The Hussite Wars/Chapter 7

by František Lützow

CHAPTER VII

The effect of the victory of Domážlice can hardly be exaggerated. Had the Bohemians now abandoned their system of only raiding the neighbouring lands and not establishing themselves permanently in foreign countries nothing would at that moment have prevented them from founding a Slavic state in Central Europe, though it is doubtful whether such an enterprise would have met with permanent success.

It is at any rate certain that none of the Bohemian leaders, not even Prokop, whose Táborites had contributed so largely to the crowning victory of Domážlice, entertained such plans. Their claims were, as before, limited to the recognition of the independence of their country and to the demands contained in the articles of Prague. Even the Táborites energetically protested against the accusation of heresy, and maintained that the Bohemians formed part of the universal Church. Still greater was the desire for peace among the Utraquist nobles and the more conservative citizens of Prague. The Utraquist nobility, which had played so brilliant a part during the earlier period of the Hussite wars, had, since the departure of Prince Korybutovič, almost entirely lost its predominant position. These men had always demanded the establishment of a Bohemian national Church, which was to form part of the universal Church. Within this national Church Communion was to be dispensed in the two kinds, the national language was to be used in the religious functions, and very severe regulations were to reform the clergy, whose worldliness and viciousness at that period scandalised even the most fervent adherents of the Church of Rome. With regard to temporal matters, however, these nobles held views not dissimilar from those of the nobility of other countries. As did the men of their rank in Germany and France, they also considered themselves the born leaders of their nation. They were not uninfluenced by the taunts of the German nobles who—now that Prokop had become practically dictator—described them as “priest-ridden.”^[1]

Among those who had been defeated the desire for peace was also almost universal. King Sigismund, with the attitude of foolish bravado which was habitual with him, affected to consider the disaster of Domážlice as a matter of slight importance. He had recourse to his usual universal remedy. He convoked the princes and free cities to an imperial diet, which was to meet at Frankfort on October 16, 1431, and promised to be present there. This promise he, however, as usual, failed to keep. He was now almost exclusively intent on his expedition to Italy, where, according to his wishes, he hoped at last to be crowned as emperor by the Pope.

The German princes were not inclined to view the perilous position of their country with the same indifference as the King of Hungary. A strong democratic wave at this moment menaced the rulers of Germany. This danger, which had existed before the disaster of Domážlice, now became more serious. In the cities of Constance, Stettin, Bremen, and others democratic movements broke out, and it was feared that they might extend to the neighbouring country districts. In Passau, Bamberg, and Würzburg the citizens rose in arms against their bishops, and a feeling hostile to the clergy spread over all Germany. The most energetic friend of peace was now the formerly war-like cardinal, Julian Cesarini. His short sojourn in the German camp had convinced him that the Germans were at that moment incapable of resisting the Bohemian armies. He therefore undertook and carried out with great skill the difficult task of bringing about a reconciliation between the Roman Church and the Utraquists. On his return from Bohemia the cardinal first visited King Sigismund at Nürnberg. The King, as already mentioned, made light of the recent disaster and declared that he was sure of final victory. He did not, therefore, express a favourable opinion of Cesarini’s conciliatory plans. He was on the point of starting for Italy, where his coronation depended on the favour of the Pope. He knew that Pope Eugenius was—like his predecessor—strongly opposed to general Councils of the Church, and that he was at that moment contemplating the dissolution of the Assembly at Basel. The cardinal, however, proceeded to that town and now at last assumed the presidency of the Council, which had been conferred on him by Pope Martin and confirmed by his successor. Since the spring of the year 1431 ecclesiastics from various countries had begun to arrive at Basel, though the scarcely veiled hostility of Pope Eugenius deterred many. Shortly after the arrival of Cardinal Cesarini the Council took the important step of inviting the Utraquists to appear before the assembly. On October 10 the Council addressed a letter to the clergy, nobility, and the whole Bohemian nation,^[2] in which it expressed the sincere wish that peace and unity be re-established in the Church, and it invited the Bohemians to attend the Council, where they would have complete liberty of freely expounding their religious views. They were also assured that they would be allowed to proceed to Basel freely and safely. The Council finally begged them to choose pious and conciliatory men as their representatives.

The embitterment of the Roman Church against the Utraquists was at that moment so great that even the question how this message was to be transmitted to Bohemia caused some difficulty. Papal decrees had, under penalty of excommunication, forbidden all intercourse with Bohemia. It was, therefore, decided to send off three copies of this invitation, one to King Sigismund, who was then at Feldkirch on his way to Milan, another to the municipality of Nürnberg, and a third to the city of Cheb, requesting that this communication be forwarded to the authorities in Bohemia.

This undoubtedly wise step immediately met with strong disapproval on the part of Pope Eugenius. He considered the mere fact that the Council had proposed to enter into negotiations with heretics whose teaching had already been condemned by the Roman Church a sufficient reason for decreeing the dissolution of the Council. This seemed particularly unjustifiable to the members of that assembly at a moment when the negotiations for the purpose of reuniting the Eastern Church to that of Rome had been resumed. On November 12 Pope Eugenius forwarded to the Cardinal Cesarini a bull declaring the Council of Basel to be dissolved, and requesting the cardinal to leave that city immediately. A later bull dated December 18 repeated the same orders in stronger language. One of the grievances now alleged against the Council was that it had invited to its sittings representatives of the Bohemian heretics, whose teaching had been condemned by two Councils—those of Constance and Siena—and that it had thus seriously impaired the dignity of the Church. Cardinal Cesarini in this difficult position maintained his conciliatory attitude, and firmly, though courteously, declined to abandon the peace conference. He refused to leave Basel, and in a lengthy document attempted to justify the proceedings of the Council. He pointed out that negotiations with other heretics formed a precedent for the negotiations with the Utraquists,^[3] and declared that in view of the increasing opposition to the Roman Church in Germany pacification was an absolute necessity.

The Bohemians had meanwhile received the conciliatory message of the Council. The citizens of Cheb forwarded it to Prague by a special envoy, and Lord Ulrich of Rosenberg also transmitted to the Bohemians the copy of the letter which King Sigismund had entrusted to him. The town council of Prague received this communication with great joy. The letter was first read out privately to the members of the Council, and then brought to the knowledge of the whole community by the eloquent priest John of Rokycan, who read out its contents from the pulpit of the Tyn church. He then preached a sermon on peace which, as the chroniclers write, was so touching that all present burst into tears of joy. The municipality of Prague, however, found it difficult to give a definite reply. The hegemony over a large part of Bohemia once possessed by Prague, particularly after the victory of the Vyšehrad, had almost entirely disappeared. The Utraquist lords were, indeed, still in alliance with the conservative Old Town, but the lords “sub una,” whose influence had greatly increased in consequence of Prokop’s radicalism, now demanded the unconditional surrender to King Sigismund and absolute submission to the authority of Rome. On the other hand, the practical dictatorship of Prokop the Great, which had been confirmed by his brilliant victory at Domážlice, rendered it impossible to enter into negotiations except in agreement with the Táborites. The Praguers in their reply, therefore, limited themselves to stating that they were unable to treat alone on such weighty matters, but that a general diet of the Bohemian kingdom would shortly assemble in their city and would be able to give a definite answer. The university of Prague and the moderate Utraquists generally sympathised with Rokycan’s praise of peace. The demands of these men, as has been repeatedly noted, were limited. Opposition was, however, to be expected on the part of the Táborites, who had just published a manifesto violently attacking the entire ecclesiastical institutions of the Catholic Church. All Bohemian parties, however, agreed that it was necessary that the estates should meet as soon as possible. It had at first been settled that the diet should begin its sittings on December 6, but some delay occurred, as the army of the Orphans had not at that date returned from a raid in Hungary; though negotiations in view of peace had begun, the Bohemians still continued these incursions into the neighbouring lands; they had, indeed, become necessary to provision the exhausted country. The new invasion of Hungary had, however, proved very disastrous; and the Orphans returned to Bohemia in very reduced numbers. Even after their return many died from exhaustion and exposure to the cold. The Orphans openly accused Prokop^[4] of not having sent sufficient reinforcements to their army in Hungary. A very bitter controversy broke out, and Prokop, offended by these accusations, retired to Kutna Hora, refusing to take part in the proceedings of the diet. That assembly met at last on New Year’s Day 1432. A few days previously Archbishop Conrad had died, and this event greatly increased the wish of the Hussite High Church to re-establish its connection with the universal Church, for thus only could the Apostolic Succession of the Bohemian clergy be assured. The assembly met at the town-hall of the New Town, probably in accordance with the wishes of the Orphans, who were close allies of the citizens of that community. Following the precedent of other previous meetings the diet constituted two committees—if we may thus describe them—one of which was to discuss the religious controversies, while the other was to devote its attention to the general political situation in the country. Among those who were to apply their attention to religious matters, John of Rokycan again played a predominant part. Here, as previously, he eloquently advocated a peaceful agreement, though he continued to maintain the demands of the Bohemian Church as they had been formulated in the articles of Prague. The priests of Prague and of those cities which were still allied with the capital, the community of the Orphans, and the Utraquist nobles all agreed to uphold the cherished teaching of the university, for which they had fought so long and so bravely. They recognised the seven sacraments and admitted the existence of purgatory; they admitted the right of praying for the dead and declared that the priests should, when celebrating mass, officiate in vestments which were in accordance with the rites of the universal Church. In view of the vacancy of the archiepiscopal see they then elected Rokycan administrator of the Utraquist Church (“director cleri”), and conferred on him the full powers which had been exercised by the Archbishops of Prague.

The committee, which had to deal with the political situation, began its activity by sanctioning all the resolutions made by the ecclesiastics. The members then devoted their attention to the necessity of putting a stop to the indiscipline of the soldiery, which had recently greatly increased, and to their depredations, from which the townsmen and peasants suffered severely. It was decided to appoint captains of the people, who were to exercise extensive powers in the districts of Bohemia and Moravia that were entrusted to them. They were in time of war to protect the Utraquist people from undue commandeering and plundering, and were, in accordance with the local authorities and the nobles and knights, to determine what supplies and provisions were required for the continuation of the war. The stress laid on this matter proves to how great an extent the new Táborite levies, very different from Žižka’s “warriors of God,” had already become a burden even to the Utraquist population of Bohemia. As to the all-important question whether the Utraquists should attend the Council the diet declared that, as the Bohemians had always desired peace, they were ready to take part in a ecumenical council if they were given the necessary guarantees for the safety of their envoys during their stay in Germany; they could not, however, give a positive answer before the leaders of the Táborite party, who had not taken part in the proceedings of the diet, had expressed their opinion. As under the existing circumstances a decision of the diet which had not been sanctioned by the Táborites would have had little value and could not have influenced the resolutions of the Council, the diet adjourned, after having only sat for a week.

