Charles had, while temporary ruler of Bohemia during the absence of his father, succeeded in persuading the Papal See to raise the bishopric of Prague to an archbishopric. It was through his influence also that his friend Ernest of Pardubic, a member of one of the oldest noble families of Bohemia, was chosen as first Archbishop of Prague.

It was on Ernest also that Charles conferred the dignity of being the first Chancellor of the newly-founded University of Prague. That foundation is, as regards the annals of the world, the most important event in the history of Prague. That a movement in favour of Church reform should originate here at a time when Geneva and Wittenberg were unknown as centres of theological strife was only rendered possible by the fact that Prague had become the site of one of the then very scanty universities.

At the meeting of the Estates at Prague in 1348 Charles made the following statement: ‘One of our greatest endeavours is that Bohemia our kingdom, for which we feel greater affection than for any of our other lands, should, through our action, be adorned by a great number of learned men; thus will the faithful inhabitants of that kingdom, who incessantly thirst for the fruits of learning, be no longer obliged to beg for foreign alms, rather will they find a table prepared for them in their own kingdom; thus will the natural sagacity of their minds move them to become cultured by the possession of knowledge.’ Charles concluded by informing the assembly that he had resolved to found the University of Prague.

Faithful to his predilection for France, Charles modelled his regulations for the new University entirely on those of the University of Paris. The students were divided into ‘nations’ according to their nationality. In Prague we find the Bohemian, Polish, Bavarian and Saxon ‘nations’; each of these separately elected members to the general council of the University.

The new foundation seems to have been very successful from the first. Benes of Weitmil writes: ‘The University’ (studium) ‘became so great that nothing equal to it existed in all Germany; and students came there from all parts—from England, France, Lombardy, Poland, and all the surrounding countries, sons of nobles and princes, and prelates of the Church from all parts of the world.’

No special building seems at first to have been erected for the University. Many professors delivered their lectures at their own apartments, while of the five professors of the theological faculty one lectured in St. Vitus’s Cathedral, the other four, all monks, in the monasteries to which they belonged. The lectures were at first always delivered in Latin, and it is, therefore, equally incorrect to maintain that the Prague University was at its beginning a genuinely German one as to say that it had, from the origin, a really Bohemian—national—character.

In the last years of his life Charles caused several colleges to be built for the benefit of the students. The first of these colleges was founded when Charles bought the ‘house of the Jew Lazarus in the old town,’ which afforded a dwelling-place for twelve professors. Charles also gave a library to the newly-founded college. During the reign of his son this, the most important of these foundations, was transferred to the building known as the ‘Carolinum,’ which henceforth became the centre of the University.

Everything connected with the University was to Charles of the greatest interest, and the Sovereign was often present at the ‘disputations’ which, according to the mediæval custom, took place there.

Charles was also the founder of a confraternity or guild of artists, of which painters, sculptors, wood-carvers and goldsmiths were members, and which, as Palacky says, took the place of a modern academy of arts.

Charles—who, as his very curious Latin memoirs prove—was a very devout Christian, was a great church builder. He rebuilt and enlarged St. Vitus’s Cathedral, and among his many ecclesiastical constructions the Karlov and the Church and Monastery of Emaus may be mentioned.

The great prosperity that Bohemia and Prague in particular enjoyed during the reign of Charles produced a tendency to luxury, and had a somewhat harmful influence on the morality of the people and of the wealthy clergy in particular. Thence arose a strong and general demand for Church reform which

afterwards culminated in Hus. It would be very tempting to refer here to the forerunners of Hus who lived during the reign of Charles, but here, as everywhere, the need of compression confronts me. Yet a short mention should be made of Conrad Waldhauser and Milic of Kromerize. The former, an Austrian by birth, was called to Prague in 1358 by Charles, and preached at several churches there, but principally at the Tyn Church, where he became rector about the year 1360. Though he generally preached in German, his sermons, containing eloquent denunciations of the immorality and luxury of the times, greatly impressed the Praguers, even the vast Tyn Church occasionally became insufficient to contain his audience, and he sometimes preached in the streets and market-places. He strongly inveighed against the immorality and extravagance of the citizens of Prague, and the result of his preaching was very striking. We read that the women of Prague discarded the jewelry to which they were accustomed, their precious veils, their dresses trimmed with gold and pearls, and adopted simple clothing; usury ceased, and many who had formerly committed that sin declared themselves ready to compensate their former victims. Many citizens who had led an immoral life did public penance, and henceforth gave a good example to others.

As was perhaps inevitable, the great success obtained by Waldhauser was resented by other preachers at Prague. This feeling became more intense when Waldhauser attacked the mendicant friars. In 1364 the Dominican monks accused him of heresy, and brought two points in which, they said, his teaching was contrary to the Church, before Archbishop Ernest. Waldhauser lost no time in presenting his defence, and when the Archbishop appointed day and hour, when anyone who had any grievance against Conrad might appear before the Archiepiscopal Court, no accuser came forth.

This success seems to have encouraged Waldhauser to continue his denunciations of the corruption of the clergy. He was again accused, both by the Dominican and Augustine friars. The latter especially accused him of apostasy. Waldhauser defended himself in a Latin Apologia, which has been preserved. Its tone allows us to infer that his attacks against the immorality of the monks must have been very violent. It is a proof of the liberal mind of Charles, who has by German writers often been accused of undue subservience to the Church of Rome, that Waldhauser none the less retained his office as rector of the Tyn Church up to his death.

Yet greater was the fervour of Milic, who, in 1369, succeeded Waldhauser as rector of the Tyn Church. Milic had early in life held important offices at the Court of Charles. A canon of the Cathedral of Prague, he had also been appointed Vice-Chancellor of the Court, and had for some time in that capacity accompanied Charles during his travels. The desire for Church reform and a return to the primitive Church, then so prevalent in Bohemia, induced Milic to renounce all his honours and to seek refuge in poverty. After having acted as curate for some time in a poor village, Milic returned to Prague, where his sermons, preached in the Church of St. Nicholas in the Malá Strana, soon attracted general attention. Following in the steps of Waldhauser, he eloquently denounced the corruption of his times; but he seems to have strayed further from the doctrine of Rome than Waldhauser had done. Incessant study of the Apocalypse, and the horror which the evil ways of his day inspired in him, appear to have ripened in his mind the idea that the end of the world was approaching. He gave expression to his views not only in his sermons, but also in a written work, entitled, Libellus de Antechristo. The monks of Prague, his enemies, as they had been those of Waldhauser, denounced him to the Papal See, and Milic started for Rome, where, in the absence of Pope Urban, he was imprisoned. After the Pontiff’s arrival an interview between him and Milic took place, when Urban, recognising the purity of his motives, caused him to be liberated, and allowed him to return to Prague. Through the favour of Charles he here obtained the rectorship of the Tyn Church, as already mentioned. Coming from a thoroughly Slavic part of Moravia, Milic was well acquainted with the national language, and, indeed, only learnt German late in life. His sermons, therefore, attracted yet more attention than those of his predecessor. Milic did not limit himself to invectives against vice, but endeavoured by his own activity to reform the people of Prague. Through his influence the ill-famed buildings known as Benatky (Venice) were destroyed and a building erected on the spot to which the name of ‘Jerusalem’ was given, the first instance of the adoption of biblical names, that afterwards became so frequent in Bohemia. The fallen women who had formerly dwelt at Benatky now lived as penitents at ‘Jerusalem,’ and were the object of Milic’s particular care.

