the m i g h t y . o f this cult o f the c o m m o n m a n . regarding these as beasts w i t h o u t understanding. f o r t h e m one o f the signs o f a follower o f C h r i s t was his 'consorting w i t h peasants (s sedlâky obcovâni). i n one o f his most lengthy a n d elaborate treatises. LukâS. the superiority o f t h a t poverty a n d simple piety w h i c h predominated i n the early C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h . treat t h e m harshly a n d b r u t a l l y as i f they were animals. fol. were really at home o n l y a m o n g the lower orders o f society. O obnoveni cirkve svaté. ' decked o u t ' i n sumptuous and immodest a p p a r e l . 64. n a t u r a l l y still regarded the peasant's a n d the artisan's calling as the only way o f life really consistent w i t h true C h r i s t i a n i t y . t h a t is. . c o u l d easily take place w i t h i n the U n i t y i f extreme care were n o t t a k e n t o prevent i t . 124v. T h e M i n o r Party. ' O o b n o v e n i . thereby c o r r u p t i n g its pristine p u r i t y . lidu. H e frequently emphasizes. d o w n t r o d d e n people w i t h o u t significance i n the w o r l d . 7 1 . Lukas" was ready t o a d m i t . f o l l o w i n g i n the footsteps o f Chelôicky" and the l o n g line o f Czech reformers b o t h before a n d after H u s . E n prêchant a u x p a y s a n s l'obéissance et l e sacrifice.

. . a n d the k i n g after listening t o their h u m b l e p e t i t i o n should give t h e m a letter t o the l o r d s e x h o r t i n g these to leave t h e m w i t h their j u s t rights.' composed i n 1502. . since G o d f r o m o f o l d has diligently commanded kings. A n d these things are c o n t i n u a l l y increasing f r o m one day t o a n o t h e r .' ' I t w o u l d be better [he concludes] f o r a m a n to be b u r i e d at the crossroads as a righteous person w i t h o u t any offering. over a n d above ancient justice. . K r o f t a . 4 7 C f . i n u s i n g the s i m i l e o f the cit. f o r service.e. . t h a n to be given a fine church b u r i a l if. he writes. . limetree. f r o m the highest t o the lowest. f o r n o t c o m i n g f o r w a r d i n support o f the oppressed c o m m e n a l ty against the r i c h and the powerful. h o w they have accused their lords before the k i n g .230 T H E NEW UNITY indeed. Dêjiny sehkého stavu. H i s object. A n d later i t is twice as bad as i t was b e f o r e . a n d their n u m b e r grows greater l i k e river water after r a i n . t o the lords i n council] . and the mendicant orders i n particular. may. 1 4 3 . . was t o examine : H o w [the peasants] are treated b y their lords. knights and squires. . differed f r o m Lukâs. i n order t o o b t a i n some share o f their wealth and power. Tûma acknowledged the v a l i d i t y o f 'just tithes .' b u t at the same time he denounced those U t r a q u i s t o r Catholic priests w h o levied excessive tithes o r demanded t h e m o n unoccupied o r uncultivated g r o u n d . t h e n . L o r d A l b r e c h t o f Sternberk. when they have presented the letter [i. and some he strips as one does a l i m e tree (a nëkteré odfe co lipu). . f o r at home their l o r d is a w a i t i n g t h e m to t h r o w them i n t o p r i s o n . is e c h o i n g C h e l c i c k y . ' I n this way they act quite contrary to the apostles. so t h a t n o w the p o o r people do n o t k n o w w h a t t o do f o r such oppression. . princes. . B u t i f ever they should t u r n i n their distress t o the k i n g . t o see h o w they treat their p o o r f o l k . a n d they prepare t o r e t u r n home j o y f u l l y under the impression t h a t their p l i g h t w i l l be alleviated. especially. . lords. something quite different results. o n m a n y matters t o u c h i n g the increasing use o f ceremonial i n the U n i t y . lords a n d a l l w h o rule over the people t o act j u s t l y towards t h e m . . G o d grant t h a t H i s Majesty a n d his c o u n c i l . P r e l o u c s k y . . despite the ministrations o f the m o n k s a n d friars. . Tûma comes forw a r d as a c h a m p i o n o f the rights o f the semi-serf peasantry and o f the p o o r i n general. 47 Tûma attacked i n b i t i n g language the priests. f o r flattering the latter instead. I n his open letter ' t o the noble l o r d . . be. instead o f amendment. . His Majesty w o u l d then discover t h a t they have burdened t h e m w i t h numerous unjust corvées and extraordinary dues recently contrived. Thus they go hence i n s o r r o w a n d . calling t h e m varlets (chlapi) a n d traitors a n d make o u t a lengthy indictment. . l o o k t o the princes. so t h a t o n t h a t account i t is difficult f o r t h e m t o travel.5 0 . . a n d raised the customs duties. as is the o b l i g a t i o n o f their office. these thereupon revile t h e m . pp. so l o n g as his spirit were carried by the angels t o A b r a h a m ' s b o s o m ' to be w i t h Lazarus. his soul were thereupon to lodge for eternity w i t h Dives i n hell. .

pp.C h r i s t i a n one. so different f r o m the The passive dissent o f Chelcicky a n d the early Brethren. f o r instance. n o t t o be envious o f their wealthier neighbours and to place their hopes i n happiness i n the next w o r l d . The u n d e r l y i n g assumption t h r o u g h o u t T u m a ' s treatise.. 39. The p o o r o f the U n i t y were counselled t o show patience and contentment w i t h their l o t . o r the earlier Czech reformers o r the E n g l i s h m a n . w h o denounced alike war. 3 1 . were exhorted themselves t o make enormous c o n t r i b u t i o n s i n m e n a n d money f o r the defence o f C h r i s t e n d o m . W y c l i f . he demands merely that the lords should observe their agreements a n d fulfil their obligations.'' They were not t o expect assistance as a r i g h t f r o m those better placed materially. cit. w i s h i n g o n l y t o r e f o r m o r eliminate the abuses t h a t had g r o w n u p within it. d i v i s i o n i n t o r i c h and p o o r is accepted as equally n a t u r a l f o r a C h r i s t i a n society as f o r a n o n . o n the other h a n d . comes o u t especially clearly i n the new U n i t y ' s whole attitude to the p r o b l e m o f poverty. ' U n d e r Y o u r Grace. his genuine sympathy w i t h the depressed peasantry whose status i n society was steadily worsening. instead o f p u t t i n g the major p o r t i o n o f their burdens o n 'the p o o r people' i n the f o r m o f a d d i t i o n a l t a x a t i o n and compulsory enlistment f o r m i l i t a r y service. t h a n t o that o f the U n i t y ' s s p i r i t u a l founder. the The princes. social inequality and the whole f r a m e w o r k o f contemporary society.' Sternberk. L u k a s . ' f o r i f ever there was a t i m e since the beginning o f the C h r i s t i a n f a i t h w h e n i t was necessary t o fight against the T u r k s . where 'the future life eternal i n heaven is f u l l o f every delight w i t h o u t any k i n d o f imperfection (beze vsech nedostatk&v). is the recognition o f class divisions a n d inequalities even w i t h i n a C h r i s t i a n society. Chelcicky. he accepts the existing order o f society as compatible w i t h C h r i s t i a n p r i n ciples. p . i t is said. T h e basic acceptance o f the existing society. b u t to show gratitude for any help given. ' b u t to 'serve them f a i t h f u l l y .6 7 . . there are m a n y grievances.T H E NEW UNITY 231 H e was equally unsparing i n his denunciations o f secular lords w h o h a d fallen short i n their role o f protectors o f their people. a n d his championship o f their rights against the oppression o f the landlords. 5 9 . O n the other h a n d . ' 4 8 I n spite o f T u m a ' s zeal for social justice. Ibid. was t o l d quite f r a n k l y : nobles and wealthy o f the r e a l m . nobleman t o w h o m T u m a ' s letter was addressed. n o t r e q u i r i n g m o r e o f their tenants t h a n custom a n d l a w h a d previously p r e s c r i b e d . 49 L i k e his contemporary. i t is n o w .. op. 30. ' 'They were neither t o seek t o be " " P f e l o u c s k y . they were n o t t o 'become flatterers o f the r i c h for the sake o f w h a t they c o u l d get o u t 0 1 t h e m . his p o s i t i o n is i n fact more a k i n t o Stitny's.

. never t o ask f o r assistance unless i t was absolutely necessary and t o make good use o f w h a t they d i d receive i n alms.' The miserly were t o remember. n o r were they t o c o m m i t any sin o n account o f their distress. o n a systematic basis. Instead. ' n o one m a y either receive o r disburse o n his o w n . a n d having indicated what was needed.. n o t the transformation o f society. money o r other material according t o the advice o f the elders.' They were. B u t almsgiving. a second the key a n d a t h i r d the pen o r register. i f this still failed t o move t h e m . . since a l l wealth was only held o n trust f r o m o n h i g h . T h e almoners were t o be f r a n k and sympathetic.' ' A t Easter a n d o n St. n o r t o ask for. 80 The more prosperous Brethren. 'One is to have the coffer. . p p . the orphans.232 THE NEW UNITY unjustly enriched . .2 3 . a n y t h i n g n o t theirs . 'for such often a reminder o f death and future judgement is helpful. b u t o n l y by agreement' w i t h his fellow almoners. ( M o r e detailed advice followed concerning the actual m e t h o d o f dist r i b u t i n g alms. therefore. n o t f r i t t e r i n g i t away i n wasteful expenditure. J o h n the Baptist's day the Brethren i n each congregation are t o be exhorted t o give a l m s . they were t o be industrious and f r u g a l . or take. likewise. The almoners appointed f o r this purpose were t o keep strict account o f every transaction. was n o w the o b l i g a t i o n o f U n i t y members. the widows. were admonished n o t t o give indiscriminately and immoderately (nerozsafni) and t o a v o i d acts o f charity done solely 51 w i t h the a i m o f being taken for great benefactors o f their fellows. .' Those u n w i l l i n g t o give as they should were t o be referred t o various scriptural texts o n the subject a n d . 100.' They were t o 'visit the poor. realizing 'that w h a t they were g i v i n g o u t was n o t theirs but the L o r d ' s . choosing as recipients o f their charity only those w h o really deserved help. " »' Dekrety. t h a t they were sinning against G o d i n refusing assistance t o those i n need. pp. a n d at a given t i m e the almoners must render account t o the elders. 1 2 1 . h a d duties towards their fellow members w h o were less w e l l situated. . and the requisite qualifications f o r such an office were enumerated. the succour o f indigent members. t o o . and pains were taken t o a v o i d any h i n t o f condescension o r o f a p a t r o n i z i n g o r m o r a l i z i n g manner. t o o . ' They were. 122. Brethren. . Ibid. The Brethren who drew up these decrees were p a r t i c u l a r l y concerned t o p u t the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f relief. i Detailed instructions were l a i d d o w n f o r those w h o were entrusted w i t h the task o f caring f o r the funds destined f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n a m o n g the p o o r . ready themselves t o be o f assistance t o o t h e r s . the sick a n d the indigent . they were t o distribute c l o t h i n g . therefore. t o act as careful stewards.

which had appeared fitfully to ChelSicky and the Old Brethren. then at least in influence. A special series of decrees was indeed issued at the very beginning of the sixteenth century. gaming. ' 53 Painting seems to have been condemned on account of its close association with the decoration of Catholic or Utraquist churches.. even if their horizons were still limited to the narrow circle of their co-religionists . Such endowments were to be administered only by lay members. prophesying. juggling. witchcraft. and secular music because of its connection in the villages with the kind of merrymaking frowned on by the Unity which. and to a lesser degree the landowner and the university-trained theologian. "Whatever may be left privily for the poor (tajne na chude) should be placed in the coffer of the whole province. Thereafter. therefore. p..' Should a legacy be left to a Unity priest. presumably since. they might become too involved in mundane affairs. if not in numbers. he was immediately to consult with the elders as to what was to be done with i t . or indeed their material possibilities. had disappeared. the Brethren had abandoned entirely their former social radicalism. since their feeling of group responsibility. . did not extend to the wider community. and it had been the peasantry and the urban proletariat who had filled the ranks of the early Unity and coloured its social thinking until the schism in the nineties. A m o n g those callings forbidden in the decrees were 'dicing. This vision was the creation of a thinker who had identified himself with the lowest strata of society. the Brethren may rightfully be considered among the pioneers of organized social relief. primarily to members of their own congregations. m u s i c . understandably enough. in the methods they adopted for alleviating material distress. pimping. 128. unless there be some immediate case of crying need. fortune-telling. Nevertheless. Si.T H E NEW UNITY 233 A separate decree was enacted regulating the conditions under which legacies might be left for the use of the poor. alchemy. 52 I n their attitude to the problem of economic inequality. T h e organization of charity which they worked out i n such detail applied. Ibid.while the wider vision of a classless society. prostitution. the well-to-do trader and shopkeeper. was a great patron of various forms of church »' M Ibid. regulating the business practices of those Brethren engaged in trade and manufacturing and attempting to define which occupations were permitted to members of the Unity. if the priests were to take responsibility for this task. nevertheless. were to predominate. usury. p. painting.

Honesty i n trade. ' M 57 M i i U e r . . w h i c h people cannot d o w i t h o u t . 4 2 v . ' Listy . when one was sufficient f o r a l i v i n g . i n the tract O 229. the p r o d u c t i o n of articles o f f o o d and d r i n k and c l o t h i n g a n d other necessaries . " c o n t e m p o r a r y . l u x u r y a n d i n j u s t i c e . The list o f allowed professions is m o r e interesting. K o r a n d a . 1912. . commerce or industry were enumerated..B a r t o S . w h i c h might easily lead to l i t i g a t i o n and disputes. 1 2 4 . . then inflating i t i n order t o sell dear. ' 56 was o n purely m o r a l grounds devoid o f a l l social The superiority o f the agriculturalist a n d the simple craftsmen is still clearly emphasized. but the way is n o w left open t o pursue other more lucrative occupation* and for a gradual a m e l i o r a t i o n o f the o l d suspicion towards the g r o w i n g urban economy. 189.2 6 . when they are n o t accompanied by display. significance. was deprecated i n the strongest terms. w i t h the 55 exception o f usury the denunciation o f w h i c h was indeed c o m m o n t o all medieval theology. p. they were t o avoid 'the acquisition o f possessions' i f accompanied by 'scandal o r h u r t ' to others or outbreaks o f anger as a result o f misfortune i n business. was the m a i n content o f the new U n i t y doctrine i n this field. cit. a n d h i s s o m e w h a t o l d e r U t r a q u i s t lichvl ( p r i n t e d i n 1493). unless there was n o other alternative. Avarice. " loc. T h e y include 'farming. a g r i c u l t u r a l and b u i l d i n g crafts. ' O filologicke. C f . Luka§ in h i s Spis o mocy swita.' Brethren must. 54 T H E NEW U N I T Y The c o n d e m n a t i o n o f the r e m a i n i n g occupations. Dekrety. X X X I V . fishing. p p .' and 'avaricious desire is the r o o t o f all evil. . spisech 228. not strive to add 'one trade to another. fair business practice. secondly. pp. 4 2 .234 music. Avarice was defined as ' a n uncontrolled and insatiable lust f o r wealth. T h i r d l y . op. unrighteousness. A f o u r t h sign o f an avaricious attitude lay i n the practice o f depreciating the value o f goods i n order t o buy cheap. V a c l a v a K o r a n d y m l a d S i h o z N o v e P I z n g . the desire to enrich oneself at the expense o f j u s t dealing a n d the welfare o f one's neighbours. its immoderate increase. adornment.. cit. Ibid. ' n o r change f r o m a useful occupation to one less beneficial to the c o m m u n i t y . The final 'medicine against avarice' f o r use against any o f the Brethren w h o continued i n such practices after all milder remedies had failed. . First came 'the covetous acquisition o f wealth w i t h the omission o f things needful for salvation.' Its signs a m o n g those w h o carried o n trade. and excessive preoccupation w i t h business. was t o be expulsion f r o m the U n i t y as an example to show 'that we a l l o w n o place amongst us t o such blatant e v i l . K r o f t a . fols.

ar. f o r the sake o f peace he may give way to her." T i . T i t y m c r ^ w .. # / ( / : A „ .rrr. 125. . j i fiorrs vj^r. • » ~ '~~~: ' ^ '"- +'jr<&y • .---=d ±tt p r o d u c t i o n o f fashionable ga.<. a n d she.T ^ V . . 128.. e x p l a i n i n g to t h e i r neighbours that such was n o t the custom o f their sect.u s e anyone m a t e r i a l loss ] C & U m a t e t^Tl7ZT^ *" B e ^ h r e n T * ^ ' h e r b U S < * Awards did h o w v * itself.2 8 . ^ > u u ^ f / / v u „ . -///^VM * * u /w/. A c c o r d i n g t o a decree o f 1506 concerning 'measure i n the t a k i n g o f f o o d a n d d r i n k . p p . g ^ i'r. a n d lend t o . . Indeed.« » h / a r c .<: / a i. keep out o f the way himself. i f he wants. But 60 the existence o f class distinctions even a m o n g the B r e t h r e n was here once again given official recognition. ' 'the requirements o f one's class (potreba slavu)' were a m o n g the factors w h i c h were to be taken i n t o account i n governing the standards o f behaviour t o be observed " " " Ibid. to tv. feasting. feasting a n d carousing a n d l u x u r i o u s l i v i n g i n general.. Ibid. d recreation o f the people. w h o is n o t at one w i t h h i m i n her t h i n k ing. 129.d e r j i s I D " s u t t o n y . w i s h i n g t o i n v i t e friends [i. the p o o r . " A ^ p r o d ^ l of °> J o r c StndS lV /S o f t h e . Brethren were neither t o attend c o u n t r y wakes (posviceni) n o r t o a l l o w t h e i r households to d o so n o r to h o l d them t h e m selves. p. .. Fairs a n d markets were also to be avoided whenever possible. w h i l e he can.. 9 6 . even after the schism the U n i t y f o r l o n g retained m u c h o f its earlier suspicion o f a l l f o r m s o f activity connected w i t h the amusement..' wen. p r o v i d e d she conducts things decently. 1 2 6 . associated as these usually were w i t h d r u n k e n ness a n d coarse h u m o u r .riU of w ^ o ' i c t out or altogei'aer.e. drunkenness a n d lechery. attendance at p o p u l a r entertainments a n d j u n k e t i n g s were f o r b i d d e n to members o f the U n i t y . w i l l n o t hear o f a n y t h i n g else. p p . ' B u t i f a B r o t h e r has a wife."'' luxurious o r delicate Jr In^^lu^ * * r e t o attend t o their o w n for. v . „ % x . n i ^ or (hose i„ " " ^ ' ^ " ' " M » » * " ' f"" ^ " > " r " by .' Heavy d r i n k i n g .THE NEW UNITY 235 But even when b o t h the o W * <• •„• . • • • n o r were they t o waste S. t e n d e n unfair practices were absent . especially i f held on a S u n d a y . for such a purpose].^"*--' > s > i 2 J in trvif. l n the same decree thp • • * ^ ' r n e S S ' n d c " • They should n o t holH a ' ° S h i . Ibid. r ' . *f/j f t * i s . 9 0 . d c m i " 1 » « > ..

w h o was also a member o f the U n i t y . b u t w h a t w o u l d to-day be k n o w n as the intelligentsia was n o w also more numerously and securely represented i n the ranks o f the Brethren.. n o t t o lie n o r take oaths. b u t must be b r o u g h t w i t h effort and danger. Innkeeping a n d brewing. f o r instance. is however m o r e tolerable. w h i c h demands l i t t l e o r n o effort is unsuitable. . 81 T H E NEW UNITY A n o b l e m a n o r rich burgher. L o c a l trade . t o have correct (spravedlive) weights and measures. " " Ibid. . however. I t was j u s t f r o m such forms o f commerce t h a t 'traders eat and d r i n k a n d lodge well.. . the U n i t y still c o n t i n u e d t o regard higher education w i t h considerable suspicion. as has been seen. The former. so l o n g as they d i d n o t sell t o t h e m ' o n t i c k (na Fad neddvalty o r themselves become 'servants o f drunkenness' or i n any way give encouragement to evil and disorder.' B u t necessary a n d useful commerce w h i c h is the result o f l a b o u r . . a l t h o u g h dangerous. They were t o sell wholesale by the barrel rather than carry o n retail t r a d e . i t is true. n o r t o buy falsely. n o t t o oppress the righteous. . o r i n i r o n o r other necessities. [Traders] are t o be admonished n o t t o seek excessive o r q u i c k returns i n the acquisition o f wealth. . . ' A l l commerce is dangerous [says the decree o n the subject] i t is better t o be clear o f i t i f one can find another way o f earning a l i v i n g . i n salt.236 i n this respect. one o f the counts made against their opponents b y the leaders o f the M i n o r Party. T h e i n j u n c t i o n n o t t o s w e a r w a s p r e s u m a b l y g i v e n o n the u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t o a t h s w e r e a l l o w a b l e w i t h i n the c o n d i t i o n s l a i d d o w n e l s e w h e r e . 131. . . assiduously propagated by its enemies. t h a t the U n i t y consisted entirely o f semi-illiterate artisans or rustics was o f course quite erroneous. this overt recognition by the M a j o r Party o f a banned occupation was. p p . were n o w given qualified a p p r o v a l . b u t university trained men were t o come more and more t o h o l d leading positions i n i t . 130. was n o t n o w expected to c o n f o r m t o the same m o dest standard o f l i v i n g as his Brother f r o m the peasantry o r artisan class. Ibid. b u t this. only permitted i t t o U n i t y members i f they had n o other means o f gaining a l i v e l i h o o d . 82 N o t o n l y were traders and tradesmen given a recognized place w i t h i n the U n i t y . . p. was allowed ' t o travellers i n need' o f refreshment o r t o their neighbours i n their o w n homes. ' especially w h e n the articles traded were m a i n l y l u x u r y items. . w h i c h h a d been f r o w n e d u p o n i n the days o f the O l d Brethren. A f t e r the schism the same type o f qualified recognition was granted also t o commerce i n general. Even after the schism. . therefore. to shun drunkenness a n d other w i c k e d nesses w h i l e j o u r n e y i n g . Indeed. the c o m m o n n o t i o n . l i v i n g i n idleness. t o o . a n d suffer losses patiently and n o t inflict them o n others o n the w a y . 8 9 . w h i c h are n o t t o be f o u n d l o c a l l y i n the province.