It has, of course, been impossible to notice even slightly the innumerable feuds and minor intestine conflicts which continued in Bohemia uninterruptedly from the year 1420 to 1434. It, however, deserves mention that the diet, which met in Prague in January 1432, decided that an attempt should be made to obtain possession of the towns of Budějovice and Plzeň, that were still held by the adherents of Rome and of King Sigismund. It was evident to the Utraquists that they could not ask the Council to recognise the Bohemian Church as the national one as long as two important Bohemian cities refused their allegiance to that Church. Unfortunately for the Utraquists the execution of this plan was deferred, and when a new attack of Plzeň was attempted two years later it caused a complete rupture between the national parties. The Bohemians hoped that a new diet would be able to transmit to Basel an answer which would be in accordance with the views of all the national parties. The estates, therefore, met again at Prague on February 10, and all the parties, including the Táborites, were this time represented. Among those present were Prokop the Great, Prokop the Lesser, and the principal leaders of all the Utraquist parties. We have unfortunately but very scanty information concerning the deliberations of this diet, but it appears certain that they were very stormy. The Orphans, joining the moderate parties; not only proposed that envoys should be sent to the Council of Basel, but also spoke in favour of drawing up “articles,” which were to be presented to the members of the Council. In this document the principal points on which the Utraquist teaching differed from the doctrine of the Church of Rome were to be enumerated. The Táborites energetically opposed this suggestion, as they held many opinions which were distasteful to the Hussite High Church. The dispute became so bitter that some of the Utraquist lords already began to meditate a reconciliation with the lords “sub una” for the purpose of opposing the fanatical democracy of Tábor. Though secret negotiations to this purpose probably now took place, a complete scission was avoided at least for a time, and the Utraquists appeared as a united body at the Council of Basel. The proposals to establish severer discipline in the Hussite armies, first discussed at the previous meeting of the diet, were again a subject of debate. The Táborites energetically opposed all such regulations. Though this is scarcely mentioned by the chroniclers, it appears certain that the Táborite generals already knew that they were powerless to enforce rigid discipline among their followers, whose conduct was becoming more and more seditious.

In spite of these troubles and difficulties the deliberations of the diet were on the whole successful. It was decided, with the consent of the Táborites, that Bohemia should be represented at the Council, and also that Bohemian envoys should meet at Cheb delegates of the Council, where the necessary steps should be taken to assure the safety of the Bohemians during their stay in Germany. On February 27 the municipalities of Prague, in their own name and in that of the Bohemian nobles and knights and in that of the commanders of the armies in Bohemia and Moravia, addressed a letter to the delegates of the Council, who were then staying at Nürnberg, begging them to proceed to Cheb together with the German princes whose lands were near the Bohemian territory. In consequence of delayed communications this letter only reached Nürnberg on March 12. The delegates of the Council, John Nider, prior of the Dominican monastery of Basel, who has already been mentioned, and the Cistercian monk John of Maulbronn, immediately forwarded this letter to Basel, and they also wrote to Prague stating that they had entered into communications with Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg and Burgrave of Nürnberg, Duke John of Bavaria, and some of the Saxon princes, begging them to accompany them to Cheb, where they were to meet the Bohemian delegates. The Council then appointed other delegates, who were to accompany Nider and Maulbronn on their journey. There was considerable delay, caused no doubt by mutual distrust, but the conferences at last began there on May 9, shortly after the arrival of the Bohemian envoys. The Bohemian embassy on this occasion was very numerous. It included Prokop the Great, John of Rokycan, Peter Payne—surnamed Engliš—the Táborite Bishop Nicholas of Pelhřimov, the nobles John of Uršovec and Beneš of Mokrovous, and several prominent citizens of Prague. Including guards and followers the embassy consisted of seventy persons. The negotiations that ensued were necessarily difficult and delicate. As was inevitable, when the question of the journey of the Bohemian envoys to Basel and the safe conduct necessary for that purpose was raised, the Bohemians—Prokop the Great acting as spokesman—recalled the treachery that had been committed against Hus. It seemed for a moment probable that the negotiations would end with a failure. The general political situation, however, forced both parties to avoid a rupture. Among the Bohemian envoys those who belonged to the conservative party—if we may thus describe the Utraquist nobles, the theologians of the university of Prague, and the conservative citizens of the capital—were becoming certain that their alliance with the democracy of Tábor could no longer endure. On the other hand, the Council was constantly receiving messages from the clergy of Western Europe begging that the Hussite schisma might be ended as soon as possible. References was made to the fact, to which I have already drawn attention, that Hussite sympathies had become evident even in countries far distant from Bohemia.^[5] It is undoubtedly mainly due to Cardinal Cesarini that it was after great difficulties at last arranged that the Bohemians should appear at the Council of Basel. The delegates of the Council, who arrived at Cheb somewhat earlier than those of Bohemia, were very numerous. Among them were John Nider and John of Maulbronn, who have already been mentioned, Henry Toke Canon of Magdeburg, Albert parish priest of St. Sebaldus at Nürnberg, Frederick of Parsberg, Dean of Regensburg, and other ecclesiastics. Elector Frederick of Brandenburg, Duke John of Bavaria, and other secular princes also joined the embassy, which, including the suites, numbered 250 men. The deliberations were opened on May 9 by a very conciliatory speech of Canon Toke, in which he welcomed the Bohemians and strongly advised a peaceful agreement. Rokycan, answering in the name of his countrymen, also spoke warmly in favour of peace, but added that the responsibility for the long and sanguinary war could not be attributed to the Bohemians, who had only repulsed unjustifiable and unwarranted attacks. The discussion was then continued with great bitterness on both sides, and on several occasions a rupture appeared inevitable. As previously mentioned the question concerning the safety of the envoys whom the Hussites were to send to Germany always envenomed the debates, as the Bohemian objection, founded on the fate of Hus, was almost unanswerable. Mainly through the influence of the Elector of Brandenburg, who personally guaranteed the safety of the envoys during their stay in Germany, an agreement was finally drawn up. The representatives of the kingdom of Bohemia and of the margraviate of Moravia were to proceed to Basel safely and unhindered, and were there to express their views freely, and in particular to defend the articles of Prague. They were to be given seats in the council-chamber that were appropriate to their rank. All the previous decrees, papal bulls, anathemas, and excommunications pronounced against the Bohemians, particularly at the Councils of Constance and Siena, were to be considered invalid during the stay of the Bohemian envoys at Basel. On the occasion of the discussion of the four articles (of Prague) only God’s law, the practice of Christ and the teaching of the primitive Church and the early councils should be considered as authoritative. Measures were to be taken to allow the Bohemians freely to celebrate their religious functions according to their own rites, both on their journey and during their stay in Basel. After these stipulations and others of minor importance had been accepted by both parties, the proceedings ended on May 18, when Canon Toke again addressed the assembly in so touching a manner that many were moved to tears. On his return to Prague Prokop the Great immediately sent a letter to King Sigismund in which he informed him of the results of the negotiations at Cheb, and urgently begged him to proceed to Basel and assist at the deliberations of the Council.^[6] King Sigismund had in the autumn of the previous year proceeded to Milan, where he had been crowned with the iron crown of the Lombard Kings, and had then continued his journey in the direction of Rome. His progress through Italy was very slow, and he became involved in the internal struggles of that country. Venice had long been at war with Hungary; on the other hand, Sigismund was supported by the powerful Duke of Milan. The King of Hungary had arrived at Lucca, and was preparing to march from there to Siena, when John of Maulbronn, sent by the Council of Basel, appeared before him and informed him of the successful result of the negotiations at Cheb. Sigismund had received Prokop’s letter some time previously, and he now determined to send his reply through Maulbronn. He expressed his pleasure at hearing that a peaceful settlement of the Bohemian question appeared to be probable, and promised to do everything in his power to facilitate the solution of the difficult question of granting a safe conduct, and also to prevent the adherents of the Church of Rome from impeding the journey of the Bohemian embassy to Basel. This was a point to which Prokop had referred in his letter.^[7]

The members of the Council of Basel welcomed with great joy the news of the agreement concluded at Cheb. In a letter to Pope Eugenius^[8] Cardinal Julian Cesarini wrote: “The gate through which the lost sheep will return to the fold has now been opened. The envoys who have returned from Egra [Cheb] report with joy and jubilation that through the grace of the Holy Ghost they have come to an agreement with the representatives of the Bohemians, namely the Praguers, the Orphans,and the Táborites, among whom were also the generals, especially Prokop. According to this agreement a solemn embassy of all the estates of the kingdom will attend the Council of Basel as soon as the necessary letters of safe conduct have been received, which will be the case immediately. The holy assembly [the Council] received this news with unprecedented joy and with hands raised unto Heaven; for our ambassadors assured us that the deliberations at Cheb had been carried on with such complete sincerity, and the Bohemians had shown so conciliatory a spirit, that there was every reason to hope for their conversion. They [the envoys] had finally been begged by the Bohemians with cordial embraces and tears to do all that was in their power to settle matters peacefully. They added that such great kindness had been shown them during the negotiations that he who, hearing of this, did not burst into tears, would show but little love of Christ.” It is of course necessary to receive the cardinal’s statements with some reserve. He had to overcome the Pope’s strong objection to the Council of Basel and to all negotiations with so-called heretics. Having spent some time in Germany and taken part in the recent disastrous campaign, he well knew how strong and indeed invincible the Hussites were as long as they remained united. He also knew better than the Pope and the cardinals in Rome how strongly the democratic character which the Hussite movement had assumed appealed to the German townsmen and peasants. He was also well aware of the fact that the anti-clerical movement, caused by the evil life of many German priests, had recently become much stronger, particularly since the defeat of Domážlice, which many Germans believed to be a token of God’s wrath.

It was according to the then existing constitutional organisation of Bohemia necessary that the agreement of Cheb should be sanctioned by a general meeting of the estates of the country. The diet therefore assembled at Kutna Hora about August 30 and approved of the decision that the Bohemians should take part in the ecumenical council. It also elected a large number of delegates who were to proceed to Basel. Among them were several nobles, William Kostka of Postupic, Beneš of Mokrovous, and George of Rečič. The Prague citizen John Velvar, the Táborite, Matthew Louda, and George of Dvůr, who represented the Orphans, also formed part of the embassy. Among the very numerous ecclesiastics who were to proceed to Basel were John of Rokycan, who specially represented the town and university of Prague, Peter Payne, surnamed “Engliš,” the Táborite Bishop, Nicholas of Pelhřimov, Prokop the Great, described on this occasion as “exercitus Taboritarum in spiritualibus rector,” Ulrich, parish priest of Znoymo, and many others.