At the end of his life Milic again incurred the hostility of the ecclesiastical authorities. He repaired to the Papal Court at Avignon in 1374, but died (there) before the ecclesiastical court before which his case was brought and had pronounced judgment. His memory was long held in reverence by the Bohemians.[9]

The reign of Charles I. marks so important a step in the development of Prague that it may be interesting to note here the various divisions of the city such as they existed during his reign, and after he had so greatly enlarged the city. Prague then consisted of three ‘royal’ cities, that is to say, communities that had received special privileges from the Sovereign. They were the old town (Staré Mesto), new town (Nové Mesto), both on the right bank of the Vltava, and the Malá Strana (small quarter), on the left bank of the river. Besides these the community of Hradcany was under the rule of the burgrave of the Prague castle, and that of Vysehrad under that of the abbot of the monastery of that name. All these and some minor communities enjoyed special privileges, greater in some, smaller in other cases. Charles, however, in the last year of his life, united for a time the two royal cities on the right bank of the river.

CHAPTER II

From the Reign of Charles IV. to the Executions at Prague in 1621

Unfortunately for Wenceslas the old councillors of Charles soon followed their master to the grave, while the difficulties caused by the Papal schism (which will be mentioned later in connection with the Church reform movement) from the first confronted the young King. In this case, as indeed in his foreign policy generally, Wenceslas did not follow the example of his father, who had been a firm friend of France. He concluded an alliance with England, which was strengthened by the marriage of Wenceslas’s sister Anne to King Richard II. of England.

Wenceslas followed his father’s example in mainly residing at Prague, and he soon became very popular with the citizens. It was said he visited the shops of bakers and butchers and inquired the prices of their goods. If these proved higher than was authorised by the regulations, Wenceslas ordered the goods to be given away to the poor and the vendors to be severely punished. Less praiseworthy than these mediæval methods of enforcing justice were the King’s nocturnal excursions through the streets of Prague, on which he was accompanied by boon companions not generally chosen from the higher ranks of the nobility. The King thus became estranged from the proud Bohemian aristocracy, and civil war eventually broke out. It was, as Dr Tomek has shown, in consequence of his desire to mix more freely with the citizens that Wenceslas abandoned the royal residence on the Hradcany and took up his abode in a building close to the Celetná ulice and the powder tower. The young King is said to have greatly enjoyed his comparative privacy, and even to have arranged public festivities on the neighbouring Staromestské Námesti.

The animosity of the Bohemian nobles against their Sovereign, as already mentioned, eventually led to civil war. In 1393 most of the prominent Bohemian nobles formed a confederacy against Wenceslas, which is known in history as the ‘league of the lords.’ The King’s own cousin, Jodocuo of Moravia, as well as Albert III., Duke of Austria, and William, Margrave of Meissen, joined the confederacy. On Wenceslas refusing to grant the demands of the confederates, who wished to limit his power, and especially his right to choose his councillors, he was seized by the lords at his castle near Beroun and conveyed as a prisoner to Prague. The citizens of Prague, however, with whom Wenceslas was still popular, took the part of their King and besieged the castle of the Hradcany, where he was confined. In June 1394 an army, led by Duke John of Görlitz, a brother of Wenceslas, arrived before Prague to attempt to liberate the imprisoned Sovereign. The citizens of the new town joyfully received the Duke of Görlitz and joined his forces, while those of the old town, who—intimidated by the league of lords—at first attempted some resistance, were soon forced to capitulate. The lords, no longer believing their prisoner safe at Prague, conveyed him first to Kruman, a castle of the lords of Rosenberg, one of the leaders of the league, and afterwards to Wildberg. A temporary compromise was concluded soon afterwards, and, after granting most of the demands of the confederates, Wenceslas regained his liberty.

Discord soon again broke out between the King and the nobles, who were encouraged by Rupert, Elector Palatine, whom the Germans had chosen as King after deposing Wenceslas. In 1401 an army led by the Margrave of Meissen, an ally of the Elector Palatine, entered Bohemia, and, after devastating a large part of the country, besieged Prague. The city that had not seen a foreign enemy at its gates for more than a hundred years was terrified, while the horrible cruelties committed by the Germans excited the indignation of the people. The young preacher Hus here for the first time gave expression to the feelings of his countrymen when, in one of his first sermons in the Bethlehem Chapel, he declared that the Bohemians ‘were more wretched than dogs or snakes, for a dog defends the couch on which he lies, and, if another dog tries to drive him away, he fights with him, and a snake does the same; but us the Germans oppress without resistance.’

Prague was, however, not captured by the Margrave of Meissen, and another of the many temporary agreements between the King and the Bohemian nobles, which were so frequent in the reign of Wenceslas, was concluded.

In the following year Wenceslas again became a prisoner. By order of his brother Sigismund, King of Hungary, whom he had foolishly invited to Prague, Wenceslas was seized in the royal residence, near the powder tower, and conveyed first to the Hradcany castle and afterwards to Vienna, where Sigismund entrusted him to the custody of his ally the Duke of Austria. In the following year, however, Wenceslas succeeded in making his escape from Vienna. He returned to Bohemia, where he was now joyfully received by the people, who had suffered greatly during the time that the rapacious Sigismund had illegally ruled over Bohemia.

King Wenceslas’s nature seems to have deteriorated with increasing years; his tendency to drink became stronger; his capacity for work decreased; he became more and more incapable of controlling his always violent temper. A proof of this is the King’s well-known conflict with John of Pomuk or Nepomuk. The size of this book—perhaps fortunately for the writer—precludes entering into controversial matters. I will therefore only remark that recent historians have thrown some doubts on the tale of John of Nepomuk. Palacky declared that St. John Nepomucene belongs solely to legend, in no wise to Bohemian history. Recently even some Roman Catholic writers have agreed with him. I will now give the legend in its earliest form, as it appears in Hajek’s chronicle. Hajek writes under the date of 1383 that ‘King

THE BRIDGE TOWER OF THE MALÁ STRANA
THE BRIDGE TOWER OF THE MALÁ STRANA

Wenceslas gave himself over to much disorder, frequenting various games, plays and dances. His wife, a very noble and honourable lady, blamed him....’