THE NEW

UNITY

237

There was at first, however, little contact w i t h the new h u m a n i s m w h i c h was m a k i n g its influence felt i n the c u l t u r a l life o f the c o u n t r y . The i n t e l lectuals o f the U n i t y such as L u k a s , for example, l o o k e d inside the U n i t y for the source a n d i n s p i r a t i o n o f their ideas. Certain humanist writers none the less, such as R e h o f H r u b y o f J e l e n i
63

o r M . V i k t o r i n K o r n e l and

later the great Erasmus, adopted a friendly p o s i t i o n towards the B r e t h r e n ; a n d i n one respect, i n their attitude towards the education o f w o m e n , the latter were more advanced t h a n most contemporary Czech humanists. I n the history o f p r i n t i n g i n the Czech lands, too, the Brethren played a notable part f r o m the beginning o f the sixteenth century. I n 1503 the U n i t y set u p its first p r i n t i n g press o n Bohus Kostka's estate at L i t o m y s l ; a n d d u r i n g the first quarter o f the sixteenth century nearly a t h i r d o f all the books p r i n t e d i n the Czech lands were produced at one o r another U n i t y press. E d u c a t i o n at a l l levels remained o n a strictly practical basis; the teachi n g o f L a t i n , for instance, was n o t considered necessary either f o r the l a y m a n o r candidates f o r the priesthood. Even L u k a s , t h o u g h himself of popular education, well acquainted w i t h L a t i n and, t h r o u g h the various catechisms and h y m n books w h i c h he compiled, a great p r o m o t o r adopted o n the whole a conservative p o s i t i o n i n regard to education, defending the U n i t y i n the 1520's against L u t h e r ' s chidings o n account o f the general ignorance shown b y its priests o f the L a t i n , Greek and H e b r e w tongues.
44

The w o r k s o f the c h u r c h fathers and doctors, says one o f the

decrees f o r instance, t h o u g h they m i g h t sometimes be read w i t h p r o f i t , were n o t t o be placed o n a level w i t h the Bible, w h i c h alone was t o be the touchstone o f a l l conduct. Care was t o be taken, the decree went o n
8 8

somewhat smugly, especially w i t h more recent writings such as those o f T h o m a s A q u i n a s , to distinguish the true f r o m the false i n t h e m . But even so, the U n i t y had o f course m o v e d far f r o m the o r i g i n a l attitude o f ChelCicky and its founders o r f r o m the negative p o s i t i o n still taken b y the M i n o r Party. A p a r t f r o m a g r o w i n g n u m b e r o f educated Brethren f r o m the ranks o f the n o b i l i t y o r the richer burgher families, the priesthood o f the U n i t y f o r m e d its m a i n intellectual class. The o b l i g a t i o n encumbent o n every priest o f w o r k i n g w i t h his hands still remained i n force. 'Those w h o are active a n d strong [says one o f the decrees] should undertake m a n u a l w o r k

4 4

F o r s i m i l a r i t i e s o f v i e w b e t w e e n H r u b y a n d t h e U n i t y , see H r e j s a , Dijiny v Ceskoslovensku, pp. 59, 60. I V , p. 182. bratrskd a vySSi vzdildni, pp. 34-46. U r b A n e k , Jednota Dekrety,

kfest'-

anstvi "

238

THE NEW

UNITY

t o a v o i d idleness and indifference or as a relaxation.' B u t this was to be done ' w i t h o u t detriment t o their office'; m a n u a l w o r k , therefore, was to be performed rather as an example to others t h a n as the chief means o f gaining a l i v e l i h o o d . Trade a n d the medical profession were altogether f o r b i d d e n t o U n i t y priests. They were n o t t o accumulate money or possessions 'above their need': f o r a l l legitimate purposes these w o u l d be p r o v i d e d f o r t h e m by their congregations. They were i n theory t o continue to h o l d a l l things i n c o m m o n after the m o d e l o f the p r i m i t i v e Christian c o m m u n i t y , as they had done f r o m the f o u n d a t i o n o f the U n i t y , and t o l i m i t their needs t o the bare necessities o f life. I n this way, unencumbered w i t h the things o f this w o r l d , they w o u l d be the more ready t o suffer persecution and, i f necessary, death itself. A t first, t o o , priests o f the U n i t y had been celibate, b u t i n 1498 their marriage was expressly allowed. This h a d opened the way f o r a watering d o w n o f the o l d principle o f c o m m u n i t y o f goods a m o n g the clergy a n d o f the strict observance a m o n g t h e m o f apostolic poverty. T o the question: ' S h o u l d priests save money?' - a positive answer was n o w given. I f they can save a n y t h i n g f r o m their earnings they m a y do so a n d , likewise, i f they are left a n y t h i n g b y friends. B u t single men, especially w h e n any o f t h e m should have acquired money t h r o u g h service and faithful l a b o u r , are n o t t o leave a n y t h i n g except t o their helpers i n the w o r k a m o n g their fellow Brethren [i.e. fellow priests], unless they get permission t o d o otherwise.
88

T h e acquisition o f special c o m m u n i t y houses, c o n t a i n i n g under one r o o f rooms f o r religious services and f o r a t r a i n i n g school f o r candidates f o r the priesthood as well as accomodation f o r the priest himself a n d his assistants, m a r k e d a further stage i n the a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f the life o f the U n i t y priest t o t h a t o f his Catholic and U t r a q u i s t counterparts. These houses were usually presented t o the U n i t y by sympathetic l a n d o w n e r s ; the first o f a number o f such donations was made at T o v a c o v a n d M l a d a Boleslav i n 1496 by A d a m o f C i m b u r k . The earlier U n i t y ideal o f the wandering priest w i t h o u t any fixed h a b i t a t i o n , m o v i n g r o u n d among the f a i t h f u l and preaching the gospel t o all w h o w o u l d hear, the ideal w h i c h the M i n o r Party still clung t o , had given way t o a more r i g i d church organization. I n the rules for the priest's office, issued i n 1501 under the title Rdd ci agenda tykajici se ordinovdni ci fizeni knezi bratrskych, i t was l a i d d o w n t h a t a priest 'may n o t visit other provinces or congregations f o r the purpose o f preaching o r pastoral w o r k
" Ibid., p p . 54, 56, 57, 100, 1 0 1 ; G o l l - K r o f t a , op. cit., p p . 1 8 9 - 9 1 .

T H E NEW U N I T Y

239

(k zprävS) w i t h o u t permission f r o m the elders o r the a d m i n i s t r a t o r (zprävce) o f t h a t province where his assistance may be needed.'
97

Never-

theless the unendowed, ' p o o r ' priest still remained the U n i t y ideal even after the schism, when the severity o f the rule o f poverty was to some extent relaxed. A s Lukas w r o t e : [ G o d ] has n o t attached p r o p e r t y a n d maintenance t o the offices o f the U n i t y , so t h a t i n this way they should n o t be sought after a n d the d e v i l worshipped i n t h e m ; b u t H e has given spiritual poverty, so t h a t [priests] may take the scriptures as their guide, . . . seeking n o t the glory o f the world, but living humbly and patiently.
98

I n the decrees, then, the o r d i n a r y Brother or Sister m i g h t find for his o r her use a detailed code o f social behaviour. There were specific regulations f o r members o f each section o f the social hierarchy f r o m noble and ruler t o serf peasant. There were regulations, t o o , to instruct members how they should react to the various demands society m i g h t m a k e o n t h e m . However, the C a t h o l i c h i s t o r i a n , Gindely, was n o t far f r o m the t r u t h when he w r o t e o f these decrees that i n regard t o their social teaching: 'Sie sagen a m Ende gar nichts, was n i c h t schon längst die K i r c h e i h r e n Gläubigen gesagt h a t t e . '
69

The new U n i t y no Ionger rejected the state power w i t h its concomitants o f lawcourts a n d oaths, punishments a n d w a r s ; i t n o longer regarded the social order, w i t h its class distinctions a n d division i n t o r i c h a n d p o o r , as i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the C h r i s t i a n f a i t h ; i t no longer viewed the u r b a n way o f life, trade a n d commerce and b o o k learning, w i t h as deep a suspicion as before. Chelcicky's vaguely c o m m u n i s t i c dream o f a classless, n o n violent federation o f peasant communities had given place t o a qualified acceptance o f the existing structure o f society, w i t h the emphasis o n the virtues o f honest dealing a n d t h r i f t i n business relations, integrity a n d justice i n p u b l i c service, respect f o r the established a u t h o r i t y , a charitable spirit towards the p o o r a n d the u n f o r t u n a t e , and simple piety i n private life.
*'
7 0

T h e century a n d a quarter w h i c h remained before the U n i t y ' s
cirkevni v Cechäch, p p . 4 7 6 - 7 9 ; G o l l - K r o f t a , o n the g r o u n d s loc. cit. I n his O

W i n t e r , Zivot fols.

obnoveni, church.* " " "

122v,

123, LukäS m e n t i o n s the refusal b y the U n i t y o f a n offer o f a that t h i s w o u l d ' c o r r u p t the '

v i l l a g e for t h e L i t o m y S l c o n g r e g a t i o n

G o l l - K r o f t a , op. cit., p. 191, q u o t i n g t h i s passage, d a t e s the r e f u s a l to the

p e r i o d before the s c h i s m , w h e n J a n K o s t k a w a s l o r d o f L i t o m y J l . ' O o b n o v e n i , * f o l . 123v. G i n d e l y , Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, I , p. 8 5 .

C f . T r o e l t s c h ' s p e n e t r a t i n g r e m a r k s a b o u t the t w o m a i n d i v i s i o n s i n C h r i s t i a n

s o c i a l t h i n k i n g i n a n c i e n t a n d m e d i e v a l t i m e s : ' C h r i s t i a n i t y s e e m s to influence s o c i a l life i n t w o w a y s : E i t h e r , o n the o n e h a n d , it d e v e l o p s a n i d e a l i s t i c a n a r c h i s m a n d t h e c o m m u n i s m o f l o v e , w h i c h c o m b i n e s r a d i c a l indifference o r h o s t i l i t y t o w a r d s the rest o f

240

THE NEW

UNITY

suppression after the Battle o f the W h i t e M o u n t a i n was t o see the almost complete integration o f its social ethos w i t h that o f the rest o f the community.

the s o c i a l o r d e r w i t h the effort t o a c t u a l i z e t h i s i d e a l o f l o v e i n a s m a l l g r o u p ; o r , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , it d e v e l o p s a l o n g s o c i a l - c o n s e r v a t i v e l i n e s i n t o a n a t t i t u d e o f s u b m i s s i o n t o G o d a n d H i s W i l l , s o far a s the w o r l d is c o n c e r n e d , c o m b i n e d w i t h a s t r o n g i n d e p e n d e n c e o f a n o r g a n i z e d c o m m u n i t y w h i c h m a n a g e s its o w n affairs, w h i c h , a s its r a n g e o f influence i n c r e a s e s , finds t h a t i t c a n n o t i g n o r e s e c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s , but that i t m u s t d o its u t m o s t to u t i l i z e t h e m for its o w n p u r p o s e s . T h e first i d e a l is the s o u r c e o f e v e r r e n e w e d r a d i c a l s o c i a l p l a n s for s m a l l e r o r l a r g e r g r o u p s o f p e o p l e , w h i l e the s e c o n d i d e a l p r o d u c e s the c o n s e r v a t i v e p r i n c i p l e s o f p a t i e n c e a n d suffering w i t h i n the w o r l d , w h o s e o r d i n a n c e s a r e p e r m i t t e d b y G o d , w h o s e possibilities C h r i s t i a n s u s e for t h e i r o w n e n d s , a n d w h o s e c o n t i n u a n c e t h e y e n d u r e , b e c a u s e i n w a r d l y t h e y a r e unaffected b y them.' The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, I , p. 8 2 . T h e s c h i s m i n t h e U n i t y o f B r e t h r e n w a s i n fact a n e x a m p l e o f a t r a n s i t i o n t a k i n g p l a c e w i t h i n a C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y f r o m the first w a y o f t h o u g h t to the s e c o n d .

VIII

THE DECLINE OF THE OLD

DOCTRINES

W i t h its establishment at the beginning o f the new century o f a separate priestly order the M i n o r Party had b r o k e n once and f o r a l l w i t h the victorious m a j o r i t y i n the U n i t y . I t continued t o exist i n obscurity f o r almost another h a l f century, b u t i t ceased to have any influence o n the further e v o l u t i o n o f the U n i t y o r t o play a significant role i n the religious life o f Bohemia and M o r a v i a . W i t h the final disappearance o f the M i n o r Party i n the m i d d l e o f the sixteenth century, the social radicalism w h i c h the U n i t y h a d represented f o r almost h a l f a century disappeared f r o m the p o l i t i c a l t h i n k i n g o f the Czech people. too A few comparatively

u n i m p o r t a n t remnants o f this earlier radicalism, however, lingered o n i n the theory and practice o f the reformed U n i t y r i g h t u p t o its final suppression i n the years immediately f o l l o w i n g the n a t i o n a l disaster o f the W h i t e M o u n t a i n . Thereafter, u n t i l the reawakening o f n a t i o n a l consciousness d u r i n g the nineteenth century, the earlier p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines o f the U n i t y o f Czech Brethren, as w e l l as the teachings o f their spiritual founder, Petr Chelcicky, were relegated t o almost oblivion. complete

I

W i t h Jakub's r e t u r n to the U n i t y as a result o f his unwillingness to see the schism b r o u g h t t o c o m p l e t i o n by a f o r m a l separation f r o m the m a i n b o d y , the leadership o f the M i n o r Party f r o m 1500 onwards passed to the m o r e resolute A m o s , whose followers o n t h a t account were usually d u b b e d 'Amosites' by their opponents.
1

1

Very l i t t l e is k n o w n , however, o f the

T h e M a j o r P a r t y , r e g a r d i n g the s c h i s m a s d u e s o l e l y t o the o b s t i n a c y a n d p e r s o n a l F o r a r e a s o n e d defence o f s u c h a n o m e n c l a t u r e , see K r a s o n i c k y , ' P s a n i

a m b i t i o n s o f t h e i r r i v a l s , a l s o f r e q u e n t l y referred to the M i n o r P a r t y a s 'the s c h i s m a t i c s (odtrienci).' p r o t i K a l e n c o w i o p u o w o d u o d t r i e n c u w , ' fols. 3 5 6 , 356v.

' C.270. I t evidently had sympathizers scattered t h r o u g h o u t Bohemia a n d M o r a v i a . never large. p. T h e four new bishops T u m a Pfelouisky. 100. H r e j s a . X X I X . is well b r o u g h t o u t by K r a s o n i c k y when he writes t h a t i t was the a i m o f its leaders to 'inveigle the c o m m o n people i n t o i t i n order to be ministers and teachers over t h e m . 'a good L a t i n scholar. 2 A m o s ' s decision to separate was p r o b a b l y precipitated by the election i n 1500 o f f o u r new bishops o f the U n i t y . t h a t the M i n o r Party seems t o have been strongly represented. fol. new to the body. a l l decided opponents o f the o l d doctrines. i n the c o u n t r y a r o u n d Prachen and K l a t o v where religious radicalism h a d always been influential.K r o f t a . 150. 12. the f o r m e r priest o f the Mikuldienti. 173. N o n e o f the U n i t y priests had j o i n e d the M i n o r P a r t y . and LukaS. Dejiny fols. lOOv. elected b y the M a j o r P a r t y i n 1500 w e r e : EliaS Chfenovick^. p. indeed. proti odtriencom. and i t is n o t k n o w n i n w h a t manner A m o s and several more o f his followers received their o r d i n a t i o n . w h i c h lasted u n t i l A m o s ' s death a b o u t 1522. Odpis stoleti. to take the place o f Matej w h o h a d died at the beginning o f that year.. C. 4 9 ( q u o t e d i n krest'anstvi p p . K r a s o n i c k y . fol. Jednota bratrskd a vyifi vzdll&ni.' n o member o f the M i n o r Party appears t o have possessed m u c h education. suggests that o r d i n a t i o n m a y h a v e b e e n o b t a i n e d either o r from C v i l d a . ' O obnoveni. Chelckky v Ceskoslovensku. tit. H. 356v. 1923. * 5 O d l o z i l i k . op. the sources give n o i n d i c a t i o n o f the numerical 3 strength o f the M i n o r Party at any stage o f its existence.B a r t o S . T h e character o f the M i n o r Party as a proletarian movement. v XV. 23.. Likewise. as w e l l as by their l o y a l t y t o the t r a d i t i o n a l principles o f the U n i t y . pp. Ambroi Skutecsky.' Jednoty a Jednota bratrske. I t s temporary resuscitation b y Jan Kalenec d u r i n g the m i d 1520's resulted f r o m the efforts o f one w h o was. 2 1 7 ) . * . * * M u l l e r . 4 B u t . G o l l . U r b a n e k . A t first quite a n u m b e r o f e n q u i r i n g spirits b o t h w i t h i n a n d outside the U n i t y m a y have been attracted towards the rebels by their u n c o m p r o m i s i n g sincerity. p. ' J e d n o t a b r a t f i H a b r o v a n s k y c h . I V . b u t apart f r o m Prague i t was o n l y i n south Bohemia. must have decreased over the t w o f o l l o w i n g decades.242 THE D E C L I N E O F THE O L D DOCTRINES history o f the M i n o r Party d u r i n g this p e r i o d . Dijlny LukaS. its numbers. 2 0 5 . indeed. f r o m P a v e l . as one o f the last expressions i n the Czech lands o f the expiring t r a d i t i o n o f social radicalism. u n t i l by the t i m e o f A m o s ' s death the t i n y sect showed l i t t l e signs o f life. This. I . comes o u t clearly i n those o f their polemical tracts w h i c h they composed w i t h o u t outside help. ' 5 W i t h the exception o f a certain 6 Izaias u pana Jastrebskeho. the home c o u n t r y o f A m o s and J a k u b . as the lack o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n the sources concerning any widespread activity o n the p a r t o f the M i n o r Party w o u l d seem t o indicate.

2 0 5 . p p . the k i n g 'ordered a l l Brethren o n his lands and o n lands mortgaged to such nobles as [ K r i s t o f o f ] Svamberk t o be b u r n t .B a r t o S . a n d likewise he wrote t o t h e Prague masters a n d t o t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r t o tell a l l their priests h o w [the Brethren] should be dealt w i t h . i n 1503 the leaders o f the M i n o r Party wrote a private m e m o r a n d u m t o K i n g Vladislav. 2 1 6 . cit. stoutly denied the least t a i n t o f d i s l o y a l t y . a n d t o the towns o f his k i n g d o m he w r o t e t o order them t o unseat [the Brethren] f r o m office a n d expel t h e m .' T h e n . f o l . op. 359v. 7 T h e U n i t y . fols. I t is p r o b a b l y true t h a t the M i n o r Party presented some k i n d o f document t o the k i n g . p. 3 6 0 . i n alluding to this incident.T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES 243 A t first the dissidents caused the U n i t y considerable trouble. A year later a second incident occurred w h i c h . w h o .. w r i t e s : ' T h e B r e t h r e n . ' I t i s n o t c l e a r e x a c t l y t o w h a t d o c u m e n t L u k a S i s referring here. cannot be accepted w i t h o u t reservation. * fols. 8 Cf.. however. o r the sole o r even the m a i n cause o f the renewal o f persecution against the U n i t y . we w i l l l o o k to i t t h a t t h a t does n o t come to pass. was u n doubtedly i n p a r t intended t o refute any such suggestions. ' A s a result o f the renewed persecution. t h o u g h w i t h o u t i m m e diately dangerous consequences. m i s i n t e r p r e t s t h e attitude o f the t w o parties i n the U n i t y t o the n o b i l i t y . h a v i n g a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t i t w a s f r o m the m e m o r i a l fpf the M i n o r P a r t y ] t h a t t h e i r t r o u b l e s arose. d r e w u p a s t a t e m e n t (podet vydavajice) c o n c e r n i n g the c i v i l p o w e r a s to w h a t they h o l d a n d t h i n k o n t h e basis o f the h o l y s c r i p t u r e s . i n face o f the lack o f evidence f r o m any other source. t h o u g h i t d i d n o t deal specifically w i t h the question o f c i v i l a u t h o r i t y . f r o m their opponents' abandonment o f t h e i r previous negative a t t i t u d e t o c i v i l a u t h o r i t y . K r a s o n i c k y ... a n d o f h a v i n g changed their doctrine concerning 'the exercise o f the c i v i l power w i t h a l l its laws and punishments' expressly f o r this purpose. p p . i n w h i c h perhaps they p o i n t e d o u t the evils arising. ' L u k a S i n h i s Spis o mocy loc. C f . cit. Macek. 5 7 v . p. cit. M u l l e r . 9 O n the other h a n d . hnuti. the account given b y the M a j o r Party. a n d 8 the Oratio excusatoria w h i c h i t sent t o the k i n g i n the same year.' B u t that i t was a case o f conscious delation t o the authorities. op. Husitski revoluini swita. O n hearing o f this the k i n g was said t o have burst o u t a n g r i l y : 'So n o w they wish t o act l i k e Tilka (zizkovati). . 175. Spis o mocy swita. C f . 2 0 7 . showed that.. 4 . accusing their opponents o f the M a j o r Party o f treasonable designs against the c r o w n . op. A c c o r d i n g t o L u k a s and K r a s o n i c k y . op. This i n f o r m a t i o n may have served t o inflame the anger o f the k i n g against the hated 'Picards. i n N o v e m b e r six B r e t h r e n were b u r n t by the L o r d o f Svamberk i n his t o w n o f B o r (near Plzen). G o l l . cit. ' O d p o w S d n a s p i s K a l e n c u o . says K r a s o n i c k y w h o gives most detail i n his account o f the incident. 2 1 1 . 1 5 . cit.K r o f t a . i n their o p i n i o n . 2 0 8 . 2 1 5 . M u l l e r . even i n the minds o f the 7 L u k a S . is n o t proven.B a r t o S .