As Palacký has very truly stated, the negotiations with the Council of Basel are at this moment so vastly superior in interest to all other occurrences in Bohemia that these scarcely deserve notice. It must, however, be mentioned that the diet at Kutna Hora also deliberated on the conditions under which an armistice should be granted to the princes of Silesia and Lusatia. Prokop the Great immediately after the victory of Domážlice had considered it advisable again to invade the neighbouring countries, spreading widely the terror of the Hussite name. These raids, the character of which was similar to that of those previously mentioned, had induced several German princes to sue for peace. In consequence of the great prestige which the Bohemians had obtained through their great victories, they had also again been drawn into the conflict which then occupied the attention of Northern Europe. Vitold, Grand Duke of Lithuania, who for a moment had played so great a part in the politics of Northern Europe and appeared as the protagonist of the Slavic world, died on October 31, 1431, and the Russo-Lithuanian nobility chose as his successor the Grand Duke Svidrigal, brother of King Ladislas of Poland. The state of suzerainty under Poland which had existed during the reign of Vitold was to continue. The Polish nobility and clergy, however, wished to establish their rule over Lithuania more firmly, and the clerical influence aimed specially at the Eastern Church, to which the larger part of the population of Lithuania belonged. Svidrigal energetically resisted the encroachments of the Polish ecclesiastics, and even contracted an alliance with the Teutonic order, long the bitter enemy of Lithuania as well as of Poland. In this difficult position King Ladislas attempted to renew the former amicable relations with Bohemia which he had abandoned under the influence of the Roman Catholic clergy. The deep-rooted antagonism between the Bohemians and the Poles, which, like the better known hostility between Poland and Russia, has so greatly impeded the advance of the Slavic race, rendered such an attempt difficult, and the Bohemians could not forget the fierce denunciations of their national Church which the King of Poland had formerly sent to Rome. It is, however, certain that negotiations between the two countries took place, and that Prince Korybutovič, an old and trusty friend of Bohemia, acted as mediator. The Bohemian parties did not entirely reject the proposals of King Ladislas. The large Táborite armies, now consisting to a great extent of foreign mercenaries, needed constant employment, and had no objection to joining even the Roman Catholic Poles in an attack on the knights of the Teutonic order, the sworn enemies of the Slavic race. The conservative Utraquists and the nobles of that creed, who had long been on friendly terms with Prince Korybutovič, were not averse to re-establishing friendly relations with Poland. Some of the most prominent Utraquist nobles, such as Bořek of Miletinek and Kostka of Postupic, who had been chamberlain of Prince Korybutovič during his short rule over Bohemia, took the principal part in these negotiations, and a meeting between King Ladislas and the Bohemian leaders was planned. It never took place, for reasons which the contemporary writers do not state. There is, however, little doubt that here, as on so many other occasions, the traditional subserviency of the Poles to the Roman see influenced the councillors of the King of Poland. It should, however, be mentioned that, though no alliance was concluded, we shortly afterwards find a Bohemian army fighting as allies of Poland against the Teutonic order in the lands near the Baltic Sea. The envoys of the Council of Basel who had taken part in the negotiations at Cheb wrote to the citizens of Prague and to Rokycan on August 13 informing them that they had already received from King Sigismund letters of safe conduct for the Bohemians, and that they hoped shortly to obtain similar letters from the Elector of Brandenburg. That prince, for reasons which it is difficult to understand, raised objections at the last moment, and it was only somewhat later that he forwarded the papers desired by the Bohemians. The latter also appear to have continued distrustful for some time. Before consenting to the departure of their embassy for Basel they thought it advisable to send there two envoys, Nicholas Humpolecký, notary of the Old Town of Prague, and John Žatecký, a member of the community of Tábor. These men were to report on the political situation of Germany and to inform the Bohemians whether their embassy could start safely for Basel. After receiving the necessary letters of accreditation Humpolecký and Žatecký proceeded to Germany in the month of September. They were met at the German frontier by the Bishop of Regensburg and several other German prelates. During their journey through Germany they were everywhere treated with respect and courtesy, and when in the small town of Biberach a townsman called Žatecký “a damned Bohemian heretic” he was immediately arrested, and would have been punished had not the Bohemians themselves interceded for him. In Basel also the envoys were most cordially received. They appeared before the Council on October 10, presented their credentials and then stated that ambassadors representing the whole kingdom of Bohemia and the margraviate of Moravia would shortly proceed to Basel to confer with the Council on the re-establishment of peace and the reunion of the Christian Church. They also demanded further information concerning the letters of safe conduct which their ambassadors to Basel were to receive. The ever-recurring insistence on this point must, of course, be attributed to the treachery once committed against Hus, the memory of which still rankled in the minds of his countrymen. The envoys also begged the Council to use its influence to persuade King Sigismund to take part in person in the deliberations at Basel, and they also, in the name of the Bohemian nation, expressed the wish that the members of the Eastern Church should take part in the deliberations of the Council. The answer of the Council was distinctly conciliatory, and appeared satisfactory to the envoys. The assembly again assured the Bohemians that their embassy would be perfectly safe in Germany and that the whole Council fully sanctioned the promises relating to this matter which its representatives had made at Cheb. The Council further promised the Bohemians that it would endeavour to persuade King Sigismund to proceed to Basel as soon as the state of affairs in Italy, which detained him there, rendered this possible. It also stated that representatives of the Eastern Church would be invited to take part in its deliberations. The Council, however, added that it appeared probable that King Sigismund would be detained in Italy for a considerable time, and that it would, in consequence of the distance of Constantinople and the difficulty of communications, not be possible to receive an early answer from the dignitaries of the Eastern Church. The Council therefore begged the Bohemians to send their embassy to Basel as soon as possible, irrespective of such possible delays. The Bohemian envoys were on the whole satisfied with their reception at Basel, and on their return to their country they spoke warmly in favour of sending representatives to the Council at Basel. It was now finally settled to do so. The different members of the embassy were to meet at Domážlice on the day of St. Nicholas (December 6), and then travel together to Basel. On November 5 the municipalities of Prague wrote to the town council of Cheb and also to the Elector of Brandenburg informing them that the Bohemian embassy would shortly start for Basel, and begging them to send an escort to Cham in Bavaria, on the Bohemian frontier, which was to conduct the members of the embassy to Basel. I have already stated that the embassy was very numerous, and I have mentioned the names of the most prominent men among those whom the diet had chosen. Some delay in the departure of the embassy took place, and its members only left Prague on December 6. They were accompanied by an escort provided by the commander of the Karlštýn fortress, which was in the power of Sigismund’s adherents. The embassy proceeded by way of Domážlice to the German frontier, where they were met by a larger German escort. The journey through Germany was undisturbed. When the embassy was nearing Nürnberg Matthew Louda displayed a Táborite battleflag showing on one side the portrait of Christ and on the other a representation of the chalice, bearing the inscription, “Veritas omnia vincit.” This caused great displeasure among the Germans, but Louda, when informed of this by the escort, acted in a very conciliatory fashion and removed the banner; other members of the embassy, fearing to give offence, followed his example. From Nürnberg the Bohemians proceeded to Schaffhausen by way of Nordlingen and Ulm.

The members of the Council of Basel anxiously awaited the arrival of the Bohemian plenipotentiaries. Cardinal Cesarini, to whose ability and foresight the favourable result of the negotiations was almost entirely due, had persuaded the magistrates of Basel, in consideration of the puritanic character of the Hussite movement, to issue regulations prohibiting all doings that might shock the Bohemian guests. It was decreed that all ill-famed women should be forbidden to appear in the streets during their stay, that all gamesters should be expelled from the city, and that all music and dancing in the inns should for a time be prohibited. The citizens were also instructed to treat the strangers with great courtesy, but to avoid all intimate intercourse with them; for the Council feared that their teaching might spread among the citizens.

Cardinal Cesarini, with his usual prudence, succeeded in persuading the Hussites to make their entry into Basel in as quiet a manner as possible, thus avoiding the danger of both hostile and friendly demonstrations. The Bohemians, who sincerely wished to avoid further difficulties, gladly acquiesced. On arriving at Schaffhausen they decided to avoid publicity by continuing their journey in a ship on the Rhine. They thus arrived at Basel somewhat unexpectedly on January 4, 1433. As soon as their arrival became known it caused great excitement and curiosity among the people of the town of Basel. Many, not knowing that they would arrive by water, hurried into the country beyond the city walls anxious to see them. Crowds of people from the roofs of their houses watched the arrival of the formidable warriors. Prokop in particular was pointed out by many.^[9] Immediately after the arrival of the embassy Cardinal Cesarini sent John of Palomar and John Stojkovič of Ragusa, the well-known chronicler of the Council of Basel, to welcome the Bohemians in the name of the Council, and to express the joy of the members of the Council that the Bohemians should have arrived safely at Basel, and also their regret that the Bohemians had not arrived by land, as it would then have been possible to receive them in a more ceremonious fashion. On Thursday, January 8, eight members of the embassy—four laymen and four priests—called on Cardinal Cesarini and thanked him for his kindness, and also inquired when the delegates would be received by the Council. It was decided that the reception should take place on the roth. On the previous day the Archbishop of Lyons, with two theologians of the university of Paris, visited the Bohemians, reminded them of the ancient friendship between Bohemia and France, and assured them of the good will of the King of France.^[10] Before the Bohemians appeared at the Council they had already discussed with its members the rank and position which they would hold there. Firmly maintaining their standpoint that they formed part of the universal Church, they abhorred every attempt to brand them as “heretics.” Here also the prudence and tact of Cesarini removed all difficulties. In the hall of the Dominican monastery, where the sittings of the Council were then held, seats were assigned to the Bohemians immediately opposite those of Cesarini and the three other cardinals who were present. Though Pope Eugenius’ antagonism to the Council continued, the assembly had now become very numerous, as all believed that only through an ecumenical Council the much-desired reconciliation with the Hussites could be obtained. As soon as the Bohemian envoys appeared in the hall Cardinal Julian addressed the assembly in very eloquent language. He laid great stress on the authority of the universal Church and on the infallibility of ecumenical councils. The Cardinal’s speech was very impressive, and many were moved to tears. The assembly strongly approved of the desire for peace which he expressed. John of Rokycan, who replied in the name of the Bohemians, regretted the wrong that had been done to the Bohemians for so long a time by calling them heretics. He described the condition of the primitive Church and regretted that men should have turned away from it at the present time. He then thanked the Council for the great efforts it had made to reconcile the Bohemians with the universal Church, and finally begged that the embassy be granted a public hearing, as had been agreed at Cheb. The first reception of the envoys being a purely formal one, it was necessary to enter into detailed discussions. In his answer Cardinal Cesarini, ignoring the other points in Rokycan’s speech, said that the Council was ready at any time to grant the Bohemians a hearing, and that he begged them to settle themselves the day when this should take place.