In consequence of such reproof the King was incensed against his wife, and conceived great hatred for her, so that he sought for some cause enabling him to deprive her of her life. The day after the feast of the Holy Sigismund he summoned before him the priest, John of Nepomuk, a master of the University of Prague, canon of the Prague Church, and confessor of the Queen. He requested him to tell him what sins the Queen had confessed to him before God. The priest answered, ‘O King, my lord, I have assuredly not retained this in my memory, and if I had, it would not be beseeming for me to do this, neither is it beseeming for you to make such inquiries.’ The King was incensed, and caused him to be thrown into a grievous subterranean dungeon; then, being unable to obtain anything from him, he sent for the executioner, and ordered that he should be cruelly tortured; but being unable even then to obtain any information from him, he ordered that he should be brought at night to the bridge of Prague, fettered, and thrown into the waters to drown. After this had been done, on that night and on the following one many lights could be seen over the body that was floating on the stream. The King, hearing of this miracle, left for his Castle of Zebrák, and the prelates of the cathedral took the body out of the water and carried it solemnly to the Monastery of the Holy Cross on the citadel of Prague’ (i.e., the Hradcany), ‘then they buried it in St. Vitus’s Cathedral ... afterwards many and manifold wonders took place there, and therefore many declared that he was one of God’s martyrs and a saint.’

The principal event of the later years of the reign of Wenceslas was the Hussite movement, of which Prague was the centre. As has already been mentioned, a strong feeling hostile to the corruption of the Church of Rome had existed during the reign of Charles. Subsequent events had not unnaturally strengthened this feeling. Two, afterwards three, rival candidates claimed the Pontificate, and employed the terrible threats usual among mediæval theologians against the adherents of their rivals. It was inevitable that the authority of the Church of Rome should suffer from this discord, particularly in Bohemia, where Waldhauser and Milic had left many successors. Of these, by far the greatest was Hus, whose career is so closely connected with Prague that I shall briefly allude to it here.

John Hus, or of Husinec, was born at the village of that name about the year 1369. The 6th of July was traditionally believed to be the day of his birth, and as it was also the day of his death, the day was always celebrated in the Bohemian Church up to the time when the battle of the White Mountain re-established the Church of Rome in Bohemia. He arrived at Prague at a very early age, and in September 1393 took the degree of Bachelor of Arts at the University there. In the following year he became a Bachelor of Divinity, and in 1396 Master of Arts. His reputation for great learning spread very rapidly at the University. In 1401 he became Dean of the Faculty of Arts, and in the following year, at an unusually early age, for the first time Rector of the University. But it was only from the time that he began preaching in the Bethlehem Chapel that his name became widely known to those also who were not connected with the University.

The Bethlehem Chapel, situated in what is still known as the Bethlehem Place—‘Betlemské Námesti’—was founded in 1391 by John of Milheim, one of King Wenceslas’s courtiers, together with ‘Kriz the Shopkeeper,’ as he is called in the contemporary records, a wealthy tradesman of Prague.

Following the example of Milic, whose foundation had been called ‘Jerusalem,’ Milheim and Kriz also gave a Biblical name to the new chapel. Both founders were favourable to Church reform and partisans of the national movement. Sermons were always preached in Bohemian at Bethlehem, and the brilliant eloquence of Hus, of which we can still judge, as some of his sermons have been preserved, attracted the general attention of the people of Prague. It is noteworthy that during the first years of his priesthood—he was consecrated as a priest about the year 1400—Hus was on good terms with his ecclesiastical superiors. Even after the first disputes concerning Wycliffe’s teaching had arisen, Hus was, as he himself mentions, requested by the newly appointed Archbishop of Prague ‘to bring all irregularities contrary to the rules of the Church’ to the Archbishop’s notice. It should here already be mentioned that the teaching of Hus differed from that of Rome far less than was the case with most Church Reformers. As Dr. Harnack has written,[10] Hus, like Wycliffe, ‘only denied the alleged right of the clergy to represent the Church and administer its sacraments even when they did not fulfil God’s commandments. How—he declared—can the functions of priests be valid if the presupposition of all they do in the Church and for the Church, namely, obedience to the law of God, is absent. The quintessence of that law is the Sermon of the Mount and the example of the humble life of Jesus; yet the whole of Scripture is the law of God.’

The first disputes between Hus and his ecclesiastical superiors broke out in 1403. On May 28th of that year a full meeting of the members of the University, memorable as the beginning of the Hussite struggle, took place at the Carolinum. It was finally decided that forty-five so-called ‘articles’ culled from the writings of Wycliffe, twenty-four of which had already been condemned by the Council of Blackfriars, should be declared heretical, and that all members of the University should be forbidden to circulate them. Hus and his friends, who were accused of spreading the heretical opinions of Wycliffe in Bohemia, protested against this sentence and maintained that the ‘articles’ contained many statements that were not to be found in Wycliffe’s writings.

Shortly after this first debate, Zbynek Zajic of Hasenburg became Archbishop of Prague, and it seemed for a time that religious peace had returned to the country. But in 1408 the clergy of Prague and of the whole archbishopric of Prague brought forward a protest against Hus’s preaching at the Bethlehem Chapel,

MEDALS OF HUS
MEDALS OF HUS

stating that he had, ‘in opposition to the decisions of the Holy Church and to the opinions of the Holy Fathers, and to the injury, shame, detriment and scandal of the whole clergy and the people generally,’ declared heretics the priests who took payment for ecclesiastical functions, and blamed the ecclesiastics who held numerous benefices. Hus, indeed, defended himself eloquently, but he was none the less deprived of the office of preacher before the Synod, which the archbishop had conferred on him some time before.

Relations between the archbishop and Hus became yet more embittered when the latter addressed to his ecclesiastical superior a letter of remonstrance which Dr. Lechler, a Protestant divine, describes as ‘reaching the extreme limit of what is permissible to a priest when writing to his ecclesiastical superiors.’ In this letter, written on behalf of Velenovic, a priest of Prague, who was accused of favouring Wycliffe’s views, Hus admonished the archbishop ‘to love the good, not to be influenced by flattery, to be a friend of the humble and not to hinder those who work steadfastly at the harvest of the Lord.’

At this period the racial and the religious struggle in Bohemia proceeded simultaneously; those who favoured the movement for Church reform were also warm friends of the Bohemian nationality. It was therefore a great triumph for this party, of which Hus was now the leader, when King Wenceslas, in January 1409, issued the ‘Decrees of Kutna Hora,’ which secured the permanent supremacy of the Bohemian nation at the University of Prague. The result was the departure of the German masters and students from Prague. They left the University probably in the number of five thousand, though some Bohemian writers give a much higher figure. After Archbishop Zbynek had recognised Alexander as the legitimate Pope, the proceedings against Hus had a much more rapid development. On July 15, 1410, Wycliffe’s writings were solemnly burnt in the courtyard of the archiepiscopal palace that was then situated in the Malá Strana, near the bridge.