t h o u g h once again the a m o u n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h has survived is scanty. a n d the nature o f the schism w h i c h had taken place. pp. where he talked w i t h B r o t h e r L u k a s . rector o f the famous T y n C h r u c h i n Prague a n d a great admirer o f L u t h e r . Kalenec. Jan Bechynka. Rukovit 1 1 literatury ceske. a n d then went o n to give r o u g h l y the same version o f recent events as can be f o u n d i n the other w r i t i n g s o f the M a j o r P a r t y . the L a d y herself sent a detailed reply to Bechynka. A t some unspecified date he came i n t o contact w i t h the U n i t y .' a n d ' i n reading i t [he tells the L a d y Krescencia] y o u w i l l be able t o discover what sort o f people they are a n d w h a t they are a i m i n g a t . A f t e r Amos's death the leadership passed to Kalenec. fol. 6 8 . lease o f life. pp. historicky. sent a copy o f the Report o n the conference o f Chlumec (1496) composed by the M i n o r Party t o the L a d y Krescencia Z m r z l i k o v a . is n o t free f r o m the p r o b a b l y w i l f u l confusion w h i c h m a r k e d the priest's o r i g i n a l letter. Jan Poduska. 11 A f t e r these t w o isolated incidents at the very beginning o f the century the M i n o r Party v i r t u a l l y disappears f r o m view. u n t i l i n the early twenties Kalenec's activities gave i t a new. I V ( O p i s ) . i n order to convince her o f the wickedness a n d errors o f her sect. 55. ' Casopis k dijindm A k t a J e d n o t y B r a t r s k i .244 T H E D E C L I N E OF THE OLD DOCTRINES well-informed. . see J i r e c e k . the tenets o f the t w o r i v a l sections o f the U n i t y . i f brief. a Prague cutler. F o r B e c h y n k a . a member o f the M a j o r Party i n the U n i t y a n d one o f its most powerful patrons. however. H e r answer. a n d a clear i n d i c a t i o n also t h a t after a few years the M i n o r Party must have fallen i n t o a state o f semi-inactivity. H e describes the R e p o r t as 'their treatise w r i t t e n by their o w n h a n d against themselves. 6 1 . D u r i n g the intervening p e r i o d writers such as Lukas devote little attention to the M i n o r P a r t y o r a refutation o f its doctrines: a sure sign that i t was n o longer considered a menace t o the security o f the U n i t y or the maintenance a m o n g its members o f a positive attitude to the state a n d the demands o f contemporary society. ' 1 0 A n g r y at the use Krescencia made by an outsider o f the charges b r o u g h t against the M a j o r Party by their opponents d u r i n g the recent controversy. n o . were n o t clearly comprehended. 54. a famous U t r a q u i s t preacher a n d an ardent defender o f his d e n o m i n a t i o n against b o t h Catholics and Brethren. She first denied altogether the existence o f any schism o r even o f any division o f o p i n i o n w i t h i n the U n i t y . w i t h whose name the revival o f the M i n o r Party is associated. I . 2. h a d been b o r n a member o f the U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h a n d at first was a f o l l o w er o f the p r o m i n e n t neo-Utraquist preacher. visiting their c o n gregations at Brandys a n d Boleslav. 3 5 1 . B u t his independent spirit was unable to find spiritual satisfaction amongst 1 0 ' P s a n i j a k e h o s knfeze J a n a A p p o l i n a r s k d h o . 1882.

as K r a s o n i c k y expressed i t . as a result o f a short-lived conservative U t r a q u i s t reaction under Havel Cahera. p p . The meetings w h i c h i t held na Oujezde. a n d M i k u l a s V f e t a n a f w h o w a s b u r n t i n P r a g u e i n 1526.3 0 0 . a n d he was assisted as before i n this task by his contemporary K r a s o n i c k y . 2 7 0 . branded o n the face a n d . c o m b i n e d w i t h the lack o f restraint usual i n most contemporary polemical literature t o give " " ' O d p o w f i d n a spis K a l e n c u o . as well as fierce ideological differences. B u t L u k a s . appointed h i m his successor. indeed. C v i l d a w h o figures i n the c o n t r o v e r s i e s o f the 1 4 9 0 ' s . w h o composed tract against Kalenec. was still there to c h a m p i o n the v i e w p o i n t w h i c h h a d prevailed a m o n g the B r e t h r e n .' 15 was left to defend the m i n o r i t y p o s i t i o n alone. so that Kalenec.. Personal antagonism.T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES 245 the Brethren .' V I . 7. cit. p p . M u l l e r . I n the years 1526-27.B a r t o S . expelled f r o m the c a p i t a l . (Lukas. 2 7 1 .1 9 . I V . and others suffered lengthy i m p r i s o n m e n t . Thereafter he settled at Letovice i n M o r a v i a . the aged A m o s . V . 1 3 bestowed priestly orders o n h i m . I n 1524 the Prague g r o u p appears t o have been quite active as a result o f the new impetus given i t by Kalenec. 1 4 ' K r o n i k a p r a z s k a B a r t o S e P i s a f e . ' fol.had n o personal knowledge o f 'the o r i g i n o f these schismatics. where he established a small congregation made u p o f his former disciples a n d those newly converted. Kalenec then returned to Prague where he 1 2 f o u n d a ready welcome there a m o n g the t i n y g r o u p w h i c h had remained f a i t h f u l t o the M i n o r Party. C f . H r e j s a . he.o r possibly a sufficiently p r o m i s i n g field for his desire f o r leadership. ' ) . 3 3 9 . The leader o f the sect. 1 5 K r a s o n i c k y . T h e o t h e r three priests o f the M i n o r P a r t y w e r e : A m o s himself. ' p p . w h i c h had been carried o n w i t h so m u c h bitterness d u r i n g the 1490's. cit. 2 v . op. n o w came to the a t t e n t i o n o f the authorities. d u r i n g this p e r i o d a short O f the leaders o f the M i n o r Party all were either dead o r no longer active. p. op. and the fact that the number o f its adherents was increasing. p p . 2 0 8 . ' P a m S t i o b o u f i p r a z s k d r o k u 1524. cit. n o w an o l d m a n . 14 T h e revival o f the activities o f the M i n o r Party b r o u g h t w i t h i t a renewal o f the controversy w i t h the U n i t y o n the c i v i l power a n d o n oaths. .. afterwards rejoiced ' t h a t such a one k e p t clear o f us and the U n i t y . Iv. a b o u t 1522. the Prague g r o u p appears t o have been finally suppressed: three o f Kalenec's followers.4 2 i n Forties rerum bohemicarum. I n December Kalenec was arrested. t w o w o m e n and a m a n . w h o t o o k p r o m p t action against the g r o u p . after being p u b l i c l y w h i p p e d . M a n y o f the leading protagonists o n each side were dead. 2 9 7 . a m a n w h o . were condemned t o be b u r n t f o r heretical views concerning the L o r d ' s Supper. a n d shortly before his death.

o r i g i n a l l y w r i t t e n i n 1500 and extended and revised i n 1513. fol. First. and Lukas i n p a r t i c u l a r . p p . 14v. ' ' 1 Kalenec then answered Lukas w i t h w h a t the latter calls. w h i c h is against the L a w o f L o v e o r the teachings o f Christ. w h i c h L u k a s says Kalenec composed o n the same subject. filled w i t h his unrighteous notions..7 7 . however. l v . he had completed a fuller rejoinder. replied to Kalenec i n t w o stages. These labours resulted i n a comprehensive w o r k .. d a t i n g r i g h t back t o a b o u t 1493. I n i t [Luka§ goes on] he brazenly condemns all and sundry t o d a m n a t i o n . ' fols. 'a treatise w h i c h he has scurrilously and i n a very unchristian manner. Since the early years o f the century Lukas h a d w r i t t e n l i t t l e o n the subject o f p o l i t i c a l and social theory. and. by the end o f the year. and what is n o t p e r m i s s i b l e . a n d t h a t we have no i n t e n t i o n o f d o i n g so. N o w fearing perhaps t h a t the increased a c t i v i t y o f the M i n o r Party m i g h t undermine the allegiance o f some o f the Brethren or serve t o discredit the U n i t y i n the eyes o f the outside w o r l d . 3 4 0 .B a r t o S . neither o f t h e m any longer extant: 0 pfisaze a stavfch. L u k a s set a b o u t the revision o f t w o earlier treatises o n the subject o f c i v i l power a n d oaths. C f . i n particular against their new leader. w h i c h he issued at M l a d a Boleslav i n January 1524 under the 1 8 M i i U e r . fol. 13v. 16 His object.246 T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E O L D DOCTRINES the controversy the same bitter a n d angry tone i n w h i c h the earlier debate had been conducted. he writes. too. i n the w o r d s o f the title o f the w o r k w h i c h he i n his t u r n composed i n reply to Kalenec. 2 7 5 . o mocy swlta. 65v. K a l e n e c . ' O d p o w S d n a s p i s K a l e n c u o . w i t h o u t any fear o f G o d . w h i c h he completed b y July 1522 a n d had published at the U n i t y press i n M l a d a Boleslav i n February 1523 under the title Spis o mocy svita. indeed. w h i c h he had circulated i n m a n u script. T h e b o o k gives a reasoned apology f o r the U n i t y ' s change o f o p i n i o n a n d its new attitude t o the state a n d its demands. t h o u g h extracts are sometimes quoted by L u k a s i n his w o r k s . a shorter w o r k was published at the U n i t y ' s press at LitomySl i n July 1523 under Lukas's o w n n a m e . was t o show ' t h a t we have n o t p e r m i t t e d a n y t h i n g t o enter i n t o o u r m i d s t . his Psani bratrske o zfizenetn spaseni i o moci sve'tske' tez i o pfisaze i o poSivdni jeji. ktefiz samymi pismy bez zprdvcuo neb knezl zpravovati se chteji. Odpis. Spis Ibid. 1. ' w h a t is allowed b y the L a w o f Love and h o w far. fadich a potfebdch rozlicnych. " 1 8 " . are n o w extant.' t o show. Lukas. ' 18 B u t neither this treatise n o r t w o 19 others. secondly. a n d i n the preface Lukas directs his attack specifically against the Amosites. op. fol. cit. I n 1512 he had composed a treatise against the Amosites entitled Psani proti tern. especially the Brethren.

F o r the w a n d e r i n g s o f the f o l l o w e r s o f S t S p a n a n d t h e i r s e t t l e m e n t i n K l a t o v . 1 0 6 . . 'that the most certain beginning of our gathering Stepan'. see C h a p . and he ends with a section in which he prints a number of decrees (zprdvy) on political and social issues taken from his own writings and the official declarations of the Unity. existed before Brother Rehof .T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES 247 title Odpis proti odtrzencom. 111) t h a t A m o s ' s t r a c t d o e s n o t c o r r e s p o n d i n the m a i n w i t h h i s t o r i c a l t r u t h is m o d i f i e d b y G o l l . cit. L u k a s goes on to give his own version of the events which led up to the schism. T h e first part consists of a detailed refutation of the arguments recently put forward by Kalenec. L u k a s delivered a last broadside against the Minor Party in his treatise on the origins of the Unity. together was at K r o m e r i i with the priest Amos's thesis was. p. " A . fols. fol. the birthplace of the Unity was in fact the south Bohemian province where the Minor Party was strongest. in the second. [and that] " " " Odpis. 5 8 . however. according to G o l l . This tract is divided into three sections.1 1 3 .. which was probably written about 1496 and circulated in manuscript by Kalenec after the latter's death. 22 T h e first section of L u k a s ' s answer was devoted to a detailed refutation of the Minor Party's arguments and a bitter personal attack on Amos himself. B . 7 6 .1 0 9 V . B . w h o c o n s i d e r s t h i s unjustified. 20 Kalenec's expulsion from Prague in the following December seems to have temporarily brought the controversy to an end. fol. J . I I . . 23 Lukas" writes of Amos's tract: T h e schismatics puff themselves up by deriving themselves from [the Klatov Brethren] and by claiming that their lineage . .K r o f t a . . is ancient. tradition. Before they came to any judgement as to the rights and wrongs of the case. J . I n this way the writer of the tract tries to show that another body of Brethren. A . J . A m o s ' s m a i n error. It appears to have reached LukaS's knowledge only several years later. was merely to Unity o v e r e m p h a s i z e the i m p o r t a n c e o f the K l a t o v B r e t h r e n ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the . p. I V . It is i n the form of an answer to an earlier work attributed by L u k a s to Amos. . . Nearly three years later. B . since it was here that the followers of StSpan finally settled and here that they came into contact with Brother Rehof in 1458-59. more sure in their origin. L u k a S ' s v e r d i c t ( A . I V . taking as a basis for his account the treatise he composed against the Amosites in 1521. 1 1 0 . shortly before his death. 21 in other words. 4 v . . L u k a s appealed to those who were acquainted only with Kalenec's version to read carefully first both his original treatise on the civil power and oaths as well as his present reply to K a l e n e c . composed sometime in 1527. briefly. fols. op. I V .

l O v . .c a l l e d ' F r e e Q u a k e r s . t h r o u g h o u t . " . ' a s m a l l s e c t i o n o f the S o c i e t y o f F r i e n d s w h o d e m a n d e d wars. 27 B u t they h a d again revived all their o l d slanders. 2 7 I t is interesting to note t h a t o v e r 2 5 0 y e a r s l a t e r . ' O d p o w e d n a s p i s K a l e n c u o . fol. 1 1 3 v . B . H i r s t . that anyone w h o disagreed w i t h h i m o n the subject o f the c i v i l power o r oaths c o u l d attain s a l v a t i o n . L u k a s a n d K r a s o n i c k ^ . w h o m they were even w i l l i n g t o tolerate w i t h i n the U n i t y provided they ceased their campaign o f abuse. ' l i k e the m u c h e a r l i e r M i n o r P a r t y . too. 1923). 14. according t o Lukas. so that they m i g h t recognize that these people are o f the same spirit as their fathers. T h e s a m e . fol. fols. . * fol. on w h o m A m o s ' s mantle h a d n o w fallen.. f r o m w h o m these lies c a m e . to w h o m . 3 v . rigorist After viewpoint. 25 This second p e r i o d o f controversy between the t w o parties concerning their p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines b r o u g h t l i t t l e to the debate that was original. 1 5 1 . w e are i n d e b t e d i n their c i t a t i o n s f r o m the t r a c t s o f their a d v e r s a r y for w h a t little o f K a l e n e c ' s w r i t i n g s h a s survived from this period. ' O d p o w e d . ' fol. 2 8 A . 26 Lukas still preserved his o u t w a r d l y conciliatory attitude. his p a r t y ' h a d behaved i n a fatherly fashion t o w a r d s ' their opponents. denied. h o w e v e r . says L u k a s i n 1521. 357. F o r this reason the theoretical content o f its literature has already been dealt w i t h i n a previous chapter i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h a discussion o f the earlier polemical literature. ' 28 O n the other h a n d Kalenec. difficult to d o full j u s t i c e to K a l e n e c . K r a s o n i c k y ' s v e r d i c t i n h i s ' P s a n i p r o t i K a l e n c o w i . m a i n t a i n i n g that. w e r e to d i s a p p e a r w i t h i n h a l f a c e n t u r y . I t i s . ' fols. J . 2 . 29 L u k a s . s i n c e s o few f r a g m e n t s o f h i s w r i t i n g s h a v e c o m e d o w n i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the c o p i o u s w o r k s i o f h i s l e a d i n g a n t a g o n i s t s . d u r i n g t h e A m e r i c a n W a r (1775-1783). Neither side was n o w productive o f new ideas. a t t e m p t i n g to discredit their a d v e r s a r i e s w i t h a c c u s a t i o n s o f d i s l o y a l t y t o the state in Peace and War ( L o n d o n . I V . C f . the arguments o f w h i c h i t serves to elucidate and amplify. somewhat tolerance of for Independence s i m i l a r a r g u m e n t s w e r e u s e d b y the s o . i n d e e d . See M a r g a r e t E . t h o s e a c c e p t i n g the right o f self-defence a n d the d u t y o f m i l i t a r y service i n defensive B u t i n t h i s c a s e the o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y o f m e m b e r s h e l d t o the o l d a n d it w a s its o p p o n e n t s who w e r e forced to leave the S o c i e t y . Odpis. m o r e o v e r . 24 L u k a s then went o n t o give his o w n version o f the f o u n d a t i o n o f the U n i t y t o prove t h a t the true succession rested w i t h the m a i n body o f B r e t h r e n . the ' F r e e Q u a k e r s . m i g h t a l s o b e s a i d a b o u t t h o s e o f the M a j o r P a r t y . The Quakers 411-13. accused Kalenec o f inconsistency b o t h for f o l l o w i n g Chelcicky i n his view that c i v i l power was permissible a m o n g pagans — Christ's p r o h i b i t i o n »« " " Ibid. p p . fol. 1 0 . 110.248 T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES o n l y some time later Brother R e h o f j o i n e d t h e m i n K l a t o v a n d u n i t e d with them.1 2 2 v . 'Therefore he was w r i t i n g to w a r n the faithful. a s to the l a c k o f o r i g i n a l i t y i n the a r g u m e n t s u s e d b y K a l e n e c .

writes L u k a S . LukâS. ' p u t t i n g L u t h e r i n the s a m e murderers. 33 32 A s far as is k n o w n . ' C e r t a i n p r o m i n e n t persons [he writes]. have praised [Kalenec's tract] and made use o f i t against the Brethren. ' O u c e n y c h . a n d the suppression o f the t i n y group i n the capital i n 1526-27.T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES 249 being interpreted as extending o n l y to his o w n followers. ' f o l . enemies o f the Brethren. p r o p e r l y o n t h i s subject. A f t e r Kalenec's expulsion f r o m Prague at the end o f 1524 w h e n he settled i n M o r a v i a . Proti " > wsem. b a s t a r d s . 30 B u t at this date i t was n o t so m u c h the opinions t h a t Kalenec p u t forw a r d . bratrskem ' O d p o w e d . however. a n d the disturbances w h i c h ensued u p o n their p r o p a g a t i o n . O p. 2 1 v . b o t h lay and clerical. cit. w h i c h p r o m p t e d Lukâs t o reply w i t h so m u c h v i g o u r and at such length. ' f o l . ' ever actually appeared i n p r i n t . even w i s h i n g t o get i t p r i n t e d . the M i n o r Party was apparently confined solely t o the remnant w h i c h gathered r o u n d their leader i n Letovice. 5 .. K r o f t a . Luther s u p p o r t i n L u t h e r ' s w r i t i n g s for h i s o w n v i e w s a s to the i m p e r m i s s i b i l i t y o f C h r i s t i a n participation in warfare.' 3 1 i t was rather the use t h a t m i g h t be made o f Kalenec's attacks by the enemies o f the U n i t y . were such 'as were never before heard o f i n Christendom. . G o l l . K r a s o n i c k y . gave few signs o f life u n t i l the early forties. 2 v . fol. that p r o v i d e d the chief motive f o r h i m to take u p his pen once again i n defence o f the U n i t y ' s new p o s i t i o n . op. h e w o u l d p r o b a b l y ' i n v e i g h m o r e e v e n a g a i n s t h i m t h a n a g a i n s t m e . etc.K r o f t a . p u b l i c o p i n i o n and its o w n members. w h o m i g h t continue t o live under the protection o f pagan rulers so l o n g as they themselves d i d n o t collaborate actively w i t h the s t a t e — a n d for a l l o w i n g the t a k i n g o f oaths i n spiritual matters unconnected w i t h the machinery o f state and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . s i n c e e l s e w h e r e h i s rejection o f o a t h s a p p e a r s to be a b s o l u t e . a l s o c o u n t e r s K a l e n e c ' s a t t e m p t t o find K a l e n e c . fols. ' T h e reference t o K a l e n e c ' s qualified a p p r o v a l o f c e r t a i n k i n d s o f o a t h s is n o t at a l l c l e a r . a n d d e p r i v i n g h i m o f e v e r y v i r t u e a s w e l l a s o f s a l v a t i o n . 1 8 . 2. 2 8 . "• M Spis o mocy swita. 5 8 . false p r o p h e t s . 56v. w h i c h goes by the name O ucenych. i n order t o prove that such 'learned' men had played a p r o m i n e n t p a r t i n the U n i t y f r o m the b e g i n n i n g . eager t o seize every o p p o r t u n i t y t o discredit i t i n the eyes o f the authorities. fol. 4 1 v . A l t h o u g h the latter w i t h considerable exaggeration alleged that the views o f the M i n o r Party. however.. ibid. " dejepisectvi. w r i t t e n i n Odpis. B u t they and their attacks o n the 'learned' persons w h o m they considered had c o r r u p t e d the U n i t y were still considered i m p o r t a n t enough f o r K r a s o n i c k y a b o u t 1530 t o compose a special treatise. 2 . h a d obviously never read category as 'hangmen. I f h e h a d . p.. n o w o r k by a member o f the M i n o r Party The Letovice g r o u p . I n 1542 Kalenec issued an open letter.