As was natural, both parties agreed that the principal subject of the discussions should be the famed articles of Prague. The Bohemians, on the request of Cardinal Cesarini, chose Friday, January 16, as the day on which the disputations should begin. On that day John of Maulbronn and several other ecclesiastics conducted the Bohemian embassy to the Dominican monastery, where the members of the Council had already assembled. Matthew Louda, in the name of the Bohemians, first addressed the assembly. He informed the Council that the Bohemians had long desired to be reconciled with the universal Church through the mediation of King Sigismund, but that their endeavours had always been fruitless. He then thanked the members of the Council for allowing him and his countrymen to appear before their august assembly. Immediately afterwards John of Rokycan opened his defence of the first article of Prague, concerning the necessity of Communion in the two kinds. In his lengthy dissertation, which was continued on the 17th and roth, he referred to the customs and traditions of the primitive Church and maintained the necessity of Communion in the form in which the Sacrament had been instituted by Jesus Christ. Though not able to agree with all his statements, the members of the Council were favourably impressed by Rokycan’s speech and the moderation which he showed. After Rokycan’s speech Prokop the Great briefly addressed the assembly. His tone was somewhat menacing, and he begged his hearers to accept God’s truth while it was yet time. His speech was received by the Council with marked displeasure. Finally Cardinal Cesarini suggested that, before the members of the Council replied to the speeches of the Bohemians, the latter should be allowed to expound their views on the other three articles. The representatives of the Church of Rome could then reply consecutively to all the arguments of the Bohemians. This very fair proposal was accepted by all parties.

Before leaving their country the Bohemians had already, at the diet of Kutna Hora, deliberated on the choice of their spokesmen at the Council. It had been agreed that the four Utraquist parties, the Praguers, the nobles sub utraque, the Táborites, and the Orphans, should each appoint one orator. The choice both of the Praguers and the Utraquist nobles having fallen on Rokycan, it was agreed that he should act as defender both of the first and the third articles, though the attitude of the advanced parties afterwards prevented this plan from being carried out. On January 20 the Táborite bishop, Nicholas of Pelhřimov, defended the second article. His speech was not as conciliatory as that of Rokycan had been; he not only spoke very strongly on the treacherous execution of Hus, but he also laid great stress on the simony and depravation which, as he said, were then prevalent among the Roman Catholic clergy. Some of the prelates who were present loudly expressed their displeasure. Nicholas, referring to the stipulations made at Cheb, which promised the Bohemians full liberty of speech, protested against what he considered an attempt to intimidate him. It was here again due to the wisdom and conciliatory attitude of Cardinal Cesarini that this somewhat stormy sitting ended without a rupture.

The members of the Council were not alone in blaming the conduct of the Bishop of Pelhřimov. When, after the sitting of the Council, the Bohemian delegates met at the house of Prokop the Great, John of Rokycan strongly expressed his disapproval of the personal attacks which the Táborite bishop had made against the Roman Catholic priests. At this meeting the Bohemians also discussed the question who was, as their spokesman, to defend the third article of Prague. According to the wishes of Utraquist nobles and of the Praguers this duty was to devolve on Rokycan. The Táborites, however, raised strong objections to this plan, and violently attacked the Utraquist nobles, whom they accused of no longer being faithful to the Hussite cause. The Utraquist nobles, always readier to make sacrifices for the common cause than were the Táborites, gave way, and thus for a time avoided a complete scission among the Bohemian parties. The priest Ulrich of Znoymo was chosen to defend the third article in the place of Rokycan. Ulrich spoke with great moderation, and his dissertation, which he only concluded on January 24, gave rise to no disturbing incidents. John Payne—known as Magister Engliš—was, according to the agreement, to speak on the fourth article. He had been chosen by the Orphans, the party to which he then belonged, though he afterwards joined the Táborites. Payne’s vehement speech, in which he highly praised Wycliffe and lengthily referred to the controversies in which he had been involved at Oxford because of his partisanship for that English divine, caused great irritation. Some of the English prelates who were present strongly protested against his account of the long-past-over struggles in England in which he had taken part. The oration of Payne, who evidently spoke with that acrimony so frequent among exiles, began on the 26th and ended on the 28th of January. Immediately afterwards Rokycan, in a very conciliatory speech, gave a summary of all the arguments which had been brought out by the Bohemian orators. He again thanked the members of the Council for their cordial reception, and hoped that they would grant forgiveness should any of the Bohemian speakers in the heat of argument have offended some member of the Council. Cardinal Cesarini replied to Rokycan’s speech. He had obviously thoroughly studied the situation in Bohemia, and the increasing antagonism which divided the moderate from the advanced party among the Bohemians had not escaped him. He therefore, speaking with his accustomed courtesy, declared that though the Bohemians had only enumerated four articles, it was rumoured in the assembly that some of them differed from the Church of Rome in their doctrine on other points also. He then read out twenty-eight so-called “articles,” the contents of which were to a considerable extent derived from the speeches of Nicholas of Pelhřimov and Peter Payne, as well as from the writings of Wycliffe, and statements which were attributed to the English divine. He then put several questions to the Bohemians, demanding an answer to them. Some of these questions were distinctly invidious. The cardinal wished to know what words the Bohemians used on the occasion of the consecration of the holy bread and wine, whether they accepted the regulations of the Church with regard to the marriage of consanguineous persons, whether they recognised the authority of the ecumenical councils, and specially whether they considered as heretics those who opposed the decrees of the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and those of the first Council of Chalcedon. The cardinal finally wished to know whether the Bohemians recognised the Pope as the true successor of Christ, and whether they accepted the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son.

Nobody knew better than Cardinal Cesarini that the opinions of the Bohemians differed with regard to some of the points which he had enumerated. They were, however, at that moment still conscious of the necessity of presenting a united front to their antagonists, if they hoped to obtain some of the reforms which they desired. Rokycan, therefore, in the name of his colleagues, declared that the Bohemian envoys would require some time to deliberate on the cardinal’s questions, of which they begged to be given a written copy. The Bohemians obviously wished to gain time, and hoped that the members of the Council would meanwhile reply to the statements concerning the articles of Prague which their spokesmen had made. The members of the Council had, like their Bohemian antagonists, entered into previous discussions with regard to the choice of their spokesmen. The first orator for the Council was John Stojkovič, Bishop of Ragusa, whose lengthy speech occupied several sittings of the Council. He spoke with great vehemence and animosity, and not only Prokop, but also Rokycan, on several occasions protested against his attacks on the Bohemian national Church. Conciliatory as ever, Cesarini suggested that these grievances should be examined by a committee chosen from the members of the Council and the Bohemian delegates. The cardinal was again successful in preventing a rupture of the negotiations. From February 13 to 17 the Dean of Cambrai, Giles Carlier, professor at the Sorbonne, spoke on the second article of Prague, and was then followed by the Dominican friar, Henry Kalteisen. Cardinal Cesarini then again addressed the assembly, again referring to the twenty-eight articles which he had placed before them. Answering in the name of his colleagues, Peter Payne declared that they were not all present at this sitting of the Council, and that it would be necessary that they should consider these matters more fully before giving a definite answer. It was, therefore, thought advisable to continue the discussion of the articles of Prague. On February 23 John of Palomar, Archdeacon of Barcelona, began to speak on the fourth article of Prague, and his elaborate oration only ended on the 28th of that month.

The Bohemians had now spent nearly two months at Basel, and yet the negotiations cannot be said to have made any real progress. It is, however, noteworthy that amicable private relations had been established between some of the Bohemian delegates and some of the members of the Council. This circumstance, which is surprising if we consider the intense hatred of so-called heretics which was general at that time, was undoubtedly the result of the conciliatory policy of Cesarini. It is indeed in consequence of these private relations that the first visit of the Bohemians to Basel did not prove entirely fruitless, in spite of the failure of the public negotiations which will be mentioned presently. The cardinal himself seems to have felt great interest in the strong and strange personality of Prokop the Great. A first private interview between them took place on January 14. Of a later interview, that probably occurred towards the end of the stay of the Bohemians at Basel, we have some information. Prokop confidentially referred to the corrupt state of the Church, and declared it to be a grave error that those whose conduct diverged so widely from the Holy Ghost should believe that whatever they did was in accordance with the Holy Ghost. A man of spotless character, such as was Cesarini, could find no offence in these words, and he certainly agreed with Prokop in believing that a reform of the clergy was necessary. He therefore only said: “The more I converse with you, Sir Prokop, the more my heart clings to you; therefore stay very long with us that we may at last agree together.” Prokop then pointed out how great were the expenses of their prolonged stay at Basel. The cardinal, no doubt rightly, believed that this was only a pretext.

It is obvious that the Bohemians had by this time come to the conclusion that an agreement was at that moment very improbable. During the month of March members of the Bohemian delegation, as was customary at the theological disputations of that period, again replied to the four speeches of the members of the Council. The first Bohemian speaker was again John of Rokycan. On March 5 the disputation was interrupted for a short time, as the Council wished to receive the envoys of Pope Eugenius. They brought the Pope’s proposal that the Council should transfer its deliberations to Bologna. This suggestion was rejected by the Council. There is no doubt that its acceptance would have immediately brought the negotiations with the Bohemians to an end, as it would have been impossible to induce them to journey to Italy. Rokycan then resumed his oration, and, at its conclusion on March 10, expressed his views with regard to the universal Church and to Councils. He endeavoured to prove that neither part of the Church nor the whole Church could abrogate God’s commands, and he maintained that not all the ecumenical Councils had been inspired by the Holy Ghost. John of Ragusa then demanded to be heard immediately, and a somewhat animated discussion began. Cardinal Cesarini, however, here, as before, acted as peacemaker, and it was agreed that Nicholas of Pelhřimov, one of the Bohemian spokesmen, should next be heard. The monotonous and resultless debate on the correct interpretation of the four articles was then continued. Both the members of the Council and the Bohemian delegates listened with ever-increasing distaste, and the discussions were no longer carried on in an orderly fashion, as had at first been the case; noisy exclamations and interruptions frequently interfered with the debates.