The burning of Wycliffe’s works met with almost universal disapproval at Prague. A contemporary chronicler writes: ‘Instantly a great sedition and discord began. Some said that many other books besides those of Wycliffe had been burnt; therefore the people began to riot, the courtiers of the King were incensed against the canons and priests; many opprobrious songs against the archbishop were sung in the streets.’

Hus, at a meeting of the University, energetically defended Wycliffe’s teaching; he also, contrary to the positive orders of the archbishop, continued his sermons in the Bethlehem Chapel. On March 15, 1411, the sentence of excommunication which had been pronounced against Hus some time previously was published in the churches of Prague, while the town itself was placed under interdict. Endeavours to effect a settlement indeed still continued.

In May 1412, however, the difficulties caused by the Papal schism brought the reform movement in Bohemia to a crisis. King Ladislas of Naples, who still recognised Gregory the Twelfth as Pope, had thus incurred the enmity of John XXIII., who had succeeded Alexander V. as Roman Pope. John, therefore, resolved to go to war with the King of Naples, and—a proceeding which it must be added was not exceptional in those days—to obtain the necessary funds by the granting of indulgences. It was declared that all those who either took part in the campaign against Naples, or assisted the enterprise by grants of money, should receive the same remission of sins which had formerly been promised to the Crusaders who had liberated the sepulchre of Christ. The Bohemians, who were not long after to suffer from a ‘crusade’ similar to that now proclaimed against Naples, received the news of the Papal decision with great displeasure. When Wenceslas Tiem, Dean of Passau, arrived at Prague, with the purpose of collecting, by the sale of indulgences, funds for the Papal See, public excitement was naturally yet greater. Boxes to receive the donations of the faithful were placed before the Cathedral Church of St. Vitus, the Tyn Church, and on the Vysehrad. These proceedings caused particular indignation at the University, where the party favourable to Church reform now had entirely the upper hand. Hus summoned the members of the University to a disputatio, according to the mediæval custom. It took place in the large hall of the Carolinum, and the subject of the disputatio was formulated in the question ‘whether according to the law of Jesus Christ it was permissible and befitting for the honour of God, the salvation of the Christian people and the welfare of the kingdom, that the faithful of Christ should approve of the Papal bulls which proclaimed a crusade against Ladislas, King of Apulia, and his accomplices?’ Both Hus and Jerome of Prague violently attacked the use of indulgences for the purpose of supplying the Roman See with funds for temporal purposes. The theological faculty soon after again condemned the forty-five ‘articles’ from Wycliffe’s writings, and added six more that were attributed to Hus and said to contain the views on indulgences which he had expressed at the recent disputatio. Pope John also took action against Hus, and decreed the ‘aggravation’ of the sentence of excommunication that had already been pronounced against him. The movement had thus taken a distinctly revolutionary character, and Hus fled from Prague in November 1412, after having published an ‘Appeal from the Sentence of the Roman Pontiff to the Supreme Judge, Jesus Christ.’ He first retired to Kozi Hradek, a castle belonging to one of his adherents, John of Usti.

Shortly after his departure from Prague an attempt was made there to assuage the religious discord. A diocesan synod met there in the archiepiscopal palace. Hus was not present, but was represented by Magister John of Jesenic. Little is known of the deliberations of this assembly, though the documents in which both the Hussite and the Romanist divines formulated their views have been preserved. This conference proved abortive, as did also a subsequent attempt of King Wenceslas to bring the disputed questions before a committee, which was to consist of four members and over which Albik, then Archbishop of Prague, was to preside. When it was decided to affirm that both parties were in accordance with the Church with regard to the doctrine of the Sacrament of the Altar, the Romanist divines immediately protested, declaring that they were not a ‘party,’ and demanding that the word ‘Church’ should be defined as the Holy Roman Church, of which Pope John XXIII. is the head, and of which the cardinals are the members. The negotiations thus failed from the first, to the great indignation of King Wenceslas, who, indeed, exiled from Prague some of the German Romanist divines. The racial struggle, as so frequently in Bohemia, continued simultaneously with the religious one, and about this time, through the influence of the King, the majority of the town council of the old town, which had been German, became Bohemian, and, therefore, favourable to the cause of Hus.

Hus, who appears to have several times visited Prague secretly at this time, had meanwhile left the castle of Usti, and was, on the invitation of Lord

MEDALS OF HUS
MEDALS OF HUS

Henry of Lazan, one of the King’s courtiers, residing at the castle of Krakovec, situated considerably nearer to Prague. Contrary to the Papal commands he frequently visited the neighbouring towns and villages, preaching in favour of Church reform.

All attempts to settle the religious differences in Bohemia having failed, the questions raised by Hus were finally brought before a wider forum. On the suggestion of Sigismund, King of Hungary, and afterwards German Emperor, Hus proceeded to the council that met at Constance in November 1414. He had previously, according to the momentous words of Professor Tomek, received from Sigismund a safe-conduct, according to which he was ‘to come unmolested to Constance, there have free audience, and return unharmed, should he not submit to the authority of the council.’

None the less Hus was imprisoned shortly after his arrival at Constance, and was—as will be known to most readers—burnt alive on July 6, 1415.

The death of Hus caused general indignation in Prague. Almost all the parish priests who ventured to praise, or even to excuse the execution of Hus, were driven from their homes. The Bohemian nobles who met at Prague in September (1415), and who were joined by many Moravian nobles, also expressed their indignation strongly. They addressed to the council a letter known as the ‘Protestatio Bohemorum,’ accusing it of having ‘condemned the venerable magister (i.e., Hus) without having convicted him of any error, merely on the strength of evil statements of treacherous enemies and traitors, and of having deprived him of his life in the most cruel fashion, to the eternal shame and offence of Bohemia and Moravia.’ They further declared ‘before the council and the whole world that Magister John Hus was a man of pure life and irreproachable fame, who taught the law of Scripture according to the doctrine of the fathers and of the Church, who loathed all errors and heresies, who, by word, writing and deed, admonished us and all the faithful to desire peace and to love our neighbours, and by his own quiet and edifying life guided us in the path of godliness.’

A few days after sending to Constance this declaration that caused great indignation there, the knights and nobles united in a solemn covenant for mutual defence. They pledged themselves to defend the liberty of preaching the word of God, to obey the Pope and the bishops of Bohemia as long as their commands were not contrary to Scripture, and meanwhile to recognise the University of Prague as the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine. The University thus first acquired the important position of arbiter in matters of doctrine which it held during the Hussite wars, and, indeed, only entirely lost after the battle of the White Mountain. The fact that the King and Queen were known to favour the national movement alone prevented an immediate general outbreak. Matters became yet more serious when—following the advice of his treacherous younger brother, Sigismund—Wenceslas endeavoured to stem the current.