Sometime d u r i n g the first h a l f o f the 1540's. Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. 4]. b u t m i g h t y t h r o u g h G o d t o the p u l l i n g d o w n o f strongholds' [2 Cor. oaths a n d the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the law.0 2 .. indeed. p p . 9 8 . 9 7 . cit. a n d Kalenec himself must have died soon after this d a t e . Kalenec's attitude towards the c i v i l a u t h o r i t y . been due largely t o the energy a n d remarkable powers o f leadership s h o w n b y Kalenec t h a t the life o f the e x p i r i n g sect had been prolonged f o r another quarter o f a century after A m o s ' s d e a t h . Odlozüik. 1 0 0 .250 T H E D E C L I N E OF THE OLD DOCTRINES c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h Pavel o f Hofice. 35 Despite its small numbers and the fact that after the c o m p l e t i o n o f the schism the U n i t y itself apparently remained impervious t o a l l its rival's efforts t o w i n over at least some o f the B r e t h r e n t o its p o i n t o f view o n p o l i t i c a l and social matters.' Kalenec n o w called himself 'senior o f the Lesser Brethren o f the M i n o r Party. F o r another favourable estimate f r o m a m o d e r n h i s t o r i a n o f K a l e n e c ' s c h a r a c t e r a n d a c h i e v e m e n t s . op. cit. C f . p p . w a s n o t a p p a r e n t l y a c q u a i n t e d w i t h K a l e n e c p e r s o n a l l y . cit. cit. Z w i n g l i . addressed this time t o the leading figure i n the U n i t y . towards a l l methods o f punishment as well as a l l kinds o f warfare. A c c o r d i n g to O d l o i i l i k . K r a s o n i c k ^ . a n d i n the f o l l o w i n g year he composed a second letter. 34 Thereafter. 9 8 . op. the name o f the M i n o r Party disappears f r o m history.5 7 . h a d become by the forties a d o m i n a n t m o t i f i n its d o c t r i n a l system. H e attacked.. 3 5 6 . h e s h a r e d to the full. Paul that 'the weapons o f o u r warfare are n o t carnal. I t h a d . I I . f o r instance. V . w h i c h f r o m the outset f o u n d expression i n such members o f the M i n o r Party as M a t o u s the Weaver. remained u n changed. h e w a s r e m a r k a b l y w e l l r e a d i n the t h e o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e o f h i s time. ' fol. p . op. I n a rather ambiguous passage i n the preface t o his treatise o n the c i v i l power o f 1523 " " Müller. a split t o o k place w i t h i n the M i n o r Party as a result o f disputes concerning ' u n c h r i s t i a n professions and the use o f costly stuffs a n d ornaments. op. t h o u g h K a l e n e c d i d n o t receive a g o o d e d u c a t i o n i n h i s y o u t h . h o w e v e r .' T h e last m e n t i o n o f Kalenec o r either o f the branches o f the M i n o r Party occurs i n 1546. p p . the Swiss reformer. the M i n o r Party was n o t w i t h o u t influence i n this respect a m o n g several o f the radical m i n o r i t y groups. u n l i k e Lukää. a n d he was even acquainted with G r e e k . see H r e j s a . X . B u t K r a s o n i c k y . L u k a S ' s d i s l i k e a n d c o n t e m p t for t h i e r less e d u c a t e d . i n spite o f its extremely small membership. ' P s a n i proti K a l e n c o w i .m u c h z e a l w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g (Je pfiliS umini). 14. defending the views o f the M i n o r Party a n d fiercely a t t a c k i n g a l l w h o disagreed. and his followers f o r resorting t o arms against the counsel o f St. w h o describes K a l e n e c as horlivy bez one p o s s e s s e d w i t h ' o v e r . 3 5 1 .' rival. together w i t h the continued espousal o f the anarchist pacifist p o s i t i o n o f Chelöicky a n d the O l d Brethren.. p. H r e j s a . The antitrinitarianism. w h i c h appeared i n the Czech lands d u r i n g the first h a l f o f the sixteenth century. one o f his elders. Jan Augusta. 357..

b e h e the greatest c r i m i n a l .. the U t r a q u i s t s ] . p. the Barons v o n Liechtenstein. B u t these s c r u p l e s i n r e g a r d to t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . T h e newcomers b r o u g h t w i t h t h e m f r o m Switzerland a n u m b e r o f radical religious a n d social doctrines. the r e m a r k s o f the y o u n g C a t h o l i c h u m a n i s t . fol. and i n r e t u r n they hoped t o benefit f r o m the economic a b i l i t y f o r w h i c h the settlers were already renowned. I V . they have become i m b u e d with the c o n v i c t i o n t h a t i t is w r o n g a n d c o n t r a r y t o G o d ' s l a w t o k i l l a m a n .e. i n the same way as the noble patrons o f the U n i t y o f Czech Brethren were able to d o f o r their protégés. Prague]. w h i c h w e r e e a r l i e r e n t e r t a i n e d e v e n b y the T a b o r i t e s . s u c h a s C h e l c i c k y h a d m a i n t a i n e d . the Liechtensteins were able t o give the Anabaptists adequate p r o t e c t i o n against attempts at coercion. I V . ' .H r e j s a . still m a i n t a i n . w h i c h they t o o m a y have i n p a r t derived f r o m the Waldenses. deriving i t n o t f r o m the writings o f G o d ' s L a w according to the true conception intended by the H o l y Spirit. B u t i n the second a n d m o r e i m p o r t a n t i n s t a n c e — t h e contacts o f the M i n o r Party w i t h the so-called H a b r o v a n y B r e t h r e n — t h e latter were definitely influenced i n f o r m u l a t i n g their social creed b y Kalenec's teachings. op. b u t f r o m Petr C h e l c i c k y . o n the m a i n issues each side had already reached the same conclusions quite independently: there was. A m o n g these the chief were a d u l t baptism a n d anarchist pacifist beliefs a k i n t o those o f Chelcicky. w h o a b o u t 1526 f o u n d a refuge f r o m persecution near M i k u l o v a o n the estates o f t w o noble brothers. . b o t h priests a n d laymen. no question o f one accepting its views f r o m the other. T h e M o r a v i a n Anabaptists were recruited f r o m the local German p o p u l a t i o n as w e l l as f r o m Swiss exiles. o f 'this doctrine concerning the [civil] power a n d the o a t h . O w i n g t o the great power wielded t h r o u g h o u t the Czech lands by the n o b i l i t y . T h e brothers h a d granted the Anabaptists religious freedom i n their settlements. w h i c h we as well once held. 37 There is. " " Spis o mocy swêta. B o h u s l a v HasiStejnskj? o f L o b k o - v i c e . clear evidence concerning the contacts between the M i n o r Party d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f Kalenec's leadership a n d at least t w o other religious sects w i t h similar p o l i t i c a l and social tenets.. 2 v ( q u o t e d i n H r e j s a . 2 9 8 ) . cit. a n d m a n y t o this day f r o m the Czech party [i. however.e. F o r . therefore. indeed. c o n c e r n i n g the p r e v a l e n t U t r a q u i s t a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s the d e a t h p e n a l t y : ' I t is e x t r e m e l y r a r e for a c r i m i n a l to b e p u n i s h e d b y d e a t h i n t h i s t o w n [i. ' 38 I t is n o t clear f r o m the context t o w h o m exactly he is r e f e r r i n g : whether to specific individuals a m o n g the Utraquists. at the instigation o f their priests. cit. or t o a vague general sentiment b o t h w i t h i n this c h u r c h and outside as t o the unchristian character o f the state as an i n s t i t u t i o n . I n the case o f the M o r a v i a n Anabaptists. w e r e n o t o f c o u r s e e q u i v a l e n t t o a g e n e r a l o b j e c t i o n t o the c i v i l p o w e r o r to w a r f a r e . p. op.T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E O L D DOCTRINES 251 Lukâs speaks. w r i t i n g i n 1489. C f . 87.

that is. a l l the M o r a v i a n Anabaptists were expelled f r o m the l a n d . n o w appeared i n the f o r m o f c o m m u n i s t i c doctrines w h i c h f o u n d concrete expression i n a series o f Bruderhofe. however. B u t i t is interesting t o note the possibility that the A n a b a p tists f r o m their side may have been f o l l o w i n g the example o f the M i n o r Party i n their a d o p t i o n o f the stave as a symbol o f their non-violent creed.7 0 . 357. t h a t is. a n d even more as regards c o m m u n i t y o f goods. the year i n w h i c h the chiliastic Anabaptists o f M i i n s t e r met their end. I n 1535. The Story of the Mennoniles. 346. as has been seen. i t was Kalenec w h o was p r o b a b l y indebted t o the Anabaptists for his acceptance o f these tenets. The followers o f Balthasar H u b m a i e r . cit. Lukas i n one o f his attacks on the M i n o r Party " " S m i t h . . I n a letter to them he writes: ' W e rejoice at the fact that y o u have condemned i n f a n t b a p t i s m . I n regard t o a d u l t baptism. m a i n l y native converts f r o m L u t h e r a n i s m and called the Schwertler o n account o f their positive attitude to C h r i s t i a n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state and warfare. war and oaths independently. however. several years even before the appearance o f the Anabaptists i n M o r a v i a . the staff symbolizing their rejection o f the state and all forms o f violence. op. a n d they were to remain o n i n M o r a v i a u n t i l forced to emigrate once m o r e as a result o f the Catholic reaction w h i c h f o l l o w e d the Battle o f the W h i t e M o u n t a i n . h a d reached a similar p o s i t i o n o n such subjects as the state. I n 1523. Kalenec himself was i n favour n o t o n l y o f adult b a p t i s m b u t also o f the c o m m u n i s m o f the Bruderhofe. 39 B o t h sides. p p . 3 6 7 . and a t h i r d source o f dissension. H u b m a i e r a n d H u t soon disappeared f r o m the scene b u t the division o f o p i n i o n r e m a i n e d . where none may say: this is m i n e . l i v i n g under strict m o r a l discipline a n d . Odlozffik. an i n n o v a t i o n w h i c h soon came t o be associated w i t h the name o f Jacob H u t t e r . were p i t t e d against the disciples o f Hans H u t a n d Jacob Wiedeman. 4 9 . abstaining at the same time f r o m a l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the state or the life o f the society a r o u n d t h e m .. baptising a second time i n f a i t h . f o r the most p a r t .252 THE D E C L I N E OF THE OLD DOCTRINES B u t soon dissension b r o k e o u t o n this very subject. 3 8 I t was presumably w i t h the non-resistant g r o u p o f Anabaptists t h a t Kalenec established contact sometime after settling i n M o r a v i a at the end o f 1524. mostly exiles f r o m Switzerland and the T y r o l a n d later k n o w n as the Stabler. and also that y o u have attained the equality o f the First K i n g d o m . But the Hutterites at least gradually filtered back again d u r i n g the next few years.6 3 . p. households o f persons practising c o m m u n i t y o f goods. ' B u t the attempts at a rapprochement appear to have b r o k e n d o w n o w i n g t o the lukewarmness and exclusiveness o f the A n a b a p t i s t s . o f the C h u r c h .

1-4. L I U . d i r e c t c o n t a c t s w i t h the M o r a v i a n A n a b a p t i s t s . that o f the H a b r o v a n y Brethren. pp. M. i f n o t an actual sympathizer w i t h its ideas. 37. w h i c h i n c l u d e d the theoretical rejection o f the c i v i l power. was b o t h more palpable and o f greater extent. Amos's home c o u n t r y and the area where the M i n o r Party was strongest. ' C. 3 9 . moreover. H a n a k . Jan Dubcansky.. P r e f a c e to C h e l c i c k y . The influence o f the M i n o r Party o n another c o n t e m p o r a r y religious c o m m u n i t y .. T o b o l k a . 1 5 . ' fol. Vaclav was a former rector o f the V i l e m o v m o n a s t e r y . M. p p . 43 Vaclav. . was derived from T h e habit of wearing a wooden sword. must already have been i n close contact w i t h the M i n o r Party. I t w o u l d seem most probable. as B u t it is p r a c t i s e d b y the P o l i s h B r e t h r e n ( A r i a n s ) d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f t h e i r e a r l y s o c i a l r a d i c a l ism. O d l o z i l i k . indeed. 7 . p p . Tisk Chelcickeho 1929. angrily a n d poisonously c o n d e m n i n g other people a n d upsetting men's minds. (pfedmluva) 4 i 4 3 Siti viry z roku 1521. p r i m a r i l y f o r use as a weapon i n their controversy w i t h the M a j o r Party i n the U n i t y . a n d the monastery itself was under the latter's influence. w h i c h were finding adherents at that p e r i o d i n the Czech lands. S e e K o t . pp. V i l e m o v . f o r m e d a t r i o directing a n d i n s p i r i n g the sect's activities and t h o u g h t . therefore. Founded i n 1528 by a M o r a v i a n U t r a q u i s t noblem a n . Sit' viry. w h o display their righteousness.' 40 The c a r r y i n g o f staffs instead o f swords. 4 0 ' O d p o w S d n a s p i s K a l e n c u o .T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E O L D DOCTRINES 253 writes o f the latter as f o l l o w s : T highly disapprove o f these v a i n pharisees wandering a r o u n d w i t h staffs (s holmi). C f .1 1 . 42 and it was here that i n 1521 the M i n o r Party h a d h a d Chelcicky's Sit' viry p r i n t e d . I t s theological doctrines were largely derived f r o m those o f the Swiss reformer. cit. was situated i n the province o f Prachen. an independent m i n d e d U t r a q u i s t preacher. Its social creed however. p o s s i b l e that B i e r n a t o f L u b l i n . as w e l l as f r o m personal contact w i t h Kalenec a n d his t i n y g r o u p o f disciples w h o h a d settled n o t far a w a y . 3 8 .1 0 . Z w i n g l i . w h o w i t h M a t e j Poustevnik. therefore. p. was evi- dently a practice o f the M i n o r Party at this p e r i o d . that this was due t o Vaclav o f LileS rather t h a n t o D u b c a n s k y himself. ' B r a t f i a stars"! z H o r y l i l e c k e . 5. oaths a n d war. seems t o have come f r o m a reading o f the w o r k s o f Chelcick^ a n d the O l d Brethren. 11. 19. even before his collab o r a t i o n w i t h DubSansky a n d his Brethren. m a y h a v e c o m e u n d e r the influence o f the M i n o r P a r t y . op. this sect was recruited f r o m the native Czech populat i o n i n the n e i g h b o u r h o o d o f its patron's estates at H a b r o v a n y a n d LileC. o n e o f the p r e c u r s o r s o f the P o l i s h B r e t h r e n i n t h e i r r e j e c t i o n o f the d e a t h p e n a l t y . 5 . 41 Neither o f the t w o m o d e r n historians o f the H a b r o v a n y Brethren have indicated w h i c h o f the sects' leaders was responsible f o r i n t r o d u c i n g the element o f social radicalism i n t o its m i d s t . Ideologja 4 1 polityczna i spoleczna Braci Polskkh.

B a r t o S .. h o w - ever. pp. op. 116. h o w e v e r . w h i c h also prevented t h e m f r o m c o m i n g t o an understanding w i t h the A n a b a p t i s t s . 115. Differing views o n the c i v i l power. 116. L I I . p p . i n g i v i n g a qualified support t o war.6 3 . and they disagreed t o o w i t h his a n t i t r i n i t a r i a n views.. therefore. i n view o f the absence o f direct evidence. a n d also f o r f o l l o w i n g their master. p. p p . 45 The t w o sects. that this r o l e w a s p l a y e d by Václav o f L i l e i . op. P a u l o f various harsh forms o f p u n i s h ment. b u t attempts at fusion b r o k e d o w n despite agreement o n / almost all points. it w o u l d s e e m m o r e l i k e . Z w i n g l i . certainly 44 d i d n o t observe the non-violent.1 0 0 . T h e U n i t y a l s o e n g a g e d a t t h i s p e r i o d i n s o m e fruitless negotiations for f u s i o n w i t h the M o r a v i a n A n a b a p t i s t s . op.. p p . F o r the c o n t a c t s between the H a b r o v a n y B r e t h r e n a n d the U n i t y . op. 4 4 4 ? op. Reliance has to be placed. 6 1 . a n d he p o i n t s a t Matéj P o u s t e v n i k a s the c h i e f e x p o n e n t o f the M i n o r P a r t y v i e w p o i n t . 3 5 7 . 4 5 Müller-Barto§. ' Kalenec's accusations may have been exaggerated. N o treatise o n the subject emanating f r o m their circle has come d o w n . and i t is probable that they never f o r m u l a t e d their views i n systematic fashion. tit. occupations a n d offices are t o some extent o n a n equality w i t h [the M a j o r Party] i n n o t keeping to the rule o f C h r i s t . A f t e r its f o u n d a t i o n the sect soon entered i n t o personal contact w i t h Kalenec's g r o u p . 3 4 4 . 1928. T h e H a b r o v a n y Brethren were u n w i l l i n g to accept Kalenec's c o n d i t i o n o f a d u l t baptism.254 THE D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES Concerning the precise views held b y the H a b r o v a n y Brethren o n p o l i t i c a l and social matters there is indeed some confusion i n the sources. F o r t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n a b o v e . cit. i n practice DubSansky. tit. op. tit. A c c o r d i n g t o Kalenec the H a b r o v a n y Brethren. L I I . 2 8 3 . 4 7 But.. H a n á k . see Müller-BartoS. cit. O d l o z i l i k . w a r and oaths certainly figured p r o m i n e n t l y i n the controversy w h i c h broke o u t between the H a b r o v a n y Brethren a n d the M a j o r Party i n the U n i t y after various attempts at reaching some k i n d o f rapprochement h a d b r o k e n d o w n . see M i i l l e r . 'as 46 regards marriage. F u r t h e r m o r e . cit. i t is difficult to judge h o w far Odlozilik suggests t h a t one o f the reasons f o r DubSansky's theoretical acceptance o f 4 4 O d l o Z i l i k .. op. 115. a n d i n the w o r k s o f their opponents. p p .. w h i c h seemingly Kalenec refused. H a n á k . o n chance allusions i n t h e i r other w r i t i n g s . F r o m their side they p u t f o r w a r d a demand f o r obedience. . 2 8 3 . op.. c o n t i n u e d t o exist side b y side w i t h o u t any violent polemics u n t i l 1542 when Kalenec and Pavel o f Hofice issued a letter directed against the H a b r o v a n y Brethren. cit. m a i n l y o f a polemical nature. p. f o r instance. reproaching t h e m f o r their approval o n the basis o f certain sayings o f Christ and St. 284. 9 3 .. cit. p. 2 7 9 . anarchist p o s i t i o n w h i c h his Brethren appear t o have held i n t h e o r y . O d l o Z i l i k c o n - siders t h a t t h i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y m a y h a v e a r i s e n f r o m a d i v i s i o n o f o p i n i o n a m o n g t h e elders w h o c o n t r o l l e d the s e c t .8 3 . dress. I I . M i i l l e r .

' I n the t h i r d place. The debate c u l m i n a t e d i n a meeting between representatives o f b o t h sides. may have led to such inconsistencies i n defending their p o s i t i o n . 3 4 4 . o f d i v i d i n g their c o m m u n i t y i n t o t w o halves. o f their attacks o n the U n i t y are O d l o z i l i k . cit. ' Y o u r chief bishop a n d elder [the Brethren w r i t e o f DubCansky] being o n o a t h . and that he m i g h t l o o k w i t h f a v o u r o n those w h o acted l o y a l l y towards h i m i n fulfilling their official duties. p. a m o n g other things. H a b r o v a n y B r e t h r e n . a n d by their means quarrels and holds f o r t h i n a c o u r t o f law (k prâvom pfiseinym stavâ soudent se skrze né svâfi a recnuje). w i t h a reference t o Dubôansk^'s example. f o r their acceptance o f office i n the state and f o r a p p r o v i n g the t a k i n g o f oaths. a n d they developed their arguments i n several further p o l e m i c a l treatises. I n their discussion o f p o l i t i c a l and social questions the H a b r o v a n y Brethren accused the U n i t y . Dub5ansky. i t was w r o n g f o r either as Christians t o h o l d office. t h o u g h here the U n i t y was able. The U n i t y was also able t o indicate some confusion i n the t h i n k i n g o f the H a b r o v a n y Brethren o n this subject. and the arguments. o n the other h a n d .. I n 1531 the H a b r o v a n y Brethren issued an attack o n the U n i t y . administers the laws w i t h an o a t h .T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E O L D DOCTRINES 255 the M i n o r Party's p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines may have been the use that c o u l d be made o f t h e m against the official U n i t y . the somewhat anomalous p o s i t i o n o f their leader a n d p a t r o n . held at K y j o v i n February 1535. t o t a u n t t h e m w i t h inconsistency. the H a b r o v a n y Brethren apparently accepted . they argued. T h o u g h f r o m other passages q u o t e d i n U n i t y w r i t i n g s i t w o u l d seem as i f the H a b r o v a n y Brethren. i n the first place. op. as the owner o f landed property. a n d sometimes 4 8 the very w o r d i n g . T o their clergy they forbade a l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the The activities o f the state w h i c h .at least i n theory . f o r they appear t o have agreed w i t h the U n i t y that the c i v i l power even i n a C h r i s t i a n society c o u l d be ordained by G o d . and the executor o f the law therefore i n regard t o his tenantry. none the less. disregardi n g the teaching o f Z w i n g l i o n this p o i n t . s h o w i n g 'the deficiencies o f the elder Brethren o f the M a j o r Party as well as their rudeness towards us' a n d attacking t h e m .the M i n o r Party's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 'the higher righteousness' as a ban o n every f o r m o f activity w h i c h involved k i l l i n g and violence against a fellow h u m a n being o r the t a k i n g o f an o a t h . . . condemned C h r i s t i a n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n state activities altogether. priest a n d laymen. . made n o d i s t i n c t i o n between Secondly. was p e r m i t t e d t o laymen. 4 8 Undoubtedly it was their lack o f success i n t r y i n g to w i n over the M i n o r Party that h a d led the H a b r o v a n y Brethren t o t u r n their a t t e n t i o n t o its opponents o f the M a j o r Party.

cit. i t never got f i r m r o o t f a m o n g the masses o f the p o p u l a t i o n .. pp. op. . for instance. A n o t h e r cause o f decline lay i n the fact that. w h i c h was to find expression. H a n a k . d i d its best to remove a l l traces o f such doctrines f r o m its ideology. I t had been largely his special creation. 4 9 The H a b r o v a n y Brethren existed as an organized sect f o r a m u c h shorter t i m e t h a n the M i n o r Party. 3 4 4 .256 T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES strongly reminiscent o f similar passages i n the polemical writings o f the M i n o r Party earlier o n . 3 7 . A f t e r his release f r o m p r i s o n he lost most o f his earlier energy and his sect began to disintegrate. indeed. a g r o u p o f largely alien o r i g i n l i v i n g their o w n c o m m u n i t y life apart f r o m the life o f the people a m o n g w h o m they dwelt.5 1 . cit. t o o . vanished almost entirely f r o m the religious t h o u g h t o f the Czech people. therefore. p p .. a m o n g the Polish A r i a n s . I t lacked the inner dynamic power and the depth o f religious thought. cit. L I I I . T h e i r organization was seriously jeopardized by the arrest o f DubCansky i n 1538. 343. I n the course o f the sixteenth century the U n i t y . a movement w h i c h has left its m a r k i n the history o f central Europe. O d l o i i l i k .. l o n g after i t had ceased to play a significant role i n the religious life o f the country. was b o u n d up w i t h that o f its p a t r o n and protector. a n d afterwards a m o n g such denominations as the D u t c h Mennonites. 3 4 6 . 7 9 . despite DubSansky's efforts t o spread its principles. w i t h Dubcansky's death i n 1543. 64. was t o o small and obscure to exert any influence outside the very small circle o f its adherents and sympathizers. w h i c h had enabled Rehor a n d the O l d Brethren to s u r m o u n t a l l obstacles i n the way o f m a k i n g the U n i t y a force t o be reckoned w i t h i n the religious life o f the c o u n t r y a n d . op. Its fate. 50 The last mention o f the existence o f the H a b r o v a n y Brethren occurs i n 1558. i t gradually died a w a y . o n the other h a n d . p. I t was t h r o u g h one o r other branch o f the Anabaptists t h a t that socio-religious radicalism derived. a m o n g the M o r a v i a n Anabaptists. 51 W i t h the final disappearance o f the M i n o r Party i n the 1540's and o f the H a b r o v a n y Brethren i n the f o l l o w i n g decade. w h o still to some extent m a i n t a i n these teachings to-day. op. cit. the English Quakers and the G e r m a n D u n k a r d s . I t remained alive. I I . and i t was o n his estate i n M o r a v i a that its members f o u n d refuge. p. op. T h e M i n o r Party. B u t neither party a m o n g the Czech Brethren was t o exercise any direct influence on their historical evolution. social radicalism. L I I . having shed its earlier / radicalism. 7 2 .. 100. pp. " " " O d l o i i l i k . M i i l l e r . 3 4 6 . Its numbers always remained small and. finally. 3 0 7 .