On March 13 Cardinal Cesarini declared that the Council could not express a definite opinion on the four articles till its representatives had again spoken on the subject. Rokycan replied, in the name of his countrymen, that an agreement would only have been possible if the four articles had been favourably received by the Council; otherwise all negotiations were vain. He said that his countrymen had come to Basel in the hope that an agreement would be speedily concluded; but it was now clear that no progress whatever had been made. He therefore declared in his own name and in that of his colleagues that they wished to return to their own country, and begged that the necessary letters of safe conduct be given to them. The members of the Council received this statement with surprise and not without indignation. Cardinal Cesarini pointed out with undeniable fairness that as all the spokesmen of the Bohemians had been allowed to address the Council twice, they were bound to recognise the right of the representatives of the Council to do the same. It must, of course, be considered that the articles of Prague had been the result of a compromise, and that even the most conservative Utraquists were not, after long and victorious warfare, prepared to accept lesser concessions than those demanded in the articles, and afterwards, with slight modifications, granted by the compacts. Cesarini’s intervention was again successful, and the members of the Bohemian embassy consented to defer their departure. Though the cardinal had again prevented a complete rupture between the antagonists, no one knew better than he that the continuation of the plenary sittings of the Council could at that moment but little further an agreement. During the prolonged sittings of the Council the debates became more and more embittered. The more extreme Roman divines continued to impress on the Bohemians the duty of accepting unconditionally all decrees of the Roman Church—a standpoint which obviously rendered all negotiations superfluous. The Bohemians, particularly the Táborites, more and more energetically protested against the designation of “heretics” which was applied to them by some members of the Council, and bitterly reproached their opponents with the treachery committed against Hus, whom they revered as a saint. Cesarini, who, as already mentioned, had established amicable relations with some of the Bohemian delegates, came to the conclusion that private meetings between members of the Council and representatives of Bohemia might draw the opponents closer together. In this plan the cardinal was assisted by Duke William of Bavaria, whom King Sigismund, who was still detained in Italy, had appointed “protector” of the Council. Through the duke’s influence four prominent members of the Council met four of the leading Bohemian delegates at the house of Cardinal Cesarini. The discussion was entirely private, and the accounts of it which have been preserved can lay no claim to authenticity. It, however, appears certain that this exchange of views had a moderating influence on the men of both parties. Some Bohemians of the advanced party, and Prokop in particular, relying on the phenomenal military successes of their countrymen, had genuinely believed that Bohemia was strong enough to impose on Europe a reformed Church similar to that of the early Christian period. The more intimate intercourse with men of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and other countries, who all unreservedly recognised the authority of the Church of Rome, necessarily convinced the Bohemians that their plans were impracticable and utopian. The fact that sporadic manifestations in favour of Hussitism took place in some parts of Europe could not alter this conviction. They therefore concluded that it would be impossible to obtain more than the recognition of certain special rights and privileges of the Bohemian Church. On the other hand, the divines of the Council perceived that an unconditional surrender of the Bohemians was not within the range of possibility. Even the Utraquist nobles and the conservative citizens of Prague, they now knew, would never return unconditionally to the Roman Church. It was, therefore, inevitable that concessions would have to be made, and the purpose of the Council was henceforth to limit these concessions as far as was possible. Though the elaborate orations pronounced at the public meetings of the diet continued for some time longer, it was now already practically settled that the Bohemians should return to their country. It had, however, also been agreed—probably at the meeting at the house of Cesarini—that they should on their return journey be accompanied by representatives of the Council. This appeared all the more plausible as the Bohemians had previously declared that any permanent agreement would only be binding when it had been ratified by a general meeting of the diet of Bohemia.

It is probable that this decision did not immediately become public, for before the departure of the Bohemians several foreign ambassadors attempted, in a not always tactful manner, to interfere in these negotiations. Thus on April 3 Duke William of Bavaria arranged a meeting between the Bohemian delegates and the envoys whom the Duke of Burgundy had sent to the Council. The Burgundian ambassador expressed the hope that the Bohemians would conform to the decrees of the Council; for, he added, his master would otherwise be obliged to draw his sword in defence of the Council. Rokycan, who always studiously maintained the attitude of a prelate, answered in a conciliatory manner, but Lord Kostka of Postupic, a Utraquist noble and famed Hussite general, not unnaturally considered the threats of the Burgundian as an insult. He replied: “As to your threats, let your duke come to Bohemia; we will not fly from him, but will, with God’s grace, resist him, as we resisted our other invaders.” An interview which the Bohemians had shortly afterwards with the members of the embassy sent by the Duke of Savoy to the Council had a more cordial character. The leader of the embassy declared to the Bohemians, in the name of his duke, that that prince was ready to assist the glorious Bohemian kingdom both by sending armed forces and by financial aid, even at the price of his life, and that he was sending an embassy to Prague. In the name of the Bohemian delegates, Lord Kostka of Postupic warmly thanked the duke.

It had by this time been settled that the Bohemian envoys should leave Basel on April 14, and it was now the duty of the Council to choose representatives who were to accompany them. Among those chosen were Philibert, Bishop of Coutance in Normandy, Peter, Bishop of Augsburg, Doctor Ebendorfer of Haselbach, Canon of Vienna, now best remembered through his historical writings, which have several times been quoted here, Giles Carlier and John of Palomar, who have already been mentioned, and the monk John of Maulbronn, who had been the first to negotiate with the Bohemians. Immediately before the departure of the envoys King Sigismund, who, in the course of the year 1433, was crowned as Roman Emperor, announced to the Council that he would shortly proceed to Basel. Cardinal Cesarini informed the Bohemians of this, and expressed the hope that they would await Sigismund’s arrival. The Bohemians declined this proposition. They said that the King was in the habit of constantly changing his plans, on which it was, therefore, impossible to rely; they added that they had already announced their return to their countrymen, and that their presence would be necessary in Prague, where the diet was to meet on the day after Trinity Sunday. The Bohemian envoys there left Basel on April 14, as had been settled. The leave-taking was very cordial on both sides. Cardinal Julian blessed the delegates, raising his cross and saying: “I commend you to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” On leaving the city gates Rokycan said: “May the Lord preserve this spot in peace and tranquillity.” Before leaving Basel several of the delegates—among whom Rokycan and Lord Kostka of Postupic are mentioned—visited some members of the Council and assured them that they would, on their return to their country, do everything that was in their power to further a peaceful agreement.

The Bohemian delegates and the members of the Council who accompanied them arrived at Schaffhausen on April 16. Here a somewhat unpleasant incident occurred, which for a moment endangered the concord that had lately prevailed. Giles Carlier or Carlerus, as he was often called, tells us that the members of the Council noticed that some of the wagons which the Táborites had left at Schaffhausen bore emblems and devices professing the Hussite creed. They begged the Bohemians to remove them, but met with a refusal. The matter was finally compromised. The Táborites retained the devices on their wagons, but promised not to display their flags during their journey through Germany.^[11] The envoys then continued their journey, and, after a short stay at Nürnberg, reached the Bohemian frontier at Cheb on April 30. They were here met by a Bohemian escort, and arrived in Prague on May 8. During their progress through Bohemia they were everywhere joyfully received by the people, who regarded them as messengers of peace. In Prague also crowds of people welcomed them when they entered the city gates. They proceeded through the Malá Strana over the bridge to the Old Town, where lodgings had been prepared for them; and, as was customary at that time, various gifts were sent to the representatives of the Council by the citizens.

The envoys of the Council, whose leader was Bishop Philip of Coutance, immediately visited the councillors of the Old Town and informed them that they had brought credentials for the municipal authority of the three towns of Prague, and asked permission to deliver them. The antagonism between the Old and the New Towns of Prague, which continued during the whole period of the Hussite wars, became evident on this occasion also. The councillors of the Old Town expressed their willingness to receive the deputation that was to present the credentials, but the magistrates of the New Town raised some objections. It was, however, finally agreed that a meeting between the magistrates of the three cities and the delegates of the Council should take place in the town-hall of the Old Town.^[12] An occurrence here again caused considerable irritation and bitterness. After Canon Toke of Magdeburg had saluted the municipal authorities, Bishop Philibert was obliged to inform them that the embassy had lost its credentials.^[13] Rokycan, as usual acting as peacemaker, replied in a courteous manner, and the envoys received the customary gifts on leaving the town-hall. Only after their departure the men of the New Town blamed the envoys for having lost the credentials, to receive which their councillors had been invited. It may, indeed, be stated generally that in the New Town, where the Orphans held a predominant position, a spirit hostile to the envoys of Basel was gradually gaining strength. The fanatical priest, Jacob Vlk, preacher at St. Mary-of-the-Snow, inveighed against the representatives of the Council in very bitter language. He declared that the Council consisted only of heretics, and that Basel (Basilea) was a venomous basilisk. The envoys of the Council were obliged to complain of the fanatical preacher, and Rokycan promised to advise him to moderate his language. The day when the estates of Bohemia were to meet for grave and weighty deliberation had now drawn near. The diet was to have met on the Monday after Trinity (June 8), but various circumstances caused a slight delay, and it was only on June 12 that the assembly began its sittings in the hall of the Carolinum. Besides the Bohemian estates, who were present in larger numbers than on any previous occasion, many representatives of Moravia and Silesia assisted at the diet, and the Archduke of Austria and several German princes had sent envoys. John of Rokycan, in a lengthy speech, gave a detailed account of the negotiations of the Bohemian delegates at Basel. It was then decided that a deputation consisting of three nobles, seven knights, and some other men of distinction should call on the envoys of the Council and invite them to take part in the deliberations of the diet. The envoys consented, and shortly afterwards appeared in the university. Rokycan then, as president, took his place at the lecturing desk of the hall. Near him were seated Bishop Nicholas of Pelhřimov and Master Peter Payne. Rokycan thus prudently attempted to maintain the appearance of unity among the Utraquists; for Peter Payne was then one of the leaders of the Orphans, while Nicholas of Pelhřimov, Bishop of the Táborites, was the natural spokesman of that community. The whole assembly opened its proceedings by intoning the hymn “Veni creator spiritus.” In his opening speech, which immediately followed, Rokycan warmly praised the articles of Prague, and recommended their acceptation to the assembly. This step was both judicious and opportune. As has been stated, both parties had perceived during the negotiations at Basel that neither could maintain an intransigent standpoint. Though some representatives of the Council, such as Palomar, still demanded unconditional surrender, the discussion was now really restricted to the question in what sense the articles were to be interpreted, and to what districts the privileges contained in them were to be granted. After a short speech of Philibert, Bishop of Coutance, Archdeacon Palomar addressed the assembly. He praised the blessings of peace, and declared that it was only by submission to Rome that the Hussites could obtain its benefits. Palomar’s lengthy dissertation was continued at the next sitting of the diet on June 15. At the following sittings and also at several private meetings the signification of the four articles was thoroughly discussed. In these debates the envoys of the Council had a great advantage over their opponents. Though we have no positive evidence on this point, it may be considered as certain that these envoys had, before leaving Basel, come to an agreement with the other members of the Council as to the limit of the concession which could, if necessary, be made to the Utraquists. It is certain that among these concessions was the permission to receive Communion in the two kinds. This practice has frequently obtained in countries professing the Roman Catholic creed, and is at the present time tolerated by the Church among the uniates in Galicia and other parts of Poland. The Bohemians were in a more difficult position. They were, of course, unaware of the fact that the Council had roughly settled to what extent it was prepared to make concessions; they therefore endeavoured to enforce their demands as far as was possible without risking a renewal of hostilities; for, with the exception of a few fanatics, all the inhabitants of Bohemia, which was exhausted by long and uninterrupted warfare, longed for peace. It is unnecessary to give a detailed account of the prolonged debates which turned on the interpretation of the articles of Prague. The proceedings of the diet were not always carried on in a courteous fashion, as had been the case at the first sittings. When Archdeacon Palomar held the Hussites responsible for the terrible bloodshed of the recent years, Rokycan replied that the Bohemians had always desired peace, and that not they, but the prelates at Constance, had caused the war; for they had granted the Bohemians no hearing at Constance, declared heretics those who received Communion in the two kinds, burnt their dear master (Hus) and encouraged King Sigismund to devastate their country. While these vehement debates, which for a moment seemed to render an agreement doubtful, continued the Bohemian divines drew up the first draft of those stipulations which afterwards became famous under the name of the compacts, but which were only brought before the Council of Basel somewhat later.