In 1419 the King issued a decree ordaining that all priests who had been deprived of their livings because of their disapproval of communion in the two kinds, should be reinstated. Only in three churches were the Utraquists, as the adherents of the new doctrine were called, to continue to hold their religious services. The Utraquists, to show their strength, instituted processions through the streets of Prague, during which the sacrament was carried before the faithful. One of the most zealous Utraquists was the priest, John of Zelivo, a former Præmonstrate monk. On July 30, 1419, he headed a procession which, after violently interrupting a religious service which was being held in the Church of St. Stephen, according to the Roman rites, marched to the town hall of the Nové Mesto, situated in the Karlovo Námesti. The release of some adherents of the new faith who had been imprisoned there was demanded, but refused by the burgomaster, who was a Romanist. The Utraquists then, ‘as an affront, called him a German and a hater of the chalice.’[11] Meanwhile the town councillors had barricaded their hall and threw stones on the crowd below, one of which struck the monstrance that Zelivo was carrying. The crowd—led, it is said, by Zizka, afterwards famous as a Hussite leader—stormed the town hall and threw the town councillors into the market-place below, where they were killed by the people.

This ‘defenestration,’ as it was called in Bohemia, marks the beginning of the great religious struggle in Bohemia, as the defenestration from the Hradcany windows in 1618 marks its end; for only two years after the last-named event the battle of the White Mountain established religious uniformity in Bohemia.

The defenestration was followed almost immediately by the death of Wenceslas, who succumbed to repeated apoplectic fits on August 16, 1419. His death was the signal of yet more serious riots, during which many churches and monasteries were destroyed and many valuable relics of Bohemian art perished. The Puritan character of the movement is proved by the fact that no plundering took place and that many houses of evil fame were destroyed. Temporary quiet was established when it became known that Queen Sophia, who was favourable to the national movement, had assumed the Regency. Yet the interval of peace was but short. Armed meetings of Hussites were held in all parts of Bohemia, and it became known that such a meeting had been planned at Prague also for November 10. The Queen and her councillors therefore considered it necessary to take precautions. The Hradcany Castle, the Strahov Monastery and the archbishop’s palace received strong garrisons of German mercenaries. The defence of the Vysehrad was entrusted to the former bodyguard of King Wenceslas. This fortress was carried by assault by the Hussites on October 25; the soldiers of Wenceslas, who probably sympathised with the national cause, offering but very slight resistance. The Praguers, reinforced by allies from the surrounding country, now attacked the Malá Strana. They stormed the bridge (November 4) and occupied the buildings immediately beyond it; and it seemed for a time possible that they should even obtain possession of the Hradcany Castle, from which Queen Sophia fled hastily. Nightfall for a time put a stop to the fighting, but all foresaw that the battle would continue. As an ancient chronicler writes: ‘This night was a dreadful and anxious one for all Prague; during all night the large bells rang, summoning the citizens to remain under arms for the continued battle in the Malá Strana; only long after midnight there was quiet for a short time.’

Fighting was resumed on the following day, and the Royal troops, commanded by Cenek of Wartenberg, who had replaced Queen Sophia as Regent, also received reinforcements. The Royal troops destroyed the town hall of the Malá Strana, and also burnt down the monastery of St. Nicholas in the same part of the town, while the Praguers entirely destroyed the archiepiscopal palace that is said to have contained

THE BRIDGE TOWER OF THE OLD TOWN
THE BRIDGE TOWER OF THE OLD TOWN

many art treasures. Zizka, the great leader of the Taborites—as the more advanced Hussites were called, from the name of the town that was their centre—here first showed his great military ability. The citizens now became desirous for peace, while the Utraquist nobles who had remained faithful to the Royal cause were yet reluctant to continue warfare against those whose creed they shared. A truce was concluded on November 13, according to which the Praguers were to give up the Vysehrad to the Royal troops, while the Utraquist nobles promised to aid their countrymen in defending the Hussite creed. Zizka and the more advanced Church reformers, distrusting the compromise, left Prague for the time, proceeding to Plzen, and afterwards to Tabor.

Meanwhile King Sigismund arrived in the Bohemian lands, of which he claimed the succession as heir of his brother. He first proceeded to Brünn (or Brno), the capital of Moravia. Many Bohemian nobles and officials appeared at his court, and a deputation of the citizens of Prague also appeared before him on December 29. The Praguers assured the King of their loyalty, begging only ‘to be allowed to remain faithful to that which they had learnt from the Holy Writ.’ Sigismund received the envoys most ungraciously, obliged them to continue kneeling longer than was customary, and overwhelmed them with reproaches and insults. He finally dismissed them with the solemn command that they should, as a proof of their obedience, cause the chains that had been placed at the corners of the Prague streets for purpose of defence to be instantly removed, and the fortifications which the citizens had constructed opposite the Hradcany Hill to be destroyed. He also enjoined them to inflict no further injury on the monks.

The magistrates of Prague did not dare to disobey the Royal commands. On January 4, 1420, the chains that had been placed in the streets were deposited in the town hall of the Staré Mesto, and the fortifications that had been erected on the approaches of the Hradcany were destroyed. Many monks, priests and Germans who had left Prague during the recent disturbances returned, believing that the hour of their triumph had come. A contemporary chronicler[12] tells us that ‘the Germans laughed and joyfully clapped their hands, saying, “now these heretical Hussites and Wycliffites will perish, and there will be an end of them.” ’ The Bohemian and Hussite citizens, on the other hand, not unnaturally looked forward to the future with great apprehension.

Sigismund did not, as was expected, immediately proceed to Prague. He for a time took up his residence at Breslau, the capital of Silesia, where he collected a large armed force. Through his influence Pope Martin V. issued a bull in which he called the whole Christian world to arms against ‘the Wycleffites, Hussites, and other heretics, their furtherers, harbourers and defenders.’

It is not perhaps easy for a modern reader to conceive the effect such a declaration of war produced on the Bohemians, for a crusade had hitherto almost always only been preached against heathens, infidels and Turks. The whole nation rose in arms against Sigismund. The indignation was particularly great at Prague, where the news was received that, by orders of Sigismund, John Krasa, one of the leading citizens, had been dragged through the streets of Breslau by horses and then burnt at the stake. John of Zelivo, in his sermons, denounced Sigismund violently in language drawn from the Apocalypse. The audience, inflamed by his eloquence, swore to sacrifice life and fortune for the cause of the chalice. Those hostile to Church reform not unnaturally dreaded the outbreak of hostilities, and we read that seven hundred families from the old, and seven hundred families from the new town, either sought refuge in the castles of Hradcany and Vysehrad, that were held by Sigismund’s troops, or left Prague altogether. The citizens in no way hindered their departure, which, indeed, in view of the coming siege, was advantageous to the Hussite cause. Those who remained were yet more determined to resist Sigismund to the utmost. On the suggestion of John of Zelivo the citizens who remained in the town, the Hussite preachers, and the members of the University, met on April 3 (1420) at the town hall of the Staré Mesto. All present swore to defend, to the last drop of blood, the right of receiving communion according to the Utraquist faith, and to resist all, and particularly the so-called ‘Crusaders,’ who might endeavour to harm the Utraquists. As leaders in the defence of the menaced capital they elected eight captains—four from the old and four from the new—to whom the keys of the town gates and those of the town hall were entrusted. The assembly addressed a manifesto to all the towns of Bohemia, begging them to send envoys to Prague to concert on the common defence. This manifesto attacked the Church of Rome in the most violent manner. It was stated that the Roman Church ‘was not their mother, but their stepmother; that she had poured out her poison like the most furious serpent, and had raised up the cross, the emblem of love and peace, for the purpose of inciting to hatred and murder; that she had, by false promises of absolution, incited the Germans, born enemies of Bohemia and of the Slav race, to begin the war of extermination which they had always contemplated.’