i n great measure m o u l d e d the course o f history i n the Czech lands as i n the other H a b s b u r g d o m i n i o n s i n central p r o m u l g a t i o n i n 1575 o f the Czech Confession (Confessio representing a compromise between Europe. a n d the C o u n t e r R e f o r m a t i o n . as well as by the spread f r o m the west o f L u t h e r a n and Calvinist doctrines. F r o m the beginning. began the process towards a stronger centralized government and closer ties between the various H a b s b u r g d o m i n i o n s under his sway: a process w h i c h went o n d u r i n g the remainder o f the p e r i o d before the Battle o f the W h i t e M o u n t a i n . w h o m F e r d i n a n d I had i n v i t e d t o Prague i n 1556 . was kept i n prison f o r some sixteen years. L u t h e r a n a n d U n i t y by the diets o f M o r a v i a . m a n y Brethren were forced t o go i n t o exile i n the f o l l o w i n g years. i n i t i a t e d by the C o u n c i l o f T r e n t and carried o u t largely t h r o u g h the instrumentality o f the Jesuits. D u r i n g these years the U n i t y o f Brethren was comparatively free f r o m persecution. however. where most o f the emigrants eventually settled. Jan Augusta. I n the second h a l f o f the century t w o events . T h o u g h the rule o f the great nobles. the Czech lands were governed successively by five monarchs o f the House o f H a b s b u r g . Silesia a n d the Lusatias. eius religio.the Peace o f A u g s b u r g o f 1555. who preserved intact their power and privileges gained at the expense o f c r o w n . except f o r a p e r i o d after the defeat o f the league o f Protestant Bohemian noblemen. t o w n and peasantry. The first years o f H a b s b u r g rule i n the Czech lands were m a r k e d by the ever present threat f r o m the south-east o f invasion b y the T u r k s . despite the fact t h a t the doctrines. w h i c h established peace i n G e r m a n y between Protestant and C a t h o l i c o n the principle cuius regio. Ferdinand I .THE D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES 257 II D u r i n g the period between the death o f the last Jagiellonian k i n g at Mochacs i n 1526 and the opening o f the T h i r t y Years W a r . Ferdinand's hereditary claims t o the throne had been acknowledged Bohemian Estates w o u l d only recognize h i m as k i n g by election. I t guaranteed f u l l freedom o f w o r s h i p t o a l l Protestants and set u p fifteen Defensores t o w a t c h over their interests. w h o h a d already o v e r r u n most o f H u n g a r y . Calvinist. T o w a r d s the end o f the . w h i c h was t o b r i n g the suppression o f b o t h n a t i o n a l independence a n d o f the Protestant religion. was t o be greatly strengthened by the Bohemica). W h i l e their leader. This m i g r a t i o n led to the f o u n d a t i o n o f the U n i t y ' s branch i n Poland. w h o had succeeded t o the throne i n 1526. t o o . continued as before. Czech Protestantism. w h o h a d j o i n e d together i n 1547 d u r i n g the W a r o f Schmalkalden i n defence o f their liberties. T h e n the Brethren were made a scapegoat f o r the k i n g ' s anger against the insurgents.

a n d Jan Blahoslav. the Brethren h a d become a power i n the l a n d w i t h m a n y influential adherents a m o n g the great nobles a n d the landed gentry. and the successes i n the field o f educational theory a n d methods o f the last and greatest figure i n the U n i t y ' s history. A t the time o f its suppression the U n i t y h a d become a prosperous. I n the c u l t u r a l sphere their translation o f the Scriptures k n o w n as the K r a l i c e Bible. W i t h the suppression o f a l l forms o f U t r a q u i s m i n 1627 by the r e t u r n i n g Habsburgs a n d w i t h the v i c t o r y o f the Counter R e f o r m a t i o n . i t retained its separate i d e n t i t y t o the end. The gains achieved by the Protestants at the time o f the Czech Confession were enshrined i n the famous Letter o f Majesty issued i n 1609 by the E m p e r o r R u d o l f I I i n his capacity o f K i n g o f Bohemia. was w o n by the latter.258 T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES century the o l d conservative U t r a q u i s t p a r t y merged imperceptibly w i t h the Catholic C h u r c h . a n d the subsequent Agreement d r a w n u p between Protestants and R o m a n Catholics. T h o u g h the U n i t y grew close i n doctrine t o the Calvinists. b r o u g h t h i m lasting i n t e r n a t i o n a l fame. was one o f the greatest achievements o f the golden age o f Czech literature. I t was. indeed. B y the end o f the sixteenth century. whose m a i n w o r k however was done d u r i n g his l o n g exile. while the m a i n b o d y o f U t r a q u i s t s came t o f o r m i n effect a L u t h e r a n d e n o m i n a t i o n . T h e battle waged between the t w o greatest figures i n the h i s t o r y o f the Brethren i n the period after Lukas's death. whose p o s i t i o n was at last safeguarded i n the laws o f the . guaranteed freedom o f religion to a l l classes o f the p o p u l a t i o n . Jan Augusta. the subsequent deposition o f the Habsburgs f r o m the Bohemian t h r o n e . the U n i t y o f Brethren was driven u n d e r g r o u n d o r i n t o exile. a l t h o u g h the r o y a l decrees issued against the U n i t y h a d n o t i n many cases been officially suspended. a n d o f the Protest a n t Czechs spelled the end o f the country's independence a n d religious freedom. the infringements o f the Letter o f Majesty perpetrated by the r o y a l officials that eventually led t o the famous Defenestration o f Prague o n 23 M a y 1618. indeed. and the outbreak o f w a r between Protestant a n d Catholic t h r o u g h o u t the E m p i r e . the supporter o f fusion w i t h the general b o d y o f Protestants. Jan A m o s K o m e n s k y . The character o f the Brethren's c o m m u n i t y h a d . The Letter o f Majesty. T h e defeat o n 8 November 1620 at the Battle o f the W h i t e M o u n t a i n o f the c o m b i n e d forces o f Frederick o f the Palatinate. changed greatly d u r i n g the last century a n d a quarter o f its existence. completed between 1579— 93. w h o h a d been chosen K i n g o f Bohemia i n place o f F e r d i n a n d I I . c u l t u r e d a n d highly respected a n d influential c o m m u n i t y . Each confession was given the right t o b u i l d churches o r schools wherever these d i d n o t already exist. the advocate o f c o n t i n u e d separation.

o n the one h a n d .5 . T h e process o f e l i m i n a t i o n was a slow a n d gradual o n e . T h e death o f B r o t h e r LukáS i n 1528 m a r k e d the end o f an era i n the history o f the U n i t y .. I t h a d come at a time when the U n i t y was t e m p o r a r i l y free f r o m pressure f r o m outside. W i t h the support o f K r a s o n i c k y . Lukás indeed. A s Lukás r e m a r k e d : ' I f m a r t y r d o m h a d come at t h a t t i m e I d o n o t k n o w w h a t w o u l d have happened to m a n y ' o f the B r e t h r e n . and w h a t survived f r o m the earlier p e r i o d was o f secondary importance. I t was the latter g r o u p w h i c h soon gained predominance. i t was the s u p p o r t o f the new elements i n the U n i t y . as well as new c o n d i t i o n s o f life w h i c h affected almost the whole membership. w h o made their m a i n appeal to literalism i n B i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d the sentiment o f t r a d i t i o n . fol. A f t e r the schism the Brethren o f the victorious p a r t y i n the U n i t y h a d n o t been able. proved superior t o t h a t o f its opponents. M o r e t h a n any other o f its leaders he h a d been responsible f o r c o m p l e t i n g the r e v o l u t i o n i n social theory and practice w h i c h his older colleagues had i n i t i a t e d . under the leadership o f A u g u s t a . the Brethren were f o r a t i m e t o d r a w very near t o the L u t h e r a n c a m p . . the 'learned' Brethren a n d the noble sympathizers. op. 8 3 M i i l l e r . i t is t r u e that the i n t e r n a l fifteenth century was a r e v o l u t i o n carried t h r o u g h at the end o f the t h o r o u g h one. O n the other h a n d . p p . the new generation o f y o u n g U n i t y priests n o w sought t o o b t a i n for their calling a higher standard o f education more i n line w i t h the times. T h i s r e v o l u t i o n h a d been successful. 53 a n d later. T h e m a i n p a t t e r n o f t h o u g h t had changed. the t o w n Brethren. l i k e the other apologists o f the U n i t y before and after h i m . t o reject at once a l l their former p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines. A b o v e a l l . had always been ready 52 O obnoveni. the younger men like Jan R o h w h o l o o k e d w i t h more favour o n the new tendencies emanating f r o m the G e r m a n Reformation. w h o strove after the o l d native simplicity a n d . 88 T h e q u a l i t y o f the leadership displayed by the M a j o r Party. B u t even after Luká§'s death. cit. a certain tension c o n t i n u e d to exist a m o n g the leaders o f the U n i t y between those l i k e M a r t i n Skoda ( d . indeed h a d n o t wished.T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES 259 l a n d : a religious b o d y far removed i n spirit f r o m the social radicalism o f the p e r i o d before Brother Lukás a n d his friends had carried o u t the i n t e r n a l r e v o l u t i o n o f the 1490's. t h a t had enabled the M a j o r Party t o carry t h r o u g h its p r o g r a m m e o f changes. o n the other. 101. 2 . 1532) f o r instance. a n d the Battle o f the W h i t e M o u n t a i n came before the e v o l u t i o n was completed. its intellectual level a n d comparative m o d e r a t i o n .

B o t h men were self-educated. Blahoslav. W r i t i n g i n 1567 Blahoslav says o f A u g u s t a : 'Est e n i m . . and their social b a c k g r o u n d u n d o u b t e d l y helped to f o r m such a n attitude.260 THE D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES d u r i n g his lifetime t o submit all his writings to the a p p r o v a l o f the whole body before c i r c u l a t i n g t h e m . were n o t t o be regarded as b i n d i n g o n future generations. 9 . w h i c h included some w r i t t e n f r o m a standpoint hostile t o humanist education. makes his peasant say to the scholar: 'We are n o t shy o f receiving wholesome teaching . T h r o u g h o u t the whole M Ibid. t o o k u p a more suspicious attitude towards education i n general reminiscent o f the U n i t y ' s earlier standpoint. b o t h Augusta a n d R o h . .' I t was Augusta's r i v a l . c o n t r a r y t o Lukas's view.5 . p p . w h o i n his writings d u r i n g the first t w o decades o f the second h a l f o f the century finally reconciled the U n i t y w i t h the new h u m a n i s m .8 1 . learned m e n t o preach H i s h o l y w o r d . This i n t u r n led t o a definite relaxation o f the o l d t r a d i t i o n o f simplicity.. wssak boha a spasenie znagicyho Hoveka. 32. even f r o m one w h o w o r k s w i t h his hands. A u g u s t a w o r k i n g i n his father's trade as a hatter. B u t certain traces still remained as p a r t o f the life o f the U n i t y . ' As early as 1532 A u g u s t a himself i n his anonymous dialogue Rozmlauwanie swlta gednoho muze ufeneho czest a rozkoS wiece neili boha milugijcyho. the very title o f w h i c h brings t o m i n d something o f the cult o f the simple m a n o f Brother Rehof's day. . T h e o b l i g a t i o n for its priests t o engage i n some f o r m o f m a n u a l w o r k was perhaps the most s t r i k i n g o f these survivals. b y the frequent recurrence o f testimonies to this effect i n the obituaries o f eminent Brethren given i n Vavfinec O r l i k ' s Kniha ianrti (The B o o k o f the D e a d ) . T h e L o r d Jesus d i d n o t seek o u t wise and . bonus v i r misomusos et a l i o r u m studia contemn e n t i u m d u x et f a u t o r . . b u t He chose f o r t h a t purpose fishermen a n d other artisans w i t h o u t any b o o k learning. to recommend a more t h o r o u g h t r a i n i n g f o r those boys i n t e n d i n g to enter the m i n i s t r y . druhiho neuceneho ackoli sedlskiho. 7 8 . 8. disillusioned by what they h a d learned o f the lax m o r a l i t y prevalent at the L u t h e r a n universities i n G e r m a n y . 54 M o s t o f the social content o r i g i n a l l y associated w i t h this t r a d i t i o n o f simplicity had vanished at the beginning o f the century. 2 . the Brethren ordained t h a t his w o r k s . . . while R o h was a linen-weaver. But a few years later i n the forties. 35. at a synod held i n A p r i l 1531. . I t was also decided at this synod. U r b a n e k . f o r instance. w h i c h had f o r l o n g after the schism continued to carry weight a m o n g the B r e t h r e n — a s is shown. pp. and s h o r t l y after his death. Jednota bratrskd a vyiii vzdildnl. 46-55.

K a l e n e c ' s c r i t i c i s m s . I n 1531. despite a relaxation o f its o b l i g a t o r y character. and latterly the B r e t h r e n d i d n o t require their priests t o live entirely f r o m the proceeds o f their work. h e c l a i m e d . the right t o do so w i t h o u t hindrance. a p o w e r f u l noble member o f the U n i t y . op.t i m e occupation. op.. " " 5 7 Müller. can I n o t still serve the C h u r c h o f G o d a n d H i s saints? Is i t indeed a sin t o k n o w a trade a n d w o r k w i t h one's hands. W i n t e r . for.' It w a s o n l y the d e a c o n s w h o d i d a n y w o r k . iivot cirkevni p. - . ' 56 I n the f o l l o w i n g year A u g u s t a .' 58 B u t now. F r o m a f u l l . f o r instance. stated p r o u d l y : 'Because I may be a p o o r m a n a n d an artisan o f scant importance i n the w o r l d . even the practice o f handicrafts was n o t demanded i f a priest was occupied f u l l y i n tasks considered m o r e essential. 4 8 4 . t h o u g h i n t i m e i t moderated the breadth o f its a p p l i c a t i o n .t i m e employment m a n u a l l a b o u r became f o r the priesthood a p a r t . b e i n g a b l e t o s u c c o u r the m o r e i n d i g e n t f r o m the s u r p l u s . as the OsvedSeni bratfi o f 1558 stated. replying t o the taunts o f the U t r a q u i s t priests t h a t he was only a hatter. 58 I n 1542 i n the Listove dikana na Hordch i t is l a i d d o w n t h a t 'a Brethren priest m u s t w o r k w i t h the flail i n the b a r n . O d l o z i l i k . pp. cit. 9. 3 5 5 . D u r i n g the sixteenth century and the early decades o f the seventeenth. cit. o f t h e U n i t y p r i e s t s ' w a y o f life at t h i s p e r i o d : ' Y o u l e a d a life o f i d l e n e s s l i k e p r e l a t e s a n d . Müller. an influential n o b l e m a n w h o had j o i n e d the U n i t y i n the previous year. w i t h the scythe o n the meadows o r go o u t [i. 178. defending his action i n a l l o w i n g a f u r r i e r to preach i n his church at Brandys. B u t cf. p. 'a l o v i n g people s h o u l d n o t a l l o w t h i s . the elders d o i n g n e x t to n o t h i n g . granted t o any U n i t y priest assigned t o a congreg a t i o n situated w i t h i n his lands a n d b o t h capable and w i l l i n g t o c a r r y o n some handicraft. there are frequent references to this practice. a n d n o t rather a v i r t u e a n d w o r t h y o f praise w i t h G o d a n d all sensible m e n ? ' 57 I n 1555 a U n i t y synod recommends t h a t priests ' s h o u l d w i t h greater willingness t u r n f r o m w o r k o n the l a n d o r i n the vineyards t o some craft. c e r t a i n l y e x a g g e r a t e d .. p. explained t h a t the U n i t y was o n l y f o l l o w i n g the example o f the apostles i n r e q u i r i n g its priests t o w o r k w i t h their hands for a l i v i n g . 4 8 5 . thus keeping himself by his o w n l a b o u r . A s late as 1610 Jan F r i d r i c h o f Z e r o t i n .THE D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES 261 o f its existence the U n i t y never officially w i t h d r e w this demand. cit. y o u e r e c t i n s t e a d fine m e e t i n g houses a n d weigh d o w n your ordinary Brethren with various contributions. op. K o n r a d z K r a j k u . ' T h e t r a d i t i o n continued none the less.e.. T h i s privilege shows t h a t the custom h a d b y no means died o u t even d u r i n g the final p e r i o d o f the U n i t y ' s existence. v Cech&ch. 6 0 . " Dekrety Jednoty bratrske. p. t o fish] i n a boat o n the p o n d .

octavus. came t o approximate ** W i n t e r . . p p . priesthood. i t was his superiors w h o decided h o w m u c h he m i g h t keep f o r himself and w h a t p r o p o r t i o n must be devoted to the charitable undertakings o f the U n i t y . ' p. I t is interesting to note. This was closely connected w i t h the fact t h a t the U n i t y o f Brethren. cannot expect the renewal. loc. . n o t t h r o u g h c i v i l a u t h o r i t y but t h r o u g h the H o l y S p i r i t and H i s w o r d made manifest. a d o p t e d a t first the c u s t o m o f r e q u i r i n g t h e i r p r i e s t s to c a r r y o n s o m e k i n d o f m a n u a l w o r k . i n the field o f religion. . I f o u r forefathers . Strasbourg: T h e c i v i l p o w e r is insufficient and.' " Müller. . indeed. d o c t o r s o r p. .. at least as far as the Czech lands are concerned. 5 5 . continued to stand for the separation o f c h u r c h a n d state and f o r religious tolerance. L a s i c k i i n h i s Historiae T h e Unity in Poland. I t seems t o us t h a t t h r o u g h such an exercise o f force [i. Even when a priest inherited money f r o m friends o r relatives. . U n i t y priests w e r e n o t p e r m i t t e d t o b e c o m e officials. w a s a p p a r e n t l y m o r e l a x i n e n f o r c i n g the o b l i g a t i o n o f m a n u a l w o r k o n their de origine et rebus gestis Fratrum m a n u a r i i s . cit. T h e p r e s e n c e i n the P o l i s h C o m m o n w e a l t h o f g r o u p s o f C z e c h B r e t h r e n f r o m 1548 o n w a r d s m a y h a v e influenced the P o l e s i n t h i s respect. the l o r d o f souls. were soon adopted i n places as the state religion enforceable o n a l l the prince's subjects. p p . Chap. see K o t . n o t suited t o b u i l d Christ's k i n g d o m . capiunt. cit. perfecting a n d edification o f H i s Christian c h u r c h to come about t h r o u g h the exercise o f c i v i l a u t h o r i t y . as well as b y a few other m i n o r radical sects. never became an established c h u r c h recognized as such by the authorities. h a d n o t placed their hopes i n this power o f G o d i n Christ.e. q u o s v e l i p s i s u a c u m f a m i l i a e x c o l u n t . 155. as Bucer i n fact advocated] m u c h more h a r m t h a n good can come t o the c h u r c h .. . can do this. where the Brethren fled i n large numbers i n 1548 t o escape f r o m the fierce persecution o f the U n i t y i n their home c o u n t r y . m a i n l y i n the province o f Great Poland a r o u n d Poznan. 2 1 6 ) . . howBohemorum liber 'Habent loco ever. however. i n a d d i t i o n to t h e i r c o n t a c t s w i t h the M o r a v i a n A n a b a p t i s t s . X V I I I . 2 0 . . 119. . . 'De F r a t r u m laboribus 94. then the edification o f o u r U n i t y i n f a i t h a n d i n the pure t r u t h t o this very day w o u l d n o t have taken place. Thus one . The major Protestant bodies w h i c h emerged as a result o f the R e f o r m a t i o n . their congregations settled o n the estates o f p o w e r f u l noble protectors. I I . .262 T H E D E C L I N E OF THE OLD DOCTRINES The life o f the priesthood remained to the end a h u m b l e and simple one. . op. op. n o t differing i n this respect f r o m their R o m a n Catholic adversaries o r the earlier Czech Utraquists. t o o . t h a t the P o l i s h A r i a n s a l s o t r a d e r s (see Dekrety. cit. 6 0 A s Augusta w r o t e i n 1541 t o Bucer i n B u t i n Poland. w r i t e s : M i n i s t r i i n P o l o n i a fundos. 120. v e l h o r u m certam a D o m i n i s agrorum seu pecuniam sue a n n o n a m . a p o i n t o f view shared at t h a t time o n l y by the equally u n p o p u l a r G e r m a n Anabaptists and Polish A r i a n s . T h e U n i t y . 5 9 A t least d u r i n g the fifteenth century m a n u a l w o r k had been regarded as the major source o f a priest's income. O n l y o u r k i n g . .

. according to the new doctrines were. r e l i g i o u s c o m m u n i t y u n t i l t h e e n d o f the eighteenth c e n t u r y . I l l . . as in other matters. were a source of much temptation. though never definitely forbidden. 1948. S m o l i k . the Napomenuti ucinéné vsechnem vérnym of 1584] that they are carrying on so much business. i n the Unity of the fifteenth " " Ibid. But the revolution in ideas which had taken place at the end of the fifteenth century was perhaps most apparent in the change of attitude among the Brethren in the sphere of social and economic distinctions in the community. Thus even the Brethren's testimony against the use of force in matters of religion was considerably watered down among at least certain sections of the Unity. those settled in the towns. 92. Possessions. which was just beginning to arise and formed the environment in which many of the most influential Brethren. keeping them for one's and not using them or giving to others. indeed. T h e Polish branch o f the U n i t y continued a s a separate evangélica. as Smolik notes. 81 Although the Polish Protestant nobles denied the accusations of their opponents that they used compulsion towards their tenants in religious matters. . yet there was undoubtedly some pressure exerted on the latter to accept membership. and not be help others with these gifts. ownership. and in this view the new Unity was. 68. nor to thank G o d for it and give use it for sins forbidden by G o d . which had been frowned on. property. it was still recognized. says Augusta for instance in his Kázání o stavu manzelském.THE D E C L I N E OF THE O L D DOCTRINES 263 more and more to a state c h u r c h . 'morally neutral'. I n the case of noblemen belonging to the Unity its church was often the only one allowed to be erected on the estate. lacking nothing?' T o use wealth for God's glory.. is not wrong. E v e n here however the old ideas. I n the sixteenth century the Unity came to a compromise with the capitalist economic system. carried on their lives. 'Sociálni püsobení J e d n o t y bratrské. not far removed from the Old Brethren. or from avarice and greed. 93. but to ready to comfort and self. or perhaps in order to lead an easy and luxurious life and enjoy plenty in all things. were never entirely eradicated. pp. T h e Brethren were always to be careful in their 'Is it from real and unavoidable need [asks conduct of worldly affairs to see that they were not being motivated by a desire for personal gain.' Theologia pp. 64 this has been given to H i m the praise. But it is a sin [he goes one] neither to realize that one from G o d . n o . Riches. 69. hiding them away I n other words the mere acquisition of wealth. 2 .