Far more important than these public debates were the private negotiations which were now carried on between the representatives of the Council and the members of the Utraquist nobility. These noblemen have shared the fate of almost all men who, in a stormy and revolutionary period, attempt to maintain the principle of compromise. Menhard of Jindřichův Hradec acted as mediator, and we read of frequent banquets, to which he invited both the Utraquist nobles and the representatives of the Council. On other occasions also the envoys of the Council reproached the Bohemian nobles with their alliance with men of mean birth, and reminded them of the loss of their feudal rights and supremacy.^[14] It is certain that these arguments were not without influence on the Utraquist nobility. They remained, however, as is proved by the document just quoted, faithful to the demand that Communion in the two kinds should be granted. They stated that “they would in no case renounce Utraquism, rather would they all die.” Their demands had never gone beyond those formulated by the articles of Prague. The attacks made on these noblemen by German writers, who state that they were intimidated by the peasantry or influenced merely by the wish to acquire Church lands, are therefore unfair and unjustifiable. Though, as stated, it again for a moment appeared probable that the negotiations would be broken off, the universal desire for peace prevented this. An immediate agreement, however, appeared impossible, and it was settled that the envoys should return to Basel and confer there with the other members of the Council; representatives of the Bohemian estates would, however, accompany them to Basel, and it was thus to be clearly proved that the negotiations were not broken off. Before leaving Prague the envoys of the Council suggested that a truce should be concluded which was to continue up to the time of the general pacification. This proposal, which was undoubtedly very disadvantageous to Bohemia at a moment when a renewal of hostilities was still by no means improbable, was rejected by the Utraquists.

It was then settled that the envoys of the Council, with the Bohemian representatives, should leave Prague on July 3. The diet met early on that day, and Rokycan then announced the names of the three Bohemian representatives who were to accompany the envoys of the Council to Basel. Prokop the Great then declared that though the Bohemians were, in the present situation, unable to accept an armistice, the Táborites were prepared to live in friendship and peace with all men, if the four articles, of course as interpreted by Prokop—were accepted by all. Bishop Philibert replied in the name of the envoys of the Council, in a very friendly and courteous fashion. He thanked the Bohemians for their kindness and hospitality, and expressed the hope that peace would soon be concluded. Though it had been settled that the envoys of the Council should start on July 3, they were delayed by the preparations for their long journey, and only left Prague on the 11th. During these last days the envoys had further meetings with the Utraquist nobles, and they also conferred with the Roman Catholic nobles and the municipal authorities of Plzeň, who also belonged to that Church. After leaving Prague and crossing the Bohemian frontier the envoys first interrupted their journey at Nürnberg, where they stayed three days. In view of the importance which the city of Plzeň acquired during the events that occurred shortly afterwards, it is interesting to note that the envoys, during their stay at Nürnberg, obtained from the municipality a loan of 1000 florins for the city of Plzeň. During the stay of the envoys in Prague the hostilities between the Utraquists and the city of Plzeň had been temporarily suspended, but they broke out again immediately after their departure, as will be mentioned presently.

Before arriving at Basel the representatives of the Council had sent on in advance one of their colleagues, Martin Berruer, Dean of Tours. On his arrival he immediately informed the Council of the results of the mission in which he had taken part. He stated that the Bohemians were divided among themselves, and that the moderate Utraquists greatly desired peace. He seriously warned the members of the Council against interrupting the speeches of the Bohemian delegates by opprobrious exclamations or cries of derision, as had frequently happened during the first visit of the Bohemians to Basel. He also praised the dignified manner in which the proceedings of the diet had been carried on, and laid great stress on the courtesy with which the members of the Council had been received in Prague. On August 2 the whole embassy reached Basel, and shortly afterwards Palomar expounded his view of the situation in Bohemia. He stated that he and other envoys, who had been on intimate terms with the Bohemians, had been surprised by the great diversity of opinions which they had found among the Utraquists. Palomar appears to have thought that the Utraquist nobles were prepared to submit unconditionally to Rome, but were intimidated by the Táborites. What I have previously written is, I hope, sufficient to prove that this supposition was absolutely erroneous. On August 11 the representatives of Bohemia appeared before the Council, and, after presenting their credentials, the three envoys, Master Prokop of Plzeň, Matthew Louda, and Martin Lupač, addressed the assembly. They then laid before the Council the draft of an agreement in which the demands of the Bohemians were formulated; should these demands be granted the Bohemians were ready to conclude a permanent treaty of peace. The draft differed slightly from the one drawn up by the Hussite divines in Prague, and the compacts—as this agreement soon began to be called—were slightly modified before their acceptation at Jihlava in 1436; yet it is well to give here the wording of these famed stipulations, which ended the Hussite wars. They ran thus:

I. The Holy Sacrament is to be given freely in both kinds to all Christians in Bohemia and Moravia, and to those elsewhere who adhere to the faith of those countries.

II. All mortal sins shall be punished and extirpated by those whose office it is to do so.

III. The Word of the Lord is to be freely and truthfully preached by the priests of the Lord and by worthy deacons.

IV. The priests in the time of the law of grace shall claim ownership of no worldly possessions.

The compacts were declared invalid in 1462 by Pope Pius II (Æneas Sylvius), and in 1567 the Bohemian diet, then consisting mainly of Protestants, thinking that they formed an obstacle to their larger demands, decreed that the compacts should no longer form part of the fundamental laws of the kingdom of Bohemia.^[15] Most historians have, therefore, considered the compacts as an attempt at compromise which was bound to fail. The writer of the present day who judges the events of the fifteenth century with greater impartiality than was perhaps possible at an earlier period will probably hold a different opinion. It is certain that the compacts were entirely adapted to the wishes of the nobles sub utraque, of the citizens of the Old Town of Prague and generally of the conservative townsmen of Bohemia, who at that time almost all belonged to the Utraquist Church. It is certain that later and more advanced Church reformers, such as the German Protestants, have greatly underrated the value of the compacts. They satisfied almost all the claims raised in the articles of Prague, and if the Bohemian people had consistently defended them they could have formed the foundation of a Bohemian national Church; they guaranteed Communion in the two kinds, a reformation, and stricter control of the clergy and the use of the national language in the religious services.

When this document was presented to the Council the divines assembled at Basel decided, on August 13, to elect a committee which was to deliberate on the proposals made by the Bohemians. A slight examination of the compacts shows that they could be interpreted in various fashions, and the deliberations were, therefore prolonged. Some members of the committee were entirely opposed to the granting of any concessions to the Bohemians, while others, laying great stress on the necessity of terminating the war, spoke in favour of granting the Bohemians such concessions as were necessary for that purpose. The committee finally declined the responsibility of a decision, and the question was brought before a larger meeting, consisting of about 160 of the foremost members of the Council. They all bound themselves to absolute secrecy. Palomar, addressing this assembly, declared an agreement with the advanced Hussites to be impossible, but thought that slight concessions would satisfy the moderate Utraquists. He therefore proposed that they should be granted permission to receive Communion in the two kinds. This concession had been, though reluctantly, previously granted by the Council. Palomar, however, advised that this decision should be kept secret for the present, and only announced to the diet at Prague by the envoys, who, as was now settled, would be again sent there by the Council. These proposals were accepted by all present, and Cardinal Cesarini then announced to the Council that a new embassy would be sent to Prague, that its mission was for a time to remain secret, but that everything that had been resolved was in conformity with the Catholic religion. A similar declaration was made by Duke William of Bavaria, who, in King Sigismund’s absence, acted as “protector” of the Council. The Bohemian representatives were entirely excluded from these deliberations, but they were, in accordance with Berruer’s advice, treated with great kindness and hospitably entertained.

The Council had this time chosen only four plenipotentiaries who were to represent it at Basel; they were Philibert, Bishop of Coutance, John Palomar, Henry Toke, and Martin Berruer, who had all taken part in former missions. Leaving Basel on September 11, together with the Bohemian representatives, they arrived, on the 20th of that month, at Nürnberg, where a short halt was made. They were here informed of the important military events that had occurred in Bohemia since the first embassy of the Council had left that country. They heard that—as will be mentioned later—a Táborite force had entered Bavaria, but had been defeated, with great losses, at the village of Hilkersreuth. (Civil war had again broken out in Bohemia, and the envoys would, on their way to Prague, have to pass near the camp of the Táborite army, that was then besieging Plzeň. In view of the fanatical hatred of the Roman Church which characterised the Táborites it appeared somewhat perilous to continue the journey. It was at Nürnberg also that the Bohemian delegates received letters from the estates of their country, announcing that the diet would meet in October to discuss the possibility of a general pacification, but that this meeting could not take place unless the estates were assured that the Council would accept the compacts in the wording in which they had been presented to it. The Bohemian envoys, as already mentioned, had at Basel been kept entirely ignorant of the deliberations of the Council. They therefore consulted their fellow-travellers, the representatives of the Council, who, pledged as they were to secrecy, gave an evasive answer. They, however, determined to continue their journey to Prague, and begged the town council of Nürnberg to allow one of the citizens, Sigmund Stromayer, who had been their guide during their first visit to Prague, again to accompany them as far as Cheb. The town council granted their demand, and with Stromayer sent also “a servant who knew Bohemian and Latin fairly well, so that he could act as their interpreter.” On September 27 the representatives of the Council and those of the Bohemian nation arrived at the Bohemian frontier. The envoys of the Council here again hesitated to proceed further. They, however, begged their Bohemian colleagues to obtain for them fresh letters of safe conduct, and, after having received them, continued their journey to Prague, where they arrived on October 22. November 11 was finally fixed on as the date on which the estates were to meet.