Even the Regent, Cenek of Wartenberg, for a time sided with his countrymen. Together with other great noblemen he summoned ‘all Bohemians and Moravians who were zealous for the Word of God and the welfare of the Bohemian nation to join him in opposing the Hungarian and Roman King Sigismund.’ Continuation of warfare was thus a certainty, and the Hussites unfortunately again began to destroy the churches and monasteries belonging to adherents of Rome.

Cenek of Wartenberg and the other Bohemian nobles were naturally indignant at the conduct of their new allies. They therefore lent a willing ear to the envoys of Sigismund. Wartenberg, abandoning the national cause, concluded a private treaty with the King, that at first remained secret. On the condition that he, his family, and the tenants on his estates, should be allowed to worship according to the Utraquist creed, he consented to admit the Royal troops into the castle on the Hradcany. The citizens, exasperated by Wartenberg’s treachery, endeavoured to recover possession of the castle, but their desperate attack was repulsed by the Royal troops. Simultaneously, fighting also began in the new town, the Royal troops that held the Vysehrad making a successful sortie and defeating the citizens of the new town.

The Praguers now wished to negotiate with the King, while the Royal troops had also suffered severe losses. An armistice of six days was concluded, and the citizens sent another deputation to the King. Sigismund, who was then at Kutna Hora, received the envoys even more ungraciously than before. As the Praguers afterwards wrote to the Venetians: ‘The King became harder than steel; as one stung by fury, he began to agitate his limbs as a madman.’ He declared that it was his duty to destroy all heresy by fire and sword, even should he have to extirpate the whole population of Bohemia and colonise the country with foreign immigrants.

On the return of the envoys another meeting of the citizens took place in the town hall of the Staré Mesto, where great enthusiasm prevailed. It was again decided that all should risk their lives and fortunes for the cause of religious freedom, and fight to the last. An Utraquist nobleman, Hynek Krusina of Lichtenberg, was chosen as commander-in-chief. A message was also sent to Zizka and the other Taborite leaders, stating that ‘if they wished verily to obey God’s law they should march to their aid without delay, and with as many men as they could muster.’ After some skirmishing with the Royal troops, Zizka and his men arrived at Prague (May 20, 1420), where they were joyfully received by the citizens. From other parts of Bohemia also many nationalists hurried to the defence of the menaced capital.

Hearing that the Praguers had received reinforcements, Sigismund did not march straight on Prague, but proceeded to Melnik, where he halted for some time. By his orders and those of the Papal Legate, Ferdinand, Bishop of Lucca, horrible cruelties were committed against the population of the neighbouring country, and particularly the citizens of Slané and Litomerice.[13] In a period of intense religious passion such cruelties inevitably led to reprisals. We read that the Hussites who were besieging the Hradcany burnt alive nine Romanist monks in view of the Royal garrison.

Sigismund, whose army had been reinforced by numerous ‘Crusaders,’ now decided to march on Prague. Almost all countries of Europe contributed to this vast army. According to a contemporary writer there were numbered among the Crusaders ‘Hungarians, Croatians, Dalmatians, Bulgarians, Sicilians, Wallachians, Cumanians, Jazyges, Ruthenians, Racians, Slovacks, Carniolians, Styrians, Austrians, Bavarians, Francs, Swabians, Switzers, Frenchmen, Arragonians or Spaniards, Englishmen, men of Brabant, Dutchmen, Westphalians, men of Saxony, Thuringia, the Voigtland, Meissen, Lusatia, and the march of Brandenburg, Silesians, Poles, Moravians and “renégate” Bohemians.’ A letter written by the Praguers merely states that innumerable men from more than thirty kingdoms and provinces arrived before their city, while Monstrelet, a contemporary, writes that ‘Il arriva tant de gens qu à peine se pouvaient ils nombrer.’ Most of the princes who ruled these countless countries had accompanied their troops. We read that all the German Electors, except the Elector of Saxony, Albert Duke of Austria, forty-three men of princely rank, Brunorius della Scala of Verona, the Patriarch of Aquileja, many counts of the empire, knights and nobles, were with the crusading army.

Sigismund and his forces first entered the Vysehrad fortress, and then, crossing the river, provisioned the Hradcany Castle, the siege of which the Hussites were obliged to abandon. The vast army—according to the chroniclers it consisted of 100,000 or 150,000 men, but the latter figure is probably nearer to truth—now encircled Prague in every direction. The German soldiers, who were encamped on the left bank of the Vltava, opposite the Staré Mesto, insulted their enemies by incessant cries of ‘Ha, ha! Hus! Hus! Ketzer![14] Ketzer!’

The Praguers and their scanty allies meanwhile fearlessly and confidently prepared to encounter the world in arms against them. With them, as afterwards

THE HRADCANY
THE HRADCANY

with the Puritans, absolute confidence in Scripture rendered despondency impossible; for, to borrow the words of Mr. John Morley, ‘No criticism had then impaired the position of the Bible as the direct Word of God, a single book one and whole, one page as inspired as another.’ A thorough knowledge of the Old Testament is evident in all the contemporary records of those stirring times. No man or woman of Prague doubted that the Lord, who had once struck down the forces of Sennacherib, would now strike down those of Sigismund.

The 14th of July was fixed by Sigismund for the general attack. It was decided that the Royal forces that were quartered in the Hradcany Castle should attack the adjoining Malá Strana and the bridge tower on the left bank of the Vltava, while the forces on the Vysehrad would endeavour to storm the new town, which was at the foot of that fortress. A third army was to attack the old town from the so-called Spitalské Pole (hospital field), which was situated on the spot where the suburb of Karlin, or Karolinenthal, now stands. An attack was also to be made on the hill then known as the Vitkov, but which has, after the victorious Taborite leader, since that day been called the Zizkov, or Zizka’s Hill. This hill was the key of the position of the defenders, who depended on its possession for maintaining their communications with the country. The Zizkov was held by Zizka and his Taborites, who had thrown up slight fortifications. The Germans attacked the hill with a strong force, and, in spite of the heroism of Zizka, who fought in the front rank, for a time drove the Bohemians back. One of the small earthworks was held for a long time by only twenty-six men, two women and one girl, against several hundred Germans. When the Taborites were for a time forced to retreat, one of these women refused to leave her post, saying that a true Christian must never give way to Antichrist. She was immediately cut down by the Germans. This incident is very characteristic of the indomitable religious enthusiasm that for a time rendered the Bohemians invincible. The clanging of all the church bells hastily summoned the citizens, who, led by a priest carrying the monstrance, hurried to the aid of their allies. The Germans were completely routed; many were killed during their flight from the hill—then much steeper than at the present day—and many perished in the Vltava. As soon as victory seemed certain, the Taborites and Praguers knelt down on the battlefield and intoned the ‘Te Deum Laudamus,’ while the whole town was filled with unspeakable joy.