The crimes o f such persons were depicted i n the darkest colours and their activities condemned in toto. b u t instead help t o set u p i n business ' p o o r w o r k i n g men.' These exemptions had resulted i n confusion. I n June 1540 d u r i n g the synod held at M l a d a Boleslav. O n the whole.' nevertheless the t a k i n g o f interest i n such cases does n o t seem to have been definitely f o r b i d d e n . There were. as w e l l as c r i t i c i s m f r o m certain quarters 'that we have p e r m i t t e d usury t o the Brethren. whose o n l y means o f l i v e l i h o o d was the lending o f money t o the r i c h i n need o f ready cash. t o sell u p their businesses a n d b u y l a n d .' This i n fact was exactly what the synod w i t h their decree then proceeded t o do. was quite consistent w i t h the C h r i s t i a n life. certain noblemen p a r t o f whose estate was t i e d u p i n money invested at interest.THE D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES century. Persons o f wealth w i t h money t o spare s h o u l d n o t t u r n usurer. Such persons h a d been required. a l o n g time m i g h t elapse i n some cases. The second category consisted o f p o o r persons. m o t i v a t e d by 'unappeasable avarice and desire. a decree o n the subject entitled 0 lichve soud bratrsky. ' Those w h o indulged i n usurious dealings unnecessarily i n order t o acquire wealth. o n j o i n i n g the U n i t y . the B u t there was still a t h i r d class o f persons w h o lent money at interest: 'lonely widows a n d aged people.' formed the second category mentioned i n the decree. the sick a n d the halt and such others as are n o t fit t o make a l i v i n g b y their o w n efforts. artisans a n d peasants. I n this case i t was those w h o exploited t h e m that were the sinners. was enacted. I t was o n l y its use that was still to some extent regulated a n d circumscribed. had come t o the conclusion that ' G o d has b o t h disallowed a n d . There were i n principle three k i n d s o f usurers. there were p o o r persons w h o b o r r o w e d at interest o n account o f their poverty. the best medicine against avarice a n d greed a m o n g members was a g o o d example set b y the U n i t y priesthood. Even the ban o n usury was relaxed. i n the first place. p e r m i t t e d ' usury.' The t a k i n g o f interest by these . i t was stated. A s a result o f their examination o f the scriptures the Brethren. and i n practice the U n i t y h a d evidently p e r m i t t e d t w o categories o f newly j o i n e d members t o continue t o deal i n loans at interest u n t i l they c o u l d satisfactorily dispose o f such business. innumerable discussions as t o the rights a n d wrongs o f usury ' u n t i l they were weary o f i t (az do tesknosti)'. w h i c h expressly sanctioned i n certain circumstances b o t h the l e n d i n g a n d b o r r o w i n g o f money at interest. F i r s t . at the same time. There h a d previously been. i t was agreed.' T h o u g h to make such an investment w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g interest was t o be regarded as equivalent t o 'loaning t o G o d o n interest. those w h o w o r k t o gain their bread. deserving the name o f 'robbers a n d plunderers o f the p o o r . i t was said. ' B u t before this c o u l d be done.

in the Practice of the Reformed in Bohemia with Comenius. i n general. Primitive Church Government. 127. moreover. op. gardens. 1 7 4 . that they were ' n o t altogether w i t h o u t s i n . ' *» 44 6 6 T h e relationship Ibid. i f they made their loans t o the rich and n o t t o needy artisans for w h o m repayment w o u l d o n l y be a further burden and if. pursue freely several trades. as a later decree o f 1553 states. 3 5 4 . I I . 1 6 0 . Primitive Church p p . 65 T h e Brethren were s t i l l a closely k n i t c o m m u n i t y . the w o r d i n g is even m o r e f o r c i b l e : ' T h a t they shun U n l a w f u l a n d Suspicious wayes o f seeking Subsistence. o r Son o r Servant. t h o u g h he makes 6 3 the n o w customary exceptions t o the general r u l e . ' 64 Nevertheless. were n o t w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n . op. the i n t r o d u c t i o n to w h i c h c o n t a i n s a n a c c o u n t o f the w o r k ' s o r i g i n a n d a list o f T h e E n g l i s h v e r s i o n is a s o m e w h a t free t r a n s l a t i o n . Dekrety. VeSkere spisy. H e w r i t e s : Y o u p e r m i t the c a r r y i n g o n o f various trades [i. M a n y o f y o u r Brethren. 4 1 . w h o c o u l d exist o n a single craft. T h e C h u r c h G o v e r n m e n t referred t o above. B u t their fellowship h a d lost m u c h o f its former egalitarian character: i t h a d become almost patriarchal i n o u t l o o k . previously forbidden] : usury and b u y i n g cheap a n d selling dear.6 2 . above a l l . a n d approved by. cit. XVII (Brno. 1 6 4 . t h o u g h u n d o u b t e d l y exaggerated. M i i U e r . 4 5 1912). has a chapter t r e a t i n g ' o f the D o m e s t i c k O r d e r o f the People. so far as the d a i l y life o f the average B r e t h r e n o f the sixteenth a n d early seventeenth centuries went. C f . Government some Notes of John-Amos v e r s i o n s . p. abstaining altogether f r o m U s u r y . O d l o i i l i k . first p u b l i s h e d i n 1661. and the several Iniquities c o n c u r r i n g t h e r e i n . f o r instance. p. p. 4 0 .e. because o f the D i v i n e Threatenings. they a d d one field t o another. 9 4 . Even then they were t o realize. a b o o k o f discipline d r a w n u p after the Letter o f Majesty o f 1609 a n d i n 1616 presented t o . F o r a r e p r i n t o f the o r i g i n a l C z e c h a n d L a t i n in Komensky. so they s h o u l d keep their o w n station i n the fear o f G o d . and b u y u p one house after another a n d even village after v i l l a g e .. the general synod at Zeravice i n M o r a v i a . the b i t i n g w o r d s penned by Kalenec i n the early 1540's. see ' H a d c i r k e v n i J e d n o t y b r a t f i c e s k y c h ( R a t i o d i s c i p l i n a e o r d i n i s q u e e c c l e siastici in unitate fratrum b o h e m o r u m ) ' the v a r i o u s e d i t i o n s p u b l i s h e d . B r o t h e r K o n e c n y i n his Kniha o povinnostech krest'anskych strongly criticizes the practice o f usury. I n the contemporary C h u r c h Government.' i n w h i c h i t is l a i d d o w n 'that according as G o d has called every one.. they really h a d n o other means o f s u p p o r t i n g themselves. cit.. p. p.T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E O L D DOCTRINES 265 persons was n o t f o r b i d d e n . ' A s late as 1612. however. meadows a n d vineyards. and placed t h e m either Master o r Mistress o f a F a m i l y . sharing m u c h i n c o m m o n a n d b o u n d b y a v o l u n t a r i l y accepted f a i t h . 44 .

i t was t h o u g h t . The organization o f society was n o t conceived by the Brethren entirely i n static terms. and a lower g r o u p formed f r o m those w h o gained a l i v e l i h o o d f r o m more ordinary o c c u p a t i o n s . I t was merely. so far as his b o d i l y wants go. a survival f r o m the early days o f the o l d egalitarian ideology.. towards the idealization o f the l o w l y and unlettered as against the educated and those i n a u t h o r i t y . O n the other h a n d . t o the needy Brethren. Journeymen and apprentices were t o be treated b y their masters as members o f the f a m i l y . pp. was n o t n o w conceived i n any way as an attempt t o level o u t social differences.266 T H E D E C L I N E OF THE OLD DOCTRINES between employer and employee was to be one o f m u t u a l t r u s t . . Employers w h o were members o f the U n i t y were n o t t o entice apprentices away f r o m other masters. ' L o r d s should repay their riotous spending (marnotratenstvi) by almsgiving. o f the c o u n t r y as against the t o w n . cit.' Such charity was n a t u r a l l y confined m a i n l y t o members o f the same c o m m u n i t y .' rather t h a n leave his master. 67 I n the same way the m o r a l o b l i g a t i o n encumbent o n U n i t y members to give alms freely. as i n the other branches o f the C h r i s t i a n church. Otherwise. there w o u l d be a danger o f their d r i f t i n g away f r o m the U n i t y i f they f o u n d w o r k at such an impressionable age w i t h an employer unsympathetic t o its ideals. B u t any tendency. i n order t o a v o i d some k i n d o f t e m p t a t i o n or m o r a l h a r m was permissible. A similar scheme was operated f o r female servants w i t h Sisters i n the role o f employment officers. a sop to set at rest the consciences o f the rich a n d powerful. K o n e c n y w r i t i n g i n 1612 divided the various kinds o f occupation i n t o t w o groups : the one represented by those engaged i n spiritual w o r k . B u t t h e U n i t y " S m o l i k . 8 9 . Change o f employment. 'the j o u r n e y m a n w h o w o r k s w i t h a pious employer [says the Napomenuti o f 1584] s h o u l d w i l l i n g l y suffer want and insufficiency i n some things. and the religious life o f the whole household was to be cared for. such as had existed under the O l d Brethren and had lingered o n l o n g after the schism. an act o f personal piety. h a d gone by the early years o f the seventeenth century. free o n either side f r o m any taint o f e x p l o i t a t i o n f o r personal p r o f i t . or i n the w o r k o f government or i n the realm o f learning or the law. A p r i m i t i v e f o r m o f l a b o u r exchange was even set up by the a p p o i n t m e n t o f certain Brethren to act as officers (bratfi soudce) responsible f o r arranging f o r the employment o f apprentices belonging to the U n i t y . f o r instance. a j u s t wage was to be p a i d . a medicine against avarice. l i k e the priesth o o d . op.9 1 . as comes o u t i n the A d v i c e i n the Napomenuti o f 1584. I t m i g h t even be a m e t h o d o f expiation for sins c o m m i t t e d .

and dispense i t t o the Poor. These the People b r i n g as V o l u n t a r y Oblations i n t o the C h u r c h Treasury. t h a t they be n o t destitute o f a l l H e l p . and the H o l y C o m m u n i o n . Every able-bodied B r o t h e r o r Sister was expected t o w o r k or attend t o household responsibilities. ' . s e e m s to be p u t t i n g a r a t h e r f o r c e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o n t h e nedopoustiloY w h e n he writes: 'they n o w . T h e task o f administering the funds collected i n this way was allotted t o a n u m b e r o f 'almoners. according t o every ones Necessity.. K a u t s k y i n h i s Communism of the Reformation. ' 6 Begging. o r by affording some H e l p to those w h o are w o r n by Age o r Sickness. we prevent Beggary i n any o f ours. according t o God's C o m m a n d . t h r o u g h n o f a u l t o f his o w n . h e n c e there w a s n o l o n g e r a n u n c o n d i t i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n the B r e t h r e n to h e l p e a c h o t h e r . I t is their Office also t o see to the Orphans. Dekrety. 3 6 . record i t i n Books. These used t o be given o u t a n d d i s t r i b u t e d t o the Poor. w h i c h give a picture o f the way i n w h i c h c h a r i t y was organized d u r i n g the early years o f the seventeenth century. comes o u t clearly i n the " Ibid. 8 8 . the W i d o w s . as m u c h as is possible f o r us. according as they are w i l l i n g . . is forbidden t o any members o f the U n i t y . B u t i f anyone. they may take M o n e y o u t o f i t . . Conspicuous f o r Vertue a n d Fidelity. a n d Fasting. I n the section t r e a t i n g ' O f A l m s ' we r e a d : 1. pp. ( i n t o w h i c h any o f the People p u t i n . and the l o c a l congregation was unable t o provide this. that the Left H a n d may n o t k n o w w h a t the R i g h t is doing. a n d i f any extraordinary Necessity fall o u t . Church Government. 96. w h e n he pleases. to w h o m is c o m m i t ted the Care o f the Treasury. the elders were t o have recourse to 'other more wealthy congregations. 6 . A s this is free t o every M a n . 2. F o r . p. T h e C h u r c h Government has some interesting instructions. says a decree o f 1562. C f . fact to the p r e v i o u s c e n t u r y . . a n d those t h a t are banished f o r the Gospel. w h e n a n d w h a t they t h i n k fit. w h i c h s h o w s that i n T h e s e date back i n Europe in the Time pokudi among in Central Primitive 1534 the s a m e p r i n c i p l e s c o n c e r n i n g a l m s g i v i n g w e r e i n o p e r a t i o n . that its social conscience had n o t developed widely enough to embrace society as a whole. so there used t o be n o j o i n t Collections b u t o n the days o f Prayer. the Pastor i n the mean t i m e being acquainted t h e r e w i t h . w e p r e v e n t beggary i n a n y o f o u r s (aby se tolerate m e n d i c i t y . nejvyS moine" iebroty p. when need requires. 5.' described i n the C h u r c h G o v e r n m e n t as: Prudent M e n .T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E OLD DOCTRINES 267 68 gave a fine example by the way i n w h i c h i t cared for its o w n p o o r . was i n need o f assistance. either by p r o v i d i n g f o r some o f t h e m F o o d a n d R a i m e n t i n Hospitals.) that. 149. pp. .' B u t that the U n i t y felt n o responsibility f o r the destitute outside its o w n c o m m u n i t y . w e n t s o far a s t o w o r d s ' a s m u c h a s is p o s s i b l e for u s . 97. the Sick. f o r the Use o f the Poor a m o n g the F a i t h f u l . 3.

268

T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E O L D DOCTRINES

same decree. ' O n n o account may letters [i.e. o f recommendation]

be

given to strange beggars [ i t states] n o r s h o u l d . . . pleas be made o n their behalf i n the congregations, f o r i t is n o t fair o n o u r p a r t either t o be generous at another's expense o r to r o b o u r o w n i n order t o h a n d i t over t o knaves f r o m o u t s i d e . '
70

T h e early U n i t y ' s radical social ethic, therefore, h a d been replaced by a strict p u r i t a n m o r a l code. I n line w i t h this, while indeed they advocated days o f rest f r o m l a b o u r , the Brethren remained r i g i d l y opposed to the c o m m o n sports a n d pastimes o f the people. They continued t o condemn all forms o f dancing, card games, d i c i n g , draughts, stage the more clearly i m m o r a l varieties o f h u m a n pleasure.
71

spectacles,

country-wakes and other seemingly innocent recreations, i n a d d i t i o n t o O n the other h a n d , according t o a decree o f 1538 tavern-keeping and brewing, t h o u g h f r o w n e d o n as i n earlier pronouncements, were no longer considered 'a sin i n themselves.' Thus, p r o v i d e d such a trade was carried o n w i t h o u t entailing drunkeness o r i m m o r a l i t y , i t m i g h t be pursued by those Brethren w h o either h a d no other means o f gaining a l i v e l i h o o d o r were under c o m p u l s i o n f r o m the authorities. Detailed regulations, p a r t l y i n c o r p o r a t i n g the findings o f previous decrees, were then l a i d d o w n as to the manner i n w h i c h such undertakings should be r u n so as n o t t o conflict w i t h the principles o f the U n i t y .
7 2

The U n i t y i n theory still maintained its testimony i n favour o f simplicity o f dress. B u t i t is obvious f r o m the repeated injunctions against finery and exaggerated modishness alone, that a c o n t i n u a l struggle had to be kept u p against the insidious effect w h i c h riches a n d p o s i t i o n h a d u p o n m a n y Brethren f r o m the upper and m i d d l e classes.
73

A c c o r d i n g t o the

somewhat unreliable Kalenec, w r i t i n g i n the early 1540's: ' B r o t h e r L u k a s h a d been w o n t to exhort clothiers, dyers and tailors . . . to repent o f the vanity a n d wickedness o f the w o r l d . ' B u t n o w , he writes further o n accusing the Brethren o f i n d u l g i n g i n showy apparel a n d sumptuous houses, ' y o u r Sisters likewise according t o y o u r example wear costly robes laced w i t h velvet, h a v i n g u n d e r c l o t h i n g o f l a w n variously e m b r o i d ered . . . a n d dresses decorated w i t h silk o f g o l d . '
74

B u t the leader o f the

M i n o r Party was i n fact o n l y echoing i n his rather more c o l o u r f u l style p a r t o f the contents o f a decree passed i n 1538, w h i c h attacked the wearing

"> "•
n

Dekrety, Ibid., Dekrety,

pp. 215, 216. pp. 156-58.

p p . 156, 158, 2 1 6 , 2 3 6 , 2 4 0 , 2 4 1 ; S m o l i k , op. cit., p p . 9 1 , 9 2 .

"

E g . , ibid., p p . 9 0 , 9 8 , 127, 156, 178, 2 4 0 . O d l o i i l i k , op. cit., p p . 354, 355.

T H E D E C L I N E OF THE OLD DOCTRINES

269

o f "immodest apparel' i n men and w o m e n and enumerated disapprovingly the various forms o f finery then i n fashion, p a r t i c u l a r l y as regards female attire. I t is obvious t h a t such garments were by n o means u n k n o w n
7 5

a m o n g members o f the U n i t y .

Indeed, i n 1544 A u g u s t a himself felt

called o n p u b l i c l y to w a r n the y o u n g , especially, against this excessive l u x u r y i n dress styles w h i c h had become n o t u n c o m m o n even a m o n g the Brethren.
76

T h e sumptuous way o f l i v i n g , against w h i c h U n i t y divines f u l m i n a t e d i n v a i n and U n i t y synods composed angry decrees, was i n fact the inevitable outcome o f the compromise the U n i t y h a d reached w i t h the c o n t e m p o r a r y w o r l d . I t was p a r t and parcel o f the life o f the n o b i l i t y o f the day, a class w h i c h had come t o play such a n i m p o r t a n t role w i t h i n the U n i t y , a n d o f the wealthy burghers w h o aped their manners a n d customs. A l r e a d y at the beginning o f the sixteenth century members o f several p o w e r f u l families - K o s t k a o f Postupice, Z e r o t i n , Tovacovsky o f C i m b u r k , K r a j i r z K r a j k u , f o r instance - h a d j o i n e d the U n i t y . p o w e r f u l a n d w e l l - b o r n ' i n the U n i t y ,
7 8 7 7

Though

L u k a s i n 1523 was still able t o c l a i m t h a t there were then 'very few o f the the confession presented to the k i n g i n 1535 o n behalf o f the U n i t y was signed by 12 lords and 33 k n i g h t s . F o r t y years later i n 1575 a p e t i t i o n was sent to the E m p e r o r , signed this t i m e b y 17 lords a n d 142 k n i g h t s .
79

This gives some idea o f the g r o w t h i n

numbers and influence o f the n o b i l i t y and gentry inside the U n i t y . Some o f the most o u t s t a n d i n g Brethren o f the last years o f the U n i t y ' s existence - K a r e l o f Z e r o t i n , f o r example, o r Vaclav Budovec o f B u d o v - were at the same time typical representatives o f the Czech n o b i l i t y a n d the spokesmen o f their class i n B o h e m i a o r M o r a v i a .
8 0

Members o f the n o b i l i t y were s t i l l , indeed, subject t o U n i t y discipline, w h i c h was n o t merely a dead letter b u t enforced i n p r a c t i c e .
81

A decree

o f 1555, f o r instance, states: 'The subject o f avaricious lords a n d their oppression o f their tenantry was discussed . . . They s h o u l d be dealt w i t h according t o the findings o f the Brethren ; a n d , s h o u l d they be u n w i l l i n g t o submit, disciplinary action must be taken against t h e m . '
"
7 8

8 2

The U n i t y

Dekrety,

p. 156.

Müller, op. cit., I I , p. 181. Müller-BartoS, op. cit., p. 198. ' O d p o w ë d n a s p i s K a l e n c u o , ' fol. 6. Müller, op. cit., I I , p p . 71, 4 5 4 , 4 8 1 - 8 5 . D e n i s , Fin de l'Indépendance Bohême, I , p. 3 3 9 , attributes the n o t a b l e p a r t p l a y e d by

"
7 8


8 0

t h e U n i t y i n C z e c h p o l i t i c a l life i n the s i x t e e n t h a n d e a r l y s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s to i t s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the i m p o r t a n t s e c t i o n o f the n o b i l i t y w h i c h g a v e it t h e i r a d h e r e n c e .
81

Dekrety,

p p . 125, 2 3 8 , 2 3 9 .

8 1

Ibid., p. 178. C f . A u g u s t a ' s w o r d s o f r e p r i m a n d w r i t t e n i n 1548 to Bohuä K o s t k a t h e

270

T H E D E C L I N E OF THE OLD DOCTRINES

continued, t o o , t o consider that the advantages o f b i r t h entailed equivalent obligations. W h e n , therefore, i t was f o u n d t h a t 'many lords, o n account o f age or the lack o f obedience a m o n g servants or because o f debts o r to avoid c o m m o n burdens or because they had no heir, were anxious to sell their estates and lead a more comfortable life i n the t o w n , l i v i n g off money invested at interest,' a synod o f 1591, held at L i p n i k and composed of representatives f r o m Poland as well as f r o m Bohemia and M o r a v i a , advised strongly against such a course o f a c t i o n . ' L o r d s should remain l o r d s and o n n o account escape f r o m their c a l l i n g . '
83

B u t even i f i n m o r a l matters the U n i t y continued t o the end t o make severe demands o n its members f r o m the upper classes,
84

i t must n o t be

forgotten that i n social doctrine i t had l o n g tolerated the different standards o f life a n d conduct, w h i c h were entailed b y its acknowledgement o f social inequalities. A r i s i n g logically f r o m this basic compromise w i t h the existing state o f society w h i c h came w i t h the v i c t o r y o f the M a j o r Party at the end o f the fifteenth century, the U n i t y ' s a t t i t u d e towards such m a n i festations o f c i v i l a u t h o r i t y as courts o f law and o a t h t a k i n g and war, w h i c h h a d once been t o t a l l y condemned as unchristian, showed a p r o gressive a c c o m m o d a t i o n to the ideas o f the rest o f the c o m m u n i t y . Participation i n the w o r k i n g o f the law either as judge, legislator o r executor, lawyer o r l i t i g a n t , was n o w considered as quite consistent w i t h the calling o f a Brother. Disputes between fellow members o f the U n i t y w h i c h c o u l d easily arise especially i n m i n o r matters were, however, still t o be settled i f possible o u t o f court. I n the second decade o f the seventeenth century the C h u r c h Government advises the Brethren 'that they be n o t hasty to go t o law, but rather take up friendly the differences that fall o u t , either by the Eldership o r chosen A r b i t e r s . '
85

Lawyers were expected only

t o take o n 'just cases,' according to a decree o f 1572, w h i c h also expressly p e r m i t t e d the t a k i n g o f lawyers' fees, ' p r o v i d e d i t was n o t done w i t h a
I y o u n g e r o f P o s t u p i c e , a m e m b e r o f the U n i t y , for h i s o b e d i e n c e to the k i n g ' s o r d e r s t o c a r r y o u t p u n i t o r y m e a s u r e s against the B r e t h r e n . I n h i s letter A u g u s t a refers to C h r i s t ' s w o r d s c o n c e r n i n g the difficulties i n the w a y o f a rich m a n e n t e r i n g i n t o the k i n g d o m o f G o d [ M a r k X , 2 3 - 2 5 ] . - Müller, op. cit., I I , p. 2 1 7 .
63

Dekrety,

p. 2 4 6 . and wealthy

8 4

O f P e t r V o k o f R o z m b e r k , a m e m b e r o f o n e o f the m o s t p o w e r f u l

C z e c h n o b l e families, w h o j o i n e d the U n i t y i n 1582, largely t h r o u g h his wife's influence, Müller, op. cit., H I , pp. 1 9 7 - 9 9 , w r i t e s : ' W a r er für die Brüder e i n s c h w i e r i g e s K i r c h e n mitglied, z u m a l a u c h sein n i c h t e i n w a n d f r e i e s a u s s c h w e i s e n d e s P r i v a t l e b e n D i f f e r e n z e n m i t d e n Brüdern h e r v o r r i e f . '
86

I t is d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r h a l f a c e n t u r y e a r l i e r s u c h a m a n p. 4 1 . T h e o r i g i n a l C z e c h m a k e s it c l e a r that r e was

c o u l d h a v e l o n g r e m a i n e d a m e m b e r o f the U n i t y . Primitive Church Governmet, c o u r s e to a c o u r t o f l a w w a s p e r m i s s i b l e , e v e n a m o n g B r e t h r e n , i f a r b i t r a t i o n refused. C f . Dekrety, p. 156 ( f r o m 1538).