When the estates met the very grave political situation of Bohemia had first to be taken into consideration. It has already been noted that the rigid discipline maintained by Žižka in the Táborite armies had gradually declined. In consequence of the prolonged war it had become necessary to strengthen these armies by mercenaries, who, for the sake of plunder, flocked to the Hussite standards from all Slavic countries and even from Germany. During the first visit of the envoys of the Council to Bohemia comparative peace had reigned in the country, and even the continuous feud with Plzeň had been suspended. About that time a large army of the Orphans had entered the service of the King of Poland, who was then at war with the Knights of the Teutonic Order. The Bohemians here certainly fought as allies of a kindred Slavic country; yet as the Poles, with the exception of Prince Korybutovič and his followers, always upheld the cause of Rome, this campaign was by no means advantageous to Utraquism. The great military successes of the Hussites naturally increased their pride, and it is even now a subject of pride to Bohemians that the Hussite armies once carried the Bohemian standards as far as the Baltic Sea. In the autumn of 1433 the victorious Bohemians returned to their country. Their brilliant victories in distant lands had not rendered them more amenable to discipline; they consented, however, to assist the Táborite forces, which had for some time been besieging the city of Plzeň. Exhausted as Bohemia already was it became impossible to provision these large forces. Insubordination became general, and both Táborites and Orphans indiscriminately pillaged the districts in which they were quartered.^[16]

Under these circumstances it was natural that the estates almost unanimously determined to take the necessary steps to prevent their country from drifting into anarchy or the despotic rule of a pretorian force. On this point veteran enemies of Church reform, such as Ulrich of Rosenberg, adherents of Sigismund, such as Menhard of Jindřichův Hradec—then still a Utraquist, though he afterwards joined the Roman Church—the Utraquist nobles, the citizens of the Old Town of Prague, and those of other cities which adhered to the moderate Utraquist party and the leaders of the Orphans, such as Lord Aleš of Riesenburg, were entirely in agreement. Even Prokop the Great, who had left the camp before Plzeň to take part in the debates of the diet, was at that moment in favour of attempting to re-establish order in the land. As a first step to further this purpose it was decided to elect a regent, who was to be the head of the government up to the moment when it would be possible to elect a king, according to the ancient constitution of the land. That this decision by no means signified an unconditional surrender to Rome, as the advanced Táborites believed, or pretended to believe, is sufficiently proved by the personality of the regent who was elected. The choice of the diet fell on Lord Aleš of Riesenburg, a member of one of the oldest Bohemian families, but a man of small fortune. He had, since the beginning of the war, fought on the Utraquist side, and was at that moment one of the foremost leaders of the Orphans. The powers granted him by the estates were very considerable. He was empowered to take all lawful steps to re-establish peace in the kingdom. He was given power to convoke the estates, receive representatives of foreign countries, conclude treaties, and take all military measures necessary for the defence of the country. This decision of the diet was closely followed by important events which will be mentioned presently.

It was only after the choice of a regent that the estates were able to devote their attention to the negotiations with the envoys of the Council. On November 17 some of the members of the diet visited the envoys, and Rokycan, in a conciliatory speech, invited them to be present at the meeting of the diet which was to take place on the following day. On that day the envoys appeared in the great hall of the Carolinum, where the diet again held its sittings. Bishop Philibert and Palomar first addressed the assembly, and a prolonged debate on the interpretation of the compacts began. It continued for several days, first at the Carolinum and later at the dwelling-place of the envoys, where they were visited by Rokycan, Prokop the Great, Master Přibram, Ambrose of Králové Hradec, and other Utraquist divines. In these discussions the question of Communion in the two kinds naturally played a great part. The envoys of the Council continued their system of limiting all concessions, as far as this could be done safely. Lengthy discussions began as to the districts in which Utraquist Communion should be permissible, and as to the right of children to receive Communion. Other questions of minor importance were raised. The Utraquists wished it to be stated in the proceedings that Communion in the two kinds was “useful and salutary.” The envoys, who always gave only a reluctant consent to all stipulations which sanctioned Communion in the two kinds, at first opposed this proposal, but afterwards, declaring this to be “a matter of minor importance,” accepted it. The knights and nobles who took part in the deliberations of the diet had now become somewhat impatient of the slowness of the negotiations. Through their influence the Bohemian delegates consented to accept the compacts in the form in which they had been presented to the Council of Basel, on condition that they should not be interpreted in a sense disadvantageous to the Bohemians. The representatives of the Council agreed to this, and members of both parties gave their hands to one another to confirm the agreement. This ceremony can by no means be considered as a formal treaty, as it was not performed in the presence of the diet, nor with its consent.^[17] It indeed only requires mention because the adherents of Sigismund afterwards, when the Bohemians made demands on behalf of the national Church, declared that they had already agreed to a final settlement. The difficult situation caused by the renewal of the siege of Plzeň would, indeed, at that moment have rendered an agreement impossible, and it is obvious that neither party was prepared to bind itself till it was acquainted with the result of the now inevitable new civil war.

It was one of the principal demands of the Utraquists that Communion in the two kinds should be obligatory in the whole kingdom of Bohemia; they stated that if two different rites of Communion were admitted in the country this would lead to constant friction and strife. It was an obvious answer to this demand that the important city of Plzeň and many neighbouring castles were in the hands of the Roman party, and that it was impossible for the representatives of the Council to advise their co-religionists to abandon rites to which they had continued faithful during the whole war. The delegates of the Council were, on the other hand, anxious to save the city of Plzeň, which the Utraquists had begun to besiege immediately after the first envoys had left Bohemia on their return to Basel. They therefore demanded that the Utraquists should consent to a truce with Plzeň. The representatives of the Council, who were in secret communication with the city, had received intelligence that it was then on the point of capitulating. All Utraquist parties agreed in rejecting this proposal. The regent, Aleš of Riesenburg, demanded that the citizens of Plzeň should recognise his provisional government and pledge themselves to accept the agreement which the diet would conclude with the Council. The advanced parties, of course, even more energetically expressed the same opinion. Čapek of San, one of the best generals of the Orphans, who had commanded their recent expedition to Prussia, spoke strongly in the diet against the armistice. The representatives of the Council left Prague on January 14, 1434. The negotiations were not, however, entirely broken off, and the envoys of the Council were on their return journey accompanied by a Bohemian envoy, Martin Lupač, parish priest of Chrudim.

It has already been mentioned that, during the first visit of the envoys of the Council to Bohemia, hostilities had temporarily ceased in the country. Very soon after their departure, however, the Utraquists, as already mentioned, began again to besiege Plzeň, long the principal stronghold of the Roman Catholic party in Bohemia. Since its abandonment by Žižka at the beginning of the war the city had always continued to be in the hands of the Roman party, and its immediate neighbourhood contained some of the principal castles of the nobles “sub una,” who, though not numerous, were very powerful. The citizens of Plzeň found in them staunch allies and talented leaders, and, in consequence of the permanent danger to which the attacks of the Utraquists exposed them, they had become thoroughly accustomed to warfare. On July 14, 1433, the new siege of Plzeň began. The first troops to arrive there were the Táborite forces, under Frederick of Stránic and John Pardus Shortly afterwards the levies of the Old and New Towns of Prague, and those of several cities allied with Tábor, arrived before Plzeň, and they were followed at a short interval by the army of the Orphans, under Čapek, which had just returned from Prussia. It is probable that some of the soldiers of the lords “sub utraque” also took part in this, the last joint enterprise of the Utraquists. At the beginning of August Prokop the Great also arrived before Plzeň and took the command of the besieging army. This army was concentrated in five separate camps, each of which contained the levies of one of the Utraquist parties who had jointly undertaken the siege. It was not attempted to starve the city, as the defenders had employed the respite which they had obtained in consequence of the negotiations of the Council for the purpose of strengthening the fortifications of the city. The Hussites therefore determined to invest the city thoroughly, and shortly afterwards opened a bombardment from all their positions. Many incidents prove that indiscipline had spread among the Hussite soldiers, and though their artillery had been brilliant during the earlier part of the war, it now seems to have failed entirely. Though Catholic chroniclers probably exaggerate when they write that no one was killed or wounded during the bombardment, it certainly caused scarcely any damage in the city. It is, at any rate, certain that the bombardment by no means discouraged the defenders. On September 1 they made a vigorous sortie at night-time, and occupied and destroyed one of the camps; the losses of the Hussites were considerable. To avoid similar occurrences Prokop decided to join his troops more closely together. The original plan of isolating the camps had, no doubt, been adopted to prevent conflicts between the different forces. The relations between the Utraquist nobles and Prokop the Great were already strained to the utmost, and the citizens of the Old and New Towns of Prague, who were to meet in armed conflict only a few months later, were already on very bad terms. At the Same time it was also decided to move the now united camps somewhat further from Plzeň.