The other attacks on the city were also unsuccessful. Sigismund had remained in the rear with part of his army, and returned to his camp as soon as he saw the defeat of his troops. According to the Austrian chronicler, Ebendorf of Haselbach, the King ‘smiled—it is said—over the fate of the brave Christians who had succumbed to the heretics, who had triumphed over them.’

On Monday, July 15—the battle had been fought on a Sunday—solemn processions through the streets of Prague, led by the Hussite clergy, took place in celebration of the great victory. Zizka, however, who believed a new attack probable, hastily collected a large crowd of men and women, who, under his direction, strengthened and enlarged the fortifications on the Vitkov, the scene of the victory of the day before.

The supposition of the Taborite leader, however, proved erroneous, for the victory on Zizka’s Hill practically ended the siege of Prague. It is as impossible to explain this as it is to account for the fact that the by no means decisive defeat of Marathon should have induced the Persians to abandon for a time their intention of conquering Greece. It is certain that dissensions broke out in the vast camps of the Crusaders. The foreign allies of Sigismund distrusted all Bohemians, even those who were on the side of the King, while the latter, who had, as Palacky writes, learnt that ‘even the largest force is insufficient to subdue a strong and resolute people,’ now felt more disposed to listen to the words of those Bohemian nobles who, indeed, sided with their Sovereign, but did not share the German desire to extirpate the whole Bohemian nation. These men suggested negotiations between the King and his Hussite subjects. Such negotiations were facilitated by the fact that the united Hussites had, meanwhile, drawn up a summary of their demands, which is known as ‘The Articles of Prague.’[15] It will here be sufficient to state that the Bohemians demanded freedom of preaching, the use of the chalice at communion, obligatory poverty of the clergy and severe regulations against mortal sins. It was decided that a conference should take place in the open air among the ruins of the Malá Strana, at which the magisters of the University, with the chiefs of the Praguers and Taborites, were to meet some German nobles, envoys of King Sigismund, and the Patriarch of Aquilya, and Simon, Bishop of Trace, who acted as representatives of the Papal See. The meeting led to no result, as the representatives of the Roman Church declared that no decision of the Church could be contested or discussed. The magisters of the Prague University expressed surprise that the Papal envoys attributed greater authority to the ‘fallible Church than to the infallible words of Christ.’

The failure of these negotiations no doubt confirmed Sigismund in his resolution of leaving the neighbourhood of Prague. The dissensions in his army became more and more envenomed; serious epidemics broke out among the troops; a great fire destroyed large parts of the encampments. Before abandoning the siege, however, Sigismund caused himself to be crowned King of Bohemia in St. Vitus’s Cathedral.

The writers hostile to Sigismund lay stress on the absence of many nobles whose Court dignities rendered their presence at coronations necessary. They also mention that no representatives of the Bohemian cities, none in particular of Prague, ‘the mother of all Bohemian cities,’ assisted at the ceremony.

Two days afterwards Sigismund broke up his camp and retired to Kutna Hora, thus giving the signal of departure to the Crusaders, who hurriedly returned to their countries. Royal troops, however, continued to hold the castles of Vysehrad and Hradcany.

The citizens now immediately began the siege of the Vysehrad. After a time the defenders, who were suffering from hunger, were compelled to conclude a truce for three days, according to which they would capitulate if they had received no aid by the morning of November 1. Sigismund meanwhile had returned to the neighbourhood of Prague with an army consisting mainly of Moravians, and containing many Utraquist nobles from that country. On the other hand many of the Bohemian nobles, such as Hynek Krusina of Lichtenberg, who was first in command, Victor of Podebrad (father of the future King), and many others openly joined the national cause.

The Vysehrad Castle was now surrounded in every direction. Zavis Bradaty, with the citizens of Zatec and Loun, and a large force of armed peasants, were encamped between the Karlov[16] and the Botic stream. Next to them were the troops of the Utraquist nobles and of the Orebite[17] community, while the citizens of Prague held the post of honour nearest to the village of Pankrac, whence the attack of the relieving army was expected. At the last moment forty Taborite horsemen, led by Nicholas of Hus,[18] joined the Praguers.

The King arrived at the village of Pankrac on October 31, and sent a message to the commander of his troops on the Hradcany telling him that he would attack the citizens on the following morning, and ordering him also to attack the bridge from the Malá Strana. ‘But’—as a contemporary chronicler writes—‘God, who is ever an enemy of the haughty and a friend of the humble, caused this message to fall into the hands of the Praguers.’ The citizens and their allies therefore spent the whole night in preparing for battle. The former trenches had, of course, been constructed for besieging the Vysehrad; but the Praguers, who held the most important position, hastily threw up earthworks on a spot where the fish ponds, still frequent in that neighbourhood, rendered the attack more difficult.

In the morning (November 1) Sigismund rode to the summit of a little hill beyond the village of Pankrac, and in view of the Vysehrad, and waved his sword as a signal to the garrison to attack the rear of the enemy’s army. ‘But, as according to God’s will,’ the chronicler writes, ‘the hour had already passed, the garrison did not stir.’ A few German soldiers who formed part of the garrison, indeed attempted to come to Sigismund’s aid, but were held back by their Bohemian comrades. Seeing that no sortie from the Vysehrad was intended, several of the Moravian nobles rode up to the King and advised him not to attack the Praguers, otherwise both he and his people would suffer much evil. The King answered, ‘I must war with these peasants to-day.’ Then Henry of Plumlov, Captain of Moravia, said, ‘Be certain that this day will have an evil end; I dread the fighting-clubs[19] of the peasants.’ The King answered, ‘I know that you Moravians are cowards and faithless to me.’ Then Lord Henry and the other Moravian lords mounted their horses and cried, ‘We will obey your order and we shall be there, where you will not be.’ The nobles attacked the strong position of the Praguers with great vigour, and for a moment the citizens wavered. Then Krusina hurried to the spot where they stood, and exclaimed with a loud voice, ‘Dear brethren! turn back again and be to-day brave knights in Christ’s battle, for it is God’s, not our fight, that we are fighting to-day. You will see for sure that God will deliver all His and our enemies into our hands.’ Hardly had he ceased speaking when the cry, ‘The enemy is flying,’ was heard. The citizens speedily rallied, and, assuming the offensive, drove the Moravian nobles back into the marshy ground that extended from the Vysehrad to the village of Pankrac. A great massacre of the nobles, whose heavy armour impeded their movements, took place, and flight soon became general. Sigismund himself, who, regardless of the taunts of the Moravian nobles had again remained with the rear of his army, did not halt till he had reached the town of Cesky Brod. A very large number of Moravian nobles fell in this battle, and many also died of their wounds at the village of Pankrac, after receiving communion in the two kinds, as the pious chronicler states. It is touching to note that the Praguers sorrowed over the death of the Moravian nobles, who, though they had fought against the city, yet belonged to the same race as the citizens. The citadel of Vysehrad surrendered on the day of the battle, and on June 7, 1421, the garrison of the Hradcany—which had unsuccessfully attempted a diversion during the battle of the Vysehrad—also capitulated.