THE D E C L I N E OF THE O L D DOCTRINES

271

desire f o r gain and the oppression o f the n e e d y . '

86

I n regard t o oaths, b y provisos

1540 the complicated and hair-splitting differentiations and o n the subject have already vanished.

w h i c h a b o u n d i n the writings o f Brother L u k a s and i n the earlier decrees The permissibility o f oaths is stated p l a i n l y ; several b i b l i c a l texts are quoted i n support o f t h i s ; a definition o f an o a t h is then g i v e n ; and false oaths and swearing i n the name o f any o f G o d ' s creations are expressly f o r b i d d e n . B u t there is n o w none o f the hesitancy w i t h w h i c h at first the M a j o r Party approached the question.
87

I n regard t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n warfare, the similar note o f indecision disappeared perhaps even earlier t h a n w i t h oaths. A p r o o f that by 1530 m a n y Brethren were actively, and sometimes even v o l u n t a r i l y , participati n g i n m i l i t a r y service was the official p u b l i c a t i o n by the U n i t y i n t h a t year o f a b o o k destined for U n i t y soldiers captured by the T u r k s , and instructing uiaqj h o w they should behave d u r i n g a l o n g captivity. The b o o k , p r o b a b l y the w o r k o f B r o t h e r Jan R o h , was w r i t t e n i n the years immediately succeeding the defeat o f the Hungarians at Mohäcs i n 1526, when there was i m m i n e n t danger o f an invasion o f the Czech lands. B u t its repeated r e p r i n t i n g shows t h a t i t c o n t i n u e d to be regarded as the official doctrine o f the U n i t y .
8 8

I f called u p o n t o take p a r t i n defence against the T u r k s , the Brethren were t o d o so w i l l i n g l y ; and i f i n the course o f their duties they were forced t o k i l l some o f the enemy, they were to p u t aside a l l qualms. The T u r k s were crueller and more b l o o d t h i r s t y than w i l d beasts, against w h o m i t was the o b l i g a t i o n o f all t o fight. T o f a l l i n battle for such a cause should be regarded by a Brother i n the same l i g h t as t o die f r o m some illness.
89

I n 1559, w h e n the subject o f w a r came up d u r i n g a conference o f elders at zteravice, the delegates were once again referred back to the Instructions o f 1530 as p r o v i d i n g U n i t y members w i t h suitable advice o n the proper line o f behaviour i n a war emergency. A promise was given, however, to issue some k i n d o f supplement, w h i c h w o u l d be for the use o f the pastors rather than the o r d i n a r y Brethren. A t the same t i m e , the assembled elders
" " Dekrety, Ibid., p. 2 3 9 . obraz gakby ceskych mist, I , p. 3 4 3 . I t s casych magji. nebezteikostech

p p . 162, 163. a naucenj boljm kfesfanCim wirnym, a w nlm se w techto

Müller, op. cit., I I , p p . 3 6 , 3 7 ; W i n t e r , Kulturni pfi spasenj fjditi zprawowati od näsylj tureckeho

full title w a s Zprawa pecnych nynigssjch "

rüsti meli:

ano y pfi

pfichäzegicych

gak se mjti a zachowäwati

Müller, op. cit., p p . 3 7 , 38. T h e U n i t y w a s r e b u k e d by the H a b r o v a n y B r e t h r e n for p. 3 4 4 .

i s s u i n g s u c h i n s t r u c t i o n s . B u t b o t h sides i n the c o n t r o v e r s y a c c u s e d the o t h e r o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n w a r l i k e e x p e d i t i o n s . - O d l o z i l i k , op. cit.

272

T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E O L D DOCTRINES

expatiated on the horrors of war and the moral and physical dangers to which soldiers were exposed on campaigns. War was, indeed, 'a scourge of G o d ' with which Unity members were to avoid getting mixed up. But to die in defence of the faith or the fatherland was the duty of a true Christian, especially when the aggressor was the heathen Turk, with whom, it is added, only the pacifist Anabaptists were ready to make peace at any price. Therefore, the elders decree, the Brethren should be: Most earnestly entreated to be ready . . . with a clear conscience to suffer and die. . . . I f they are called up for the militia (na vefejnosf), they should conduct themselves in all things obediently, submissively and humbly . . . so that they be not reckoned as traitors or Anabaptists, who say: ' I don't know; let this T u r k come if he must, e t c . '
90

The Unity, as Smolik has pointed out, during the century and a quarter after the schism never attempted, any more than it had done in the first half century of its existence, to work out in systematic fashion its political and social philosophy. not by design. A certain tendency continued to extol, at least on paper, the virtues of simplicity in the things of the mind as well as in more mundane affairs such as dress, food, shelter and recreation. T h e duty encumbent on the ablebodied priests to engage, at least part-time, in some kind of manual work remained, too, as a relic of the Unity's proletarian origins. T h e stand which it never relinquished in favour of the separation of church and state was, indeed, a notable contribution to the history of religious toleration and freedom of thought. The privileges of wealth and rank, conceived as being held on trust from G o d , were never completely divorced in the eyes of the Brethren from the duties which these entailed; the unrestrained and unlimited acquisition of power and riches was condemned ; and all members of the Unity continued to be subject to a strict moral discipline. I n the face of G o d all men were equal; and the Unity never quite lost sight of this principle which had inspired so much of its earlier thought, even though the obligation of helping a neighbour in distress was now restricted for the most part to the distribution of charity within the narrow circle of the poorer Brethren. The idea of the Unity, of all Brethren of high and low degree, as one large family never ceased to have some reality. E v e n in their attitude to the law and the military, the two fields where compromise appears to have been most complete, the
•°
1 1

91

Nevertheless, this period saw an almost complete

withdrawal from its former position. What remained survived by chance,

Dekrety,

p. 2 0 2 .

S m o l i k , op. c/r., p. 8 8 .

waren ganz wohlhabende K a p i t a l i s t e n . I n his classic history o f the U n i t y he writes as follows o f the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n w h i c h the U n i t y underwent after the schism : A u s den böhmischen P u r i t a n e r n . k e i n A m t verwalteten. . 3 1 2 . keinen L u x u s sich gestatteten. ganz tüchtige Generäle u n d Staatsmänner g e w o r d e n . keinen R e i c h t h u m duldeten. ganz ehrbare Ehemänner. the v i c t o r y o f the M a j o r Party i n the 1490's h a d none the less initiated a series o f d o c t r i n a l changes w h i c h . were t o alter entirely the social character o f the U n i t y . die z u Peter v o n ChelCic m e h r wie zu H u s hielten. T h e u n d e r l y i n g t r u t h o f the words w r i t t e n by A n t o n G i n d e l y a h u n d r e d years ago remains u n changed to-day. den K r e i g verabscheuten. keine Eide schworen. b o t h i n theory as well as i n their practical effect. Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder. . n i c h t a u f Zinsen liehen. p.T H E D E C L I N E OF T H E O L D DOCTRINES 273 Brethren never came t o accept w i t h o u t qualification the current o u t l o o k . die nach Paulinischer Lehrweise die Ehelosigkeit verzogon. B u t true as i t is that the process was never completed. . ganz geschickte Gewerbsmänner. despite the subsequent researches o f several generations o f historians. . I I . 94 ** G i n d e l y . ganz anständige Bürgermeister u n d Geschworne.

o n l y f o r a select few l i v i n g a celibate and secluded life. w i t h o u t application f o r the rest o f society o r o f purely theoretical v a l i d i t y f o r the . n o t merely the p r o d u c t o f a single philosopher like. as the social radicalism o f the medieval c h u r c h h a d been. r u l e d by m o r a l suasion alone? W h a t was to be the proper relationship between c h u r c h a n d state? Was the death penalty ever justified for serious crimes a n d . f o r instance. created i n isolation f r o m the c o m m u n i t y . the d a r i n g p o l i t i c a l theories o f Marsilius o f Padua. therefore. and was such disobedience to be active o r passive? Was n o t perhaps the ideal society the one w h i c h possessed n o government at all. even more v i t a l . a n d was there any place i n i t f o r C o u l d equality be p u t i n t o effect i n the economic as well as i n the p o l i t i c a l and social spheres? W h a t place should be granted t o superior talents or education? D i d certain occupations possess a greater social value than others a n d was. o n the other h a n d . f o r instance. were the citizens o f a state justified i n disobeying the authorities.CONCLUSIONS The p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines o f Chelcicky a n d the early Czech Brethren represented the most radical p o s i t i o n taken u p d u r i n g the M i d d l e Ages towards the ever r e c u r r i n g p r o b l e m o f the relationship o f the i n d i v i d u a l towards society i n its organized f o r m o f the state. w i t h questions w h i c h have lost none o f their interest for o u r generation. h o w should he behave i n the face o f oppression a n d wrongdoing? class differences? W h a t . t o o . m i g h t the C h r i s t i a n participate i n warfare a n d bloodshed under certain conditions? A n d i f these were i n fact forbidden. They were not destined either. theories w h i c h h a d l i t t l e practical effect o n the daily lives o f o r d i n a r y m e n and w o m e n . T h e y were concerned. was to be the right p r o p e r t y relationship i n a well-ordered society. an agricultural economy ethically superior to an u r b a n one? The b o d y o f U n i t y doctrine concerned to give an answer t o questions such as these was. H o w far was the c o m m u n i t y entitled to use force t o coerce its i n d i v i d u a l members? I n w h a t circumstances. moreover.

especially when contrasted w i t h the numerous treatises t o u c h i n g o n p o l i t i c a l a n d social problems w h i c h have been left b y Chelfcicky a n d the early Brethren. t o o . ChelSicky. at the same time i t ushers i n the new social radicalism o f the left-wing o f the Protestant R e f o r m a t i o n . were all concerned t o some extent. despite the fact that i t came t o be disclaimed by a later genera t i o n o f Brethren. therefore. and the schism w h i c h arose i n the 1490's is. w i t h p o l i t i c a l and social questions. w i t h o u t precursors o r uninfluenced by his intellectual e n v i r o n m e n t . In a d d i t i o n . T h e i r history for the first h a l f century o f their existence tells the story o f this a t t e m p t . the p o l i t i c a l and social theories w h i c h they h a d accepted f r o m their teacher. H u s and his predecessors and successors i n the Czech r e f o r m movement. d i d n o t arise as an isolated phenomenon i n the history o f p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t . n o r even the later L o l l a r d s i n E n g l a n d . n o serious attempt was made even i n theory to r e m o u l d the existing order so as to b r i n g i t more i n line w i t h the C h r i s t i a n gospel o f justice and love. so f u l l o f interest to-day j u s t because i t reflects the problems and difficulties w h i c h were encountered i n the effort t o b r i n g the theories o f the p o l i t i c a l philosopher i n t o the realm o f practical l i v i n g . the social t h o u g h t o f a number o f post-Reformation sects presents many close parallels w i t h that o f the earlier Czech Brethren. Social radicalism o f v a r y i n g shades h a d f o u n d expression t h r o u g h o u t the M i d d l e Ages i n a l o n g series o f sects leading u p t o the widespread activities o f the Waldenses. The Czech Brethren. F o r a l l his o r i g i n a l i t y Chelcicky\ o f course. i n the w o r l d as i t then was. indeed. B u t neither the Waldenses.CONCLUSIONS 275 o r d i n a r y citizen. n o r was the social r a d i c a l ism o f the early U n i t y w i t h o u t close parallels elsewhere i n succeeding centuries. W h i l e . T h o u g h the genetic connection is slight. the m a i n sources for the former's life a n d t h o u g h t are t o be f o u n d i n the reports o f their opponents: other documentary evidence is extremely scanty. A large literature directed against various social abuses had resulted. T h e a i m was merely piecemeal r e f o r m . t r i e d to live o u t . o n the other h a n d . I n the G e r m a n a n d D u t c h speaking lands there were the Anabaptists and the M e n n o n i t e s . f r o m one p o i n t o f view the appearance o f ChelSicky and the early Brethren m a r k e d the c u l m i n a t i n g p o i n t i n the development o f the social radicalism o f the medieval sects. n o t a r a d i c a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f society. B u t . apart f r o m the b r i e f chiliastic p e r i o d . as well as the Taborites and the Adamites. appear t o have w o r k e d o u t their attitude t o society i n a n y t h i n g approaching the detail w h i c h C h e l & c k y a n d the early B r e t h r e n lavished o n the p r o b l e m . n o r their n u m e r ous predecessors.

They deserve. Secondly. fitting . there is the C h r i s t i a n f r a m e w o r k . a strongly emphasized utopianism. w h i c h d u r i n g the fifteenth century the Czech people made to their development i n the f o r m o f the p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines o f Chelcicky a n d the U n i t y o f Brethren. as o f the attempt to give t h e m practical application i n everyday life. a perfectionism w h i c h strives to realize i n the present the m a x i m u m m o r a l p o t e n t i a l i t y o f w h i c h the h u m a n race is capable. There is. i n England there were the Quakers a n d several lesser N o n c o n f o r m i s t Two bodies. They have m o s t l y been. the u l t i m a t e source o f a u t h o r i t y for the social teaching. a place i n the history o f European p o l i t i c a l t h o u g h t . lies i n the example o f Christ and his apostles as portrayed i n the N e w Testament. and this has been reflected i n the character o f their c o m m u n i t i e s ' social ideology. reaches far beyond the borders o f the Czech lands. albeit passive. I n a d d i t i o n . as for the more purely theological. I n the West historians o f p o l i t i c a l and social ideas.276 CONCLUSIONS and their offshoots. peasants and artisans a n d petty tradesmen. against the existing social order. i n the first place. been a gospel o f revolt and protest. doctrines of features have been characteristic o f the social almost all these sects. Tolstoy w h o i n his t u r n influenced the H i n d u G a n d h i . Nevertheless. the importance o f these doctrines. i n the Slav w o r l d there were the Polish A r i a n s a n d . indeed. the social o r i g i n o f the m a j o r i t y o f the sectaries has derived f r o m the h u m b l e r sections o f the c o m m u n i t y . have usually ignored the great c o n t r i b u t i o n . later. i n tracing back the origins o f m o d e r n democracy o r o f contemporary movements l i k e socialism and anarchism. I n every case this ideology has t o some extent. at least at the beginning. as well as many Russian sectaries. therefore.

whether members o f the U n i t y or only friendly observers. T h e controversy between the M a j o r a n d M i n o r Parties w i t h i n the U n i t y p r o v i d e d indeed the incentive f o r the Brethren's first efforts at history w r i t i n g . i n so far as these dealt w i t h the beginnings o f the Brethren's history. 2 Nevertheless. 1 B u t the w o r k s w h i c h resulted f r o m the pens o f Lukás and K r a s o n i c k y o r their opponents o f the M i n o r Party. as K r o f t a has pointed o u t . first-hand sources f o r the events related i n the previous chapters a n d invaluable f o r this history as p r i m a r y w o r k s . o f the w o r k s o f those historians o f the second h a l f o f the sixteenth a n d o f the seventeenth centuries w h o . p. p. c o u l d make greater claims t o i m p a r t i a l i t y than a n y t h i n g w r i t t e n while the battle was o n . Ibid. w h i c h were m a i n l y o f a religious n a t u r e .. 8. w h o had actually taken a p r o m i n e n t p a r t i n the controversy over the U n i t y ' s political a n d social doctrines. O bratrském dëjepisectvi. o f K r a s o n i c k ^ ' s O ucenych o r Lukás's w o r k o n the origins o f the U n i t y . the whole spirit o f c o n t e m p o r a r y historiography. does n o t lie so m u c h i n w h a t they wrote b u t rather i n w h a t they o m i t t e d f r o m their w r i t i n g s . O n the other h a n d .APPENDIX THE OLD DOCTRINES IN UNITY HISTORIOGRAPHY T h e significance for the history o f the Brethren's social radicalism. the w o r k s p r o d u c e d after the death o f those l i k e Lukás. . Indeed. w h i l e to the very end such w o r k s m i g h t still c o n t a i n i m p o r t a n t details preserved 1 * K r o f t a . W i t h the possible exception. K r a s o n i c k y o r Kalenec. and this was nowhere more true t h a n i n the h i s t o r i c a l w o r k s w r i t t e n o n the U n i t y t h r o u g h o u t the p e r i o d before its final suppression. were produced i n the heat o f the struggle. dealt w i t h the early p e r i o d o f the U n i t y ' s existence. was coloured b y the passion aroused by the controversies o f the day. and o f the schism w h i c h resulted i n the 1490's. 2 4 . they made l i t t l e pretence t o a c o o l h i s t o r i c a l n a r r a t i o n or any a t t e m p t at a considered analysis o f the events described.

o r the w r i t i n g s o f B r o t h e r Jafet. . Y a s t r e b o v ' s V I I I . ' B r . 1902. 5 5 . h e r e o n references o r extracts i n s e c o n d a r y w o r k s . C. 1 . f a d u v n i . p a r t I ) . w h i c h c e r t a i n l y m a k e s p a s s i n g reference t o the e a r l y p o l i t i c a l a n d s o c i a l d o c t r i n e s a n d to the s c h i s m (see S a f a f i k . a n d t o a lesser extent o n writings by L u k a s as well as o n various other o r i g i n a l documents a n d o n o r a l t r a d i t i o n . I h a v e n o t h a d a c c e s s to s e v e r a l w o r k s o f l a t e r U n i t y h i s t o r i a n s w h i c h h a v e r e m a i n e d i n m a n u s c r i p t . the c o m p i l a t i o n o f that great collection o f documents relating t o the history o f the Brethren k n o w n as the Acts o f the U n i t y o f Brethren. 6 2 . t h a t : ' n u l l a fuerant commercia c u m Waldensibus. 6. M. i m m o . s u c h a s f o r i n s t a n c e the b u l k y Historia Fratrum. especially considering that Blahoslav h a d access t o m a n y o f the o r i g i n a l documents d a t i n g f r o m the period w h i c h ended i n the schism. 4 1852. 6 . therefore. v i x q u i s q u a m W a l d e n sium visus fuit. 6 1 . M. . a n d the p r a c t i c a l necessity o f r e s t r i c t i n g r e q u e s t s f o r m i c r o f i l m s to the m o r e i m p o r t a n t s o u r c e s . is his neglect o f the whole subject i n a second w o r k . I t was destined f o r an u n k n o w n i n d i v i d u a l Brother a n d n o t f o r general c i r c u l a t i o n a m o n g U n i t y members. esp. N a m i l l i l a t i t a b a n t iis temporibus dispersi per regiones istas circa Boemiam. to r e l y O d l o z i l i k ..1 0 . J a n a B l a h o s l a v a h i s t o r i e b r a t f i C e s k y c h . XXXVI. n o r indeed was this subject closely connected w i t h the m a i n theme o f the w o r k . The Swnma quaedam brevissima collecta ex variis script is Fratrum. de eorundum Fratrum origine et actis was w r i t t e n i n 1556 w i t h the object o f defending the U n i t y against Flacius Illyricus's assertion t h a t the Brethren were identical w i t h the Waldenses. t h o u g h he d i d n o t initiate o r complete. ' B r a t r a J a n a B l a h o s l a v a Pferovskdho spis O p i i v o d u Jednoty b r a t r s k i a krdlovske ceske spolecnosti nduk.' T h i s playing d o w n o f Waldensian influence o n the development o f the U n i t y . was composed early i n Blahoslav's career between 1547 a n d 1551. a treatise i n Czech o n the origins o f the U n i t y o f Brethren based largely o n Krasonick^'s earlier w o r k O ucenych. w h o had previously been disciples o f Rokycana. goes t o o far when he writes o f the founders o f the U n i t y . they naturally lacked the value o f an eyewitness account possessed by the earlier w r i t i n g s . ' C. the m a n w h o c o n t r i b u t e d most towards. p p .. The first w o r k . ' Vistnik article w i t h s i m i l a r title i n C. qui /also Waldenses vel Piccardi vocantur. I h a v e h a d . H e was also the a u t h o r o f t w o narratives w h i c h deal w i t h the period o f the early Brethren. . indeed. p p . 1928. I n his efforts t o prove Flacius I l l y r i c u s w r o n g Blahoslav. also unpublished. It 4 contains l i t t l e t h a t t h r o w s l i g h t o n the U n i t y ' s early social ideology. however. while at the same t i m e overemphasizing the part played by Rokycana and the Utraquists i n b r i n g i n g the U n i t y t o * O w i n g to the difficulties w h i c h p r e v e n t e d m e f r o m c a r r y i n g o u t m y r e s e a r c h i n P r a g u e i n p e r s o n . 3 T h e most outstanding o f the U n i t y historians was Jan Blahoslav (1523-1571). Even m o r e s t r i k i n g .278 APPENDIX i n U n i t y circles by o r a l t r a d i t i o n .