One of the most important results of the battles of the Zizkov and of the Vysehrad was the temporary hegemony over Bohemia, or at least the greatest part of the country, which the city of Prague obtained. The ‘mother and head of the Bohemian cities,’ which had gloriously and successfully defended the religious and political liberty of the country, not unfairly claimed the leadership. The once powerful Bohemian nobility had been weakened by dissension. Some of its members still, though reluctantly, remained faithful to Sigismund. Others, perhaps also reluctantly, recognised the city of Prague as their over-lord, though they never—as was the case in some Italian cities—became merged in the mass of the citizens. The Taborites, who had taken but little part in the ‘crowning mercy’ of the Vysehrad, had not yet attained the height of their power.

The strong attitude assumed by the predominant city appears very clearly in the manifesto[20] which the Praguers, in union with some of their allies among the nobles, issued a few days after the victory of the Vysehrad. This document is a stirring appeal to the national feeling, and such an appeal has rarely remained unheeded in Bohemia.

After violent denunciations of Sigismund, who, it was stated, had preferred to the Bohemians ‘the Germans and Hungarians, the cruellest enemies of our nation,’ and who was ready to sacrifice a kingdom, were there but no Bohemians in Bohemia, the citizens declared that they would consider all who favoured such a King as men who desired the ruin of the country. They would, therefore, consider such men as open enemies of God and of the nation.

It is interesting to give a brief outline of the

VIEW OF PRAGUE AND HRADCANY CASTLE
VIEW OF PRAGUE AND HRADCANY CASTLE

constitution of Prague at the moment of her greatest power. This constitution may be defined as that of a theocratic republic, though attempts to obtain a new Sovereign in succession to Sigismund always continued. The principal legislative authority was at this period concentrated in the ‘great assembly’ (Veliká Obec), of which almost all citizens formed part, and which met in the open air in the market-places. The executive power was in the hands of the burgomaster and of the town councillors, who were elected by the great assembly. Though the separation between the old town and the new town continued, it seems at this period to have been an almost nominal one.

Less easy to define, but perhaps yet greater, was the influence of the preachers, mainly founded on the almost exclusive interest in theological controversy that was then general in Bohemia. John of Zelivo, who has already been mentioned, for a time acquired boundless popularity among the citizens. His influence largely contributed to securing to Prague the hegemony over Bohemia, and after his downfall and death, to which I shall presently refer, Prague soon lost its predominant position.

Warfare with Sigismund continued in spite of his great defeat, and the citizens of Prague played a prominent part in it. Their party, to accentuate the hegemony of the city, is generally called ‘the Praguers’ by the old chroniclers, in distinction both from the Romanists and the Taborites. The scene of the subsequent Hussite warfare was, however, generally distant from Prague, and therefore requires no notice here. It is only occasionally that Prague again becomes the centre of events.

Such was the case when, on April 21, 1421, ‘to the surprise and horror of all Christendom,’ the Archbishop of Prague, Conrad of Vechta, declared that he accepted ‘The Articles of Prague,’ thus joining the national Church. The news was joyfully received by the citizens of Prague. The Te Deum Laudamus was sung and the bells of all the churches were rung. All swore to obey the archbishop and to defend him. Only a few of the preachers who were favourable to Tabor looked with displeasure on the ‘healing of the anti-Christian monster.’ On the other hand, Conrad was not unnaturally overwhelmed with abuse by the Romanists. Dr. Tomek writes: ‘Archbishop Conrad was neither better nor worse than the majority of the Bohemian ecclesiastics of high rank at that period.’ To the student of the times a certain amount of scepticism may, in an exalted Bohemian ecclesiastic of the period, appear, though unpardonable, hardly inexplicable. Shortly afterwards, in accordance with a decision of a meeting of the Estates at Caslav, a synod of the Bohemian clergy assembled at the Carolinum in Prague.

Archbishop Conrad was indeed not present, but he had delegated as his representatives several Hussite clergymen, of whom Magisters Pribram and Jacobellus were the most eminent. The synod resulted in a failure, mainly in consequence of the obstinacy of the delegates of Tabor.

Internal discord broke out in Prague not long after the failure of the synod. Under the leadership of John of Zelivo, the democratic party in the city acquired ever-increasing strength, and opposed the provisional government of comparatively moderate views, which had been established at the assembly of Caslav. The more moderate party firmly believed in the possibility of securing an agreement with Rome, if the Bohemians but limited their demands to ‘The Articles of Prague,’ and eschewed ultra-revolutionary tendencies both in Church and State. That the views of the moderate Hussites were to a certain extent justified is proved by the fact that a settlement on the lines they contemplated was eventually obtained at the Council of Basel. But compromises are as distasteful to religious as to political fanatics, and Zelivo’s influence rendered all attempts at conciliation illusory. Zelivo’s undefined power became more and more pronounced, and it is undoubtedly through his influence—though evidence is not quite conclusive—that an Utraquist noble of moderate views, John of Sadlo,[21] who had come to Prague to justify himself against probably untrue accusations, was, when he appeared in the town hall, immediately arrested and decapitated without trial or judgment.

Reaction against the ultra-democratic, or rather anarchist, party soon increased among the citizens, and the influence of their aristocratic allies was also used to the detriment of Zelivo. An eye-witness of his fall and death has left us a detailed account of the events. John was enticed to the town hall of the Staré Mesto, under the pretext of seeking his advice concerning a new campaign against Sigismund. He was at first kindly received, but the magistrates suddenly called in their officials, who seized Zelivo. He attempted to remonstrate, but the burgomaster of the old town said, ‘It cannot be otherwise, priest John!’ Zelivo was allowed time for confession, and then decapitated. Rioting almost immediately ensued, particularly after a priest had shown John’s head to the people. Many houses in the old town, particularly in the Jewish quarter, were pillaged. The people insisted on the election of new town councillors, and several men, who were principally instrumental in plotting Zelivo’s death, were decapitated. His death none the less greatly diminished the power of the democratic party, particularly in the old town, as no demagogue of equal ability succeeded Zelivo.