v XV. Regenvolscius. indeed.5 5 . 3 6 . G o l l .. well k n o w n as a h u m a n i s t a n d a follower o f the theologian M e l a n c h t o n . 8 p r o f o u n d l y influenced the writings o f later historians such as Camerarius. see the OsvSdienl iivot • ' * clrkevnl Jednoty bratrski proti näfküm nestfldmym o f 1558. 1 1 4 . p. Chelöicky a Jednota Europe in the Time of the Reformation. 6 2 . suggests that the reason w h y Blahoslav passed over i n complete silence the epochmaking controversy between the M a j o r a n d M i n o r parties a n d the events that led u p t o i t . p. w i t h the result t h a t these ideas were soon quite forgotten a m o n g almost a l l except a h a n d f u l o f scholars. 6 6 . p. B u t Göll is p r o b a b l y nearer the t r u t h w h e n he connects Blahoslav's a t t i t u d e w i t h the tendency to be f o u n d a m o n g a l l the h i s t o r i ans o f the U n i t y w h o f o l l o w e d h i m o f i g n o r i n g the whole subject o f the schism. wrote t h a t : ' F r a t r u m U n i t a s n o m e n a c v e r a m originem F r a t r u m a H u s s i o . 6 7 . A c c o r d i n g t o Waldensium For 6 5 3 . cit. 8 8 . q u o t e d i n W i n t e r . K a u t s k y . P a l m o v . p p . 4 9 . is also accompanied b y the purposeful omission o f Chelcicky's p o w e r f u l influence o n the f o r m a t i o n o f the early U n i t y ' s t h i n k i n g . The r a p i d disappearance after this date o f the t r a d i t i o n s connected w i t h the early Brethren's social ideology. debere deduci. L a s i c k i . p. B l a h o s l a v J a n Germ?. H i s w o r k is based i n p a r t o n o r i g i n a l authorities G ö l l . b u t was w r i t t e n by a sympathetic G e r m a n Protestant scholar. I . stoleti. was l i n k e d up w i t h the v i c t o r y o f the M a j o r Party a n d the complete e l i m i n a t i o n b y the m i d d l e o f the century o f the M i n o r Party. his mentor. may have been his reluctance t o d w e l l o n i n t e r n a l differences i n a w o r k designed for c i r c u l a t i o n a b r o a d . and even K o m e n s k y . Jafet. u n o r i g i n a l t h o u g h they were as far as the history o f the U n i t y i n the fifteenth century is concerned.T H E OLD DOCTRINES IN UNITY HISTORIOGRAPHY 279 b i r t h . R o c h e z a n a . Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte v svoikh der Böhmischen Brüder. 103. C f . 7 The historical works o f Blahoslav. I . p p . pp. Camerarius was a professor at Leipzig U n i v e r s i t y . op. 4 0 7 . L u p a c z i o etc.' bratya konfessiyakh. C e r n y i n 1555 h a d a l s o w r i t t e n to F l a c i u s I l l y r i c u s to t h i s effect. 5 K r o f t a . Joachim Camerarius the elder (1500-74). Cheshkie nolit agnoscere. 6 0 .2 8 . T h e first systematic history o f the U n i t y d i d n o t come f r o m the pen o f a member. * This m a y i n fact have been one o f the considerations i n B l a h o slav's m i n d i n t r e a t i n g i n such a tendentious manner the early h i s t o r y o f the U n i t y .K r o f t a .. tit. 5 2 . w h i c h made i t seem desirable t o later generations t o push the whole subject i n t o the b a c k g r o u n d . v Cechäch. op. a n d he goes o n t o find the reason f o r this i n the r e v o l u t i o n i n the U n i t y ' s p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines at the end o f the fifteenth century. a n o t h e r e x a m p l e o f t h e c u r r e n t t e n d e n c y o n the p a r t o f the B r e t h r e n to seek t h e i r o r i g i n s i n the g e n e r a l U t r a q u i s t t r a d i t i o n r a t h e r t h a n i n Chelöicky o r the W a l d e n s e s . I .5 6 . Communism K r o f t a . in Central Y a s t r e b o v . . 5 9 .

w h o spent m u c h o f his life c o m p i l i n g a history o f the Czech Brethren f r o m their beginnings i n the previous century. Johannis quaedam Bohemorum particularia . he manages however to a v o i d m a k i n g any m e n t i o n o f the o l d p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines o r o f the schism i n the 1490's. p. is there any m e n t i o n o f the Brethren's early radicalism o r o f the s c h i s m . Lasitii. This.. finished i n 1599 three years before his death. p. 1 7 1 . pp. Historica passim. Perhaps for t h a t reason. doxorum in Bohemia There was added. cit. b u t rather an essay on its Hussite and T a b o r i t e o r i g i n s . i n an edition b r o u g h t out by his grandson.. he seeks to l i n k u p the Brethren w i t h the remnants o f the Taborites. Jan t a s i c k i was a Polish Protestant nobleman. Moravia et Polonia. orthoet Moravia ecclesiolis narratiuncula. His writings are o f a more distinctly polemical nature t h a n those o f the Pole. has remained i n manuscript. His b o o k was first published i n Heidelberg i n 1605. 1614) never lived to see any o f his historical w o r k s appear i n p r i n t . ' T h e next historian t o deal comprehensively w i t h the history o f the (1534-1602) U n i t y likewise came f r o m outside its ranks. except for the eighth b o o k . n o r i n the extracts f r o m them w h i c h he published. A l t h o u g h he devotes considerable space t o the early p e r i o d o f the U n i t y ' s history. i n order to be forearmed against any possible accusation o f h o l d i n g subversive opinions concerning the social and * 1 0 10 I f t a s i c k i d i d i n fact treat o f these subjects. p p . L i k e t a s i c k i Brother Jan Jafet (d. 6 2 . cit. K o m e n s k y evidently d i d not consider t h e m i m p o r t a n t Camerarius.. w h i c h dealt w i t h the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. 176 ff. Y a s t r e b o v . nobilis Poloni. cit. t h o u g h they had allowed h i m access to their archives for his research.. howa n essay w r i t t e n by E s r o m Riidinger i n 1579 entitled De Fratrum ever. over t h i r t y years after his death. B u t i t is significant t h a t neither i n Komensky"'s s u m m a r y o f Books I I a n d I I I .. octavus narratio de Fratrum orthodoxorum de origine VII ecclesiis et rebus librorum in gestis Bohemia. liber See also K r o f t a . enough for insertion i n the published w o r k .. i n treating o f the early history o f the U n i t y .. op. See a l s o K r o f t a .. w h i c h Komensky p r i n t e d at Leszno i n 1649 w i t h an i n t r o d u c t i o n b y himself as well as a summary o f the whole together w i t h certain selected passages f r o m the other seven books. op.280 APPENDIX and. as a n appendix to the volume. Adduntur historiae tamen reliquorum argumenta t a s i c k i . esp. W i t h o u t being able t o consult the o r i g i n a l manuscript i t is impossible to speak w i t h certainty concerning the whole work. and were composed for the most part to defend the U n i t y against the attacks o f the Counter Reformation. a n d even his revised version. . op. excerpta. H i s first d r a f t was considered unsatisfactory b y the leading Brethren. Fratrum et 173-76. is n o t i n fact a complete history o f the U n i t y i n m i n i a t u r e .

. cit.. B u t a leading Polish Protestant h i s t o r i a n and preacher. f o r i n stance. " X X X V . Regenvolscius. .THE O L D DOCTRINES IN UNITY HISTORIOGRAPHY 281 p o l i t i c a l order.. Systema historico-chronologicum ecclesiarum slavonicarum Cf. w h i c h came as a result o f the Battle o f the W h i t e M o u n t a i n i n 1620. he includes a n account o f the schism w h i c h he describes as h a v i n g arisen 'because o f the treatises o f Petr Chel5icky'. i n spite o f the m a n y t r i b u l a t i o n s w h i c h the t r o u b l e d m i d d l e years o f the century b r o u g h t t h e m . belongs as m u c h t o the history o f Western culture as t o the more l i m i t e d field o f the annals 1 1 JireCek. per C. i n the place o f such erroneous notions the U n i t y henceforward sveta). op. Andrzej Wejierski (1600-49). H i s book. Chap. VIII. B o o k I . a n d B o o k II. 1 2 of T h e story o f the Czech branch o f the U n i t y culminates i n the m a n y sided activities o f the greatest figure i n its history. produced a large volume devoted t o the history o f the church i n the Slav countries. 2 3 6 .4 7 . continued t o exist as an organized body. the greater p a r t o f w h i c h was spent i n exile after the seemingly complete destruction o f the U n i t y i n the l a n d o f its b i r t h . V I I I . p p . w h i c h was published i n 1652 i n U t r e c h t after his death. varias. ' B . t h o u g h somewhat perfunctorily a n d w i t h a complete lack o f sympathy o r understanding. Vaclav S t u r m . p p . C. 146-56. cit. d i d n o t produce any i m p o r t a n t w o r k s dealing w i t h the early history o f their c h u r c h . B u t i n none does he t o u c h o n the subject o f the U n i t y ' s p o l i t i c a l a n d social ideology or o f the schism i n the 1490's. as well as a m o n g their Polish co-religionists w h o . T h e life o f K o m e n s k y indeed.' I n another w o r k . w r i t t e n i n 1614 i n answer t o earlier attacks o n the U n i t y f r o m a Czech Jesuit. op. he writes. p. K r o f t a . w i t h the doctrines o f the O l d Brethren and their renunciation at the end o f the fifteenth century. The Polish branch o f the U n i t y . C h a p . M.K r o f t a . a n d . 1 4 4 . thus f o l l o w i n g the example most o f the historians w h o preceded h i m . 176. 11 T h e t r i u m p h o f the Counter R e f o r m a t i o n t h r o u g h o u t the Czech lands. pp. Krofta. Jafet i n passing again makes a few brief. c o n tained a n u m b e r o f chapters devoted t o the history o f the Brethren. 1 4 5 . Jafet i n several o f his w o r k s does deal. w r i t i n g under the name o f A d r i a n u s Regenvolscius. provincias esp. G o l l . d i d not immediately p u t an end t o a l l interest i n the past o f the U n i t y . I n his Mec Golids&v finished i n 1607. 1861. the weakest i n numbers and influence o f the f o u r m a i n Protestant denominations i n P o l a n d . Historie acknowledged 'the r i g h t doctrine concerning the c i v i l p o w e r (dobry smysl o vrchnosti o puvodu Jednoty bratrske. op. b u t u n c o m p l i mentary references to Chelclcky" and the M i n o r P a r t y . C o n cern f o r its history lived o n a m o n g the Brethren w h o went i n t o exile. J a n a J a f e t a k r a t k a z p r a v a o b i s k u p l c h a s t a r s i c h J e d n o t y bratrskeV cit.

[Komensky! t r a n s l a t i o n w a s p u b l i s h e d i n L o n d o n i n 1650. a n d the later o f the t w o . 7 8 . a n d h a d by themselves a peculiar meeting at Prague. l i k e W e j i e r s k i ' s history. omits a l l m e n t i o n o f the early Brethren's social radicalism a n d the whole c o n t r o versy o n this issue. 79. i n a d d i t i o n . The History of the Bohemian Exhortation w h i c h w a s d e d i c a t e d to C h a r l e s I I . o r t o use the sword. w h i c h of the Churches was of t r a n s l a t e d i n t o E n g l i s h a s ' A S h o r t H i s t o r y o f the S l a v o n i a n C h u r c h ' a n d p u b l i s h e d i n London Bohemia 1 4 i n 1661 a s the i n t r o d u c t o r y s e c t i o n o f An to the Church of England. 66. imprisoned. F o r a certain question being p r o p o u n d e d concerning the secular power. does c o n t a i n a passing reference t o the o l d doctrines i n the f o l l o w i n g passage: I n the year 1503 the most gentle K i n g Wladislaus d i d again suffer himself t o be transported against the brothers. w h e t h er i t were l a w f u l f o r a C h r i s t i a n w i t h a safe conscience to govern as a Magistrate. 6 7 . The brothers hearing o f i t . What do they think do they think. a record o f the trials t h r o u g h w h i c h the C h r i s t i a n f a i t h h a d h a d t o pass i n the Czech lands. See a l s o K r o f t a . op. T h i s C a l u m n y being greedily received and b r o u g h t t o the king's ears. We shall take a speedy course to suppresse this insolence. T h i s E n g l i s h first published this ecclesiae 181-99. o r t o give. w h i c h was first published i n L a t i n i n A m s t e r d a m i n 1660 a n d dealt. o r to exact Oaths. however. m a n y were o f the negative o p i n i o n as they are n o w i n this A n a b a p t i s t age. 13 The earlier w o r k . K o m e n s k y was at least i n p a r t responsible f o r t w o historical w o r k s o n U n i t y history. persecutionum pp. cit. I n the L a t i n o r i g i n a l . w i t h the whole Slavonic c h u r c h . b u t certain false brothers. b u t the greater p a r t affirmed t h a t i t was l a w f u l l . a n d r e m o v i n g f r o m themselves the later accusations a n d the blasphemies a t t r i b u t e d to the Piccardins. and at pleasure afflicted. was the reason that the k i n g said. Nevertheless K o m e n s k y was t h r o u g h o u t his life p r o f o u n d l y interested i n the history o f his c h u r c h and devoted t o the task o f preserving for posterity the record o f its achievements. T h e causes o f this were n o t o n l y the open enemies raging against the little flocke according t o their manner. later historians are indebted f o r h a n d i n g d o w n the last surviving memories.. three y e a r s e a r l i e r u n d e r the title Historia passage a p p e a r s o n p p . B o t h were largely based o n such writers as Camerarius. p p . w h i c h covered the early p e r i o d . accusing the other t h a t they d i d a d m i t o f the s w o r d and p r o p o u n d e d t o defend themselves b y o u t w a r d force. d i d write a new A p o l o g y t o the k i n g . d a t i n g back to the time o f the O l d Brethren. w h i c h the l i v i n g t r a d i t i o n o f the U n i t y still retained. T h e discent [sic] d i d so greatly increase. Persecution. 14 M T h e L a t i n title o f the w o r k is Ecclesiae slavonicae brevis historióla. To Komensky. giving h i m an account o f their f a i t h . i n s o m u c h t h a t he gave order t h a t they should be delivered to the Magistrates. t h a t those o f the negative o p i n i o n d i d separate themselves. Lasicki a n d W e j i e r s k i .282 APPENDIX o f the Brethren. bohemicae. to bring back Zisca again to us.

L a t e r writers tended to cover u p as far as possible a l l traces o f ChelCicky's influence and the contacts w i t h the Waldenses. any discussion o f ideas a n d theories long ago discarded. t o use the apt simile o f Brother Vavrinec O r l i k w r i t i n g i n the second h a l f o f the sixteenth century. o n the left. Todtenbuch der Geistlichkeit der Böhmischen Brüder. I t w o u l d appear as if. while i t is true t h a t K o m e n s k y does m e n t i o n the existence o f the schism. the realization h a d disappeared t h a t for nearly f o r t y years these doctrines had been an integral and very i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f the U n i t y ' s whole p h i l o s o p h y o f life a n d . Brother R e h o f himself. Nevertheless the desire t o a v o i d giving prominence t o . F o r almost a l l later historians. T h e thread o f genuine research i n t o the history o f the U n i t y was n o t t o be t a k e n u p again u n t i l the second quarter o f the nineteenth century. V I I I . by Komensky's t i m e . I n a r e m a r k a b l y short t i m e the very m e m o r y o f their early finally radicalism began t o g r o w d i m a m o n g the o r d i n a r y Brethren and was t o be kept alive only a m o n g the scholars o f the c h u r c h . w i t h the official U t r a q u i s t c h u r c h o n the r i g h t a n d . or elsewhere i n the same w o r k . f o r instance. p. F r o m his account i t w o u l d seem as i f the o l d doctrines were an i n n o v a t i o n introduced i n t o the U n i t y sometime after its f o u n d a t i o n . ' . W i t h Komensky's death i n 1671 the l o n g line o f historians. I t is n o t necessary t o a t t r i b u t e deliberate b a d f a i t h t o such m e n as Blahoslav. the U n i t y o f the p e r i o d u p t o the death o f Brother M a t e j i n 1500 was. t h a t the standpoint o f the 'false brothers' had some fifteen years before been the acknowledged creed o f the whole U n i t y . 1 5 L u k a s and Krasonicky" S e e C h a p . dominated the historiography o f the U n i t y d u r i n g the last century o f its existence. i n its treatment o f the problem. indeed the impulse t o o m i t altogether. he gives no i n d i c a t i o n either here. w h o themselves ceased t o be aware o f its proper significance. b u t liable to be regarded as subversive by the authorities. h a d had n o more ardent c h a m p i o n t h a n the U n i t y ' s founder. 15 is that. ' 18 T h e negative attitude w h i c h the Brethren then adopted towards the magistracy a n d the s w o r d was regarded as evidence o f its i m m a t u r i t y . w i t h the more r a d i c a l Taborites. . w h o h a d w r i t t e n o f the early history o f the Brethren f r o m the standpoint either o f actual members o r f a i r l y close sympathizers o f the U n i t y . came to a n end. was undoubtedly one o f the motives w h i c h . endeavouring instead t o l i n k u p the U n i t y w i t h the general Hussite movement. 'like a c h i l d beginning to s p e a k . o r K o m e n s k y . indeed. no longer eyewitnesses o f the events described. 2 4 3 . 2 2 0 . p.T H E OLD DOCTRINES IN UNITY HISTORIOGRAPHY 283 T h e most s t r i k i n g fact a b o u t this passage. w h i c h is based o n the story f o u n d i n Lukas and K r a s o n i c k y .

Freed f r o m attacks f r o m this quarter the U n i t y historians o f subsequent generations felt n o necessity t o concern themselves w i t h such problems. .284 APPENDIX had been forced b y the propaganda carried on by the M i n o r Party t o devote considerable a t t e n t i o n t o the U n i t y ' s attitude t o state a n d society.

supplemented b y a few p r i n t e d texts i n L a t i n . T h e object o f this note is t o deal o n l y w i t h the more i m p o r t a n t sources. T h o u g h patient research over a century has succeeded i n discovering comparatively little concerning the events o f Chelcicky's life. w h i c h t h r o w some light o n the subject. even t h o u g h numerous scattered passages i n his other w o r k s c o n t a i n m u c h . p r o v i d e a n a b u n d a n t source f o r tracing his social and religious ideas. F o r the former his Sit' viry taken i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the earlier O trojim lidu are most useful. most o f w h i c h have n o w been published i n at least one e d i t i o n . were largely taken over f r o m the writings o f Petr Chelcicky. as has been seen. have a l l made i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to o u r knowledge a n d understanding o f this great Czech p o l i t i c a l t h i n k e r . as well as o f the Russians A n n e n k o v a n d Yastrebov. was a n event o f first-rate importance i n the h i s t o r y o f Czech literature and p o l i t i c a l thought. English a n d Polish. U r b a n e k . The p r i m a r y sources are m a i n l y i n Czech. the C r o a t Jagic. G i n d e l y a n d G o l l . K r o f t a . Scholars o f the calibre o f Palacky a n d Safarik. as well as several i n Russian. t o o . and later o f Smetanka. T h e rediscovery o f Chelfiicky as a w r i t e r and t h i n k e r d u r i n g the second quarter o f the nineteenth century. a n d the F r e n c h m a n Denis.NOTE ON SOURCES T h e sources f o r a history o f the p o l i t i c a l and social doctrines o f the U n i t y o f Czech Brethren i n the fifteenth a n d early sixteenth centuries are scattered over a number o f w o r k s i n several different languages. b o t h p r i m a r y a n d secondary. his w r i t t e n w o r k s . . the Germans M u l l e r a n d Bartos and m a n y other o f their c o m p a t r i o t s . o f interest and significance f o r his p o l i t i c a l a n d social philosophy. after t w o centuries o f almost complete neglect. The doctrines o f the O l d Brethren. M o s t o f the secondary authorities are n a t u r a l l y i n Czech t o o . V o g l . The b i b l i o g r a p h y given below lists a l l the w o r k s bearing directly o r indirectly o n the history o f the Brethren's p o l i t i c a l a n d social doctrines w h i c h I have used i n this study. French. B u t there are also a n u m b e r o f books or articles i n G e r m a n .

t o o . the opposite view. despite his demands f o r a radical change i n the social order. Masaryk. struggling to assert their n a t i o n h o o d . has recently been voiced by a y o u n g Czech scholar. B u t . i n fact helping to b r i n g about the v i c t o r y o f the forces o f counter-revolution. Chelcicky was especially valued f o r the freshness and directness o f his w r i t i n g w i t h its roots close to the life o f the o r d i n a r y Czech people o f his day. the interest o f Czech scholars i n his life a n d w o r k s 1 continued unabated. whose original t h o u g h somewhat u n o r t h o d o x genius was yet another example o f the great cultural heritage o f the Slav peoples. T h e first attitude is t h a t expressed. I I . that C h e l 5icky b y his pacifism a n d attacks o n the Taborites was. w husitskem revoluinim hnuti.and early twentieth-century Czechs. Since the last w a r the changes i n the p o l i t i c a l a n d economic structure o f the c o u n t r y have b r o u g h t w i t h t h e m equally far-reaching changes i n the methods o f w r i t i n g history. Since the last war. Chelcicky was admired as a Slav. has remained extremely d r a w n as a precursor o f M a r x i s m or as an unconscious reactionary. meagre. that is. T h e first v o l u m e o f the latter w o r k w a s n o t accessible t o m e w h i l e w r i t i n g . i n the w r i t i n g s o f Russian scholars. ChelCicky's social radicalism. p p . w i l l remain t o be reckoned w i t h by a l l serious students o f the history o f Czech culture i n the fifteenth century. M a c e k . Nevertheless the figure o f Chelcicky. * revoluint hnutl. Husitski Tolstoi. the emphasis appears to have been p u t on the later p e r i o d after the schism o f the 1490's. T h o u g h as the present century advanced. as well as for the p r o o f i t gave o f the v i t a l i t y a n d strength o f the n a t i o n a l culture at so early a date. especially after the achievement o f independence. t o o . p. Tabor 1 7 0 . o n the dust-cover o f the m o d e r n Czech e d i t i o n o f Sit' viry. . w h i c h attempts to present ChelCicky almost i n the l i g h t o f a M a r x i s t before M a r x . whether 2 Know- ledge o f Chelcicky outside Czechoslovakia.7 4 . O n the other h a n d . Chelcicky. was n o t so m u c h i n accord w i t h the m o o d o f i m p o r t a n t sections o f his n a t i o n . no definitive treatment o f his philosophy taken as a whole has so far appeared. there has been considerable interest i n the social teachings o f the U n i t y o f Brethren a m o n g Czech Protestant h i s t o rians and theologians. I n regard t o Chelcicky there seem at present t o be t w o conflicting tendencies at w o r k . O n the other hand.286 NOTE ON SOURCES F o r nineteenth. w h o backs his o p i n i o n w i t h quotations f r o m G o t t w a l d ' s w r i t i n g s . and even more his outspoken pacifism. so far. B u t despite critical editions o f i n d i v i d u a l w o r k s a n d numerous studies o n particular aspects o f his life a n d ideas. for instance. 1 8 1 . whose interest i n C h e l t i c k y was aroused d u r i n g the 1890's. The socially progressive 1 See F i t t e r . passim.

secondly. does n o t deal specifically w i t h their social ideology. u n t i l recently i n manuscript. a n d they have remained t o thi