The purpose of the close investment had been to force the city to capitulate by starvation, but this became more and more difficult, as the neighbouring German princes—to whom the Council had appealed on behalf of the citizens—constantly attempted to provision Plzeň, and, in consequence of treachery, which had now become frequent, succeeded in doing so on several occasions. On the other hand, it was becoming increasingly difficult to provision the Hussite armies. As discipline among the soldiers had gradually become very lax, the Táborite soldiers pillaged the neighbouring country and soon incurred the hatred even of the peasantry, who had hitherto always been faithful to the Hussite cause. We therefore find in contemporary documents much evidence of the execration which the people of Bohemia and other lands then felt for the Táborites, and Prokop the Great in particular.^[18] A diligent study of the contemporary documents undoubtedly leads to the conclusion that Prokop’s brilliant victories and the prominent position which he was able to assume, even in his dealings with the sovereigns of foreign countries, had had an unfavourable influence on the equilibrium of his mind. At the time when he was attacking the Church of Rome in the most virulent manner he, on several occasions, entered into negotiations with the Emperor Sigismund. After having agreed with the moderate Utraquists, who, at the Diet of Prague in the winter of 1433, had declared that the suppression of the turbulent and anarchical bands of the Orphans and Táborites was necessary, Prokop almost immediately afterwards rejoined the Táborite camp before Plzeň.^[19]

Though the Táborite and Orphan armies continued to pillage ruthlessly the country districts of Bohemia, it soon became impossible to provision a large army in the now totally devastated land. Prokop therefore determined to send a detachment of his troops across the Bavarian frontier to obtain provisions. A small force, commanded by John Pardus, at that moment one of the most prominent Táborite generals, entered Bavaria by way of Domážlice, and, according to the custom of the period, began to pillage the country mercilessly. The Bavarian Duke of Sulzbach, whose territory the Táborites had invaded, hastily assembled troops, and he received some aid from the neighbouring Burgrave of Nürnberg, Elector Frederick. After successfully concluding their raid the Bohemians were returning to their country when they were attacked by the troops of the two princes at the village of Hilkersreuth, near Waldmünchen, close to the Bohemian frontier. The peasantry, exasperated by the depredations of the Táborites, rose in arms against them, and in large numbers joined the forces of the two princes. The Bohemians, as usual, retired to their wagon-forts to defend themselves, but they were this time unsuccessful. The wagons were stormed, and, according to the most trustworthy account,^[20] of the 1800 Bohemian warriors only 130 men with their commanders, Pardus and John Ritka, Captain of Domážlice, escaped and reached the camp before Plzeň.

This defeat at a moment when discipline was continuously becoming slacker in the Táborite camp, and when by no means groundless rumours of treachery were rife there, would in any case have had serious consequences, but the riot which broke out when Pardus returned to the camp made the situation even more dangerous. A mutiny broke out among the soldiers, who accused Pardus of treachery. The defeated general was attacked, fettered, and imprisoned, and when Prokop attempted to protect his comrade, who appears to have been perfectly innocent, he was himself insulted by the soldiers, wounded by a stool that was thrown at him, and confined in a prison.^[21] Prokop was released almost immediately, and it appears that he then proceeded to Prague, where his presence in the autumn is, at any rate, certain. We have, however, very scant information concerning his movements at that moment, and this is generally perhaps the most obscure period of the Hussite wars. We have also only varying and, indeed, contradictory statements concerning the doings in the camp of Plzeň after Prokop’s departure.

The proceedings at the Diet of Prague after the arrival of the second embassy of the Council have already been noted. Prokop the Great, who took part in these deliberations, spoke strongly in favour of re-establishing order in the country. As it could not be denied that the principal disturbers of peace were then the Táborites, Prokop thus broke openly with his party. It is likely that the opprobrious manner in which he had been treated by those whom he had so often led to victory rankled in his mind. Later writers, whose authority is, however, slight, even state that Prokop now entered into negotiations with Menhard of Jindřichův Hradec and other Bohemian nobles, and only rejoined the Táborites when they begged him to do so.^[22]

It is, at any rate, certain that about the middle of December, 1433, Prokop returned to the Táborite camp before Plzeň. The deliberations of the diet continued up to the following month, but he had probably ascertained that the concessions which the Council was prepared to make would appear insufficient even to the most moderate members of the community of Tábor. He therefore, forgetting former grievances, returned to the army which he had so long commanded. It must here again be stated that the proceedings in the Táborite camp during the last months before the great defeat at Lipany are shrouded in deep obscurity; the contemporary accounts are few and contradictory. It appears certain that Prokop the Great soon regained the confidence of the army. He again proceeded to Prague in January 1434 as representative of the army and bearer of what may be called an ultimatum. He declared that the Táborites could accept no agreement with the Council which did not declare that Communion in the two kinds should be obligatory in the whole kingdom of Bohemia. There is no doubt that among the Táborite warriors there were many fervent Utraquists who considered it their duty to insist on this point. The Táborite armies, however, at this period included many German, Polish and Lithuanian mercenaries who knew no other craft except warfare. These men were certainly not anxious that a treaty of peace should be concluded. It is certain that the envoys of the Council, who had secretly aided the defenders of Plzeň, could not accept this proposal, and they, as already mentioned, immediately left Prague. The Roman Catholic party attributed the failure of the negotiations to Prokop.^[23]

The political complications in Bohemia now began to overshadow the religious controversies with which they were so closely connected. The anarchical condition of the Táborite and Orphan armies became an ever-increasing danger. Irritated by their continued failure to obtain possession of Plzeň and by the famine which had broken out in the camp, the soldiers, now entirely beyond control, harassed and raided the country near Plzeň, robbing and murdering the peasantry. Prokop the Great, who would, perhaps, have succeeded in maintaining a certain amount of discipline, had not returned to the camp. The depredations caused by the soldiers had so greatly irritated the population that the people on several occasions rose in arms against them. At Horaždovic the pillagers were attacked by the soldiers of Lord Menhard of Jindřichův Hradec and defeated with great loss, and at Benešov the Knight John Malovec of Pacov surprised another band of Táborites at night-time and dispersed them. When the news of these defeats spread in the camp violent riots broke out, similar to those that had occurred on the occasion of the return of Pardus. The siege of Plzeň still continued meanwhile, but all hopes of starving out the fortress, which was considered too strong to be stormed, gradually disappeared. In the absence of all discipline the investment was not carried out thoroughly, and on several occasions the Catholic allies of Plzeň found means to bring provisions into the city. The citizens also received financial aid from various quarters. The members of the Council of Basel made a collection of money for the defenders of Plzeň. A large sum of money was collected and safely remitted to the citizens. The depredations of the soldiery and their anarchical behaviour necessarily caused many defections from the Táborite ranks. Thus one of their generals, Přibík of Klenov, secretly assisted the Catholics in sending provisions to Plzeň. Many Utraquists, who did not wish to aid the enemies of their creed, but strongly disapproved of the anarchical conduct of the mercenary troops, left the camp and returned to their homes.

Under these circumstances it was natural that the plan of ending the depredations of the Táborite and Orphan bands, which had hitherto only been occasionally mooted, should now have been generally accepted. The regent Aleš of Riesenburg, whose election Prokop had approved of, and who had been entrusted with unlimited authority over the armed forces of the country, was justly indignant that the armed bands entirely ignored his commands. The Utraquist lords, among whom Borěk of Miletinek and Kostka of Postupic acted as leaders, first met secretly—the locality has remained unknown—and decided to force the Táborites to desist from further warfare. The citizens of the Old Town of Prague immediately joined the confederacy of the nobles. The many victories of the Táborites had, however, rendered them so formidable that the nobles did not venture openly to oppose them, aided only by the conservative townsmen of Prague. They therefore—some of them somewhat reluctantly—decided to form a coalition with the lords “sub una.” It will be remembered that a similar coalition had once been founded previously, during the last year of the life of Žižka. These negotiations were mainly conducted by Menhard of Jindřichův Hradec, through whose influence Ulrich of Rosenberg, leader of the lords “sub una,” joined the confederacy with the consent of the Emperor Sigismund. John Palomar, whom the Council had sent to the Bohemian frontier to watch the events and to assist the citizens of Plzeň, took a large part in these negotiations, which were carried on with great secrecy. It was also through Palomar’s influence that Přibik of Klenov abandoned the Táborite cause.

Events now proceeded rapidly, but before referring to the downfall of Tábor it is necessary to allude briefly to an attempt made by Sigismund to enter into direct negotiations with the Táborites. Sigismund, who was at that moment at Basel, sent a Bohemian nobleman, Habart of Adlar, to the camp before Plzeň, and proposed that the Táborites and Orphans should negotiate directly with the King. The propositions made by Adlar are not known to us, but they appear to have been very favourable, for they were accepted not only by the Táborites, but also by the Orphans, by whom hatred of Sigismund had always been preserved as a legacy of their dead leader Žižka. It is also probable that the Táborite leaders, who had knowledge of the formidable league which was being formed against them, welcomed this opportunity of negotiating directly with the King. Sigismund, in whom duplicity was innate, undoubtedly entered into these negotiations without the knowledge of the Council. The Táborites and Orphans then chose envoys who were to meet Sigismund either at Basel or at Nürnberg. We are expressly told that Prokop the Great was not one of the delegates chosen, as he was then in Prague; but it is probable that he was in favour of these negotiations, as he always preferred to come to terms with Sigismund rather than with the Bohemian nobility. While negotiations concerning the time and place where Sigismund should receive the envoys were still continuing, hostilities between the Táborites and the Bohemian nobles began, and the negotiations were necessarily broken off.

Once formed, the league of the Bohemian nobles immediately took very energetic steps. To obtain the aid of the lords “sub una” the Utraquist nobles had been obliged to admit that the raising of the siege of Plzeň should be one of the demands which the league was to address to the Táborites. They certainly thus renounced the claim of the advanced Utraquists that Communion in the two kinds should be declared obligatory in the whole kingdom of Bohemia. Under the given circumstances the concession was an inconsiderable and inevitable one. The siege of Plzeň had proved a complete failure. Treason and anarchy were rife in the Táborite camp. The moderate Utraquists, particularly the nobles, desired to come to an agreement with the Council of Basel, as representing the universal Church. It was, however, certain that the Council would never admit that a small minority of the Bohemian people should be coerced into abandoning the practice of the Roman Church and into accepting the Utraquist teaching, to which the Church could at best only give a reluctant consent. At a meeting of the members of the league in March 1434 it was decided that all the confederates should pledge their faith to uphold the authority of the regent, and that they should summon the Táborites to disarm and cease to plunder the country. If they consented to do this, a free pardon for all past offences was to be granted to them. In case of a refusal they were to be treated as enemies of their country. All mercenaries who wished to continue their military career would, if they wished it, be enrolled in the army of the league, The Táborite movement has, like the French Revolution. found some unconditional defenders, who attempt to palliate even its worst features. These writers have declared that the moderate Utraquists were traitors to their cause because they opposed the continuation of the siege of Plzeň. The same writers also blame the members of the league for strongly denouncing the depredations of the Táborite bands; these accusations were, however, but too well founded; the Táborite bands at the end of the war were very dissimilar to the “warriors of God,” whom Žižka had once led to victory. The impartial historian, though admiring the religious enthusiasm and heroic bravery of the Hussites, is yet obliged to condemn many deeds of the Táborites during the last and least glorious months of the war.

As an unconditional surrender of the Táborites was rightly considered improbable, no immediate attempt to negotiate was made, and the summons of the league was by all considered a declaration of war. The league called on all its members to march with their levies to the Kačin hill, near Kutna Hora, which was chosen as rallying-point. The troops of all the Utraquist nobles rapidly assembled there. Among those present were the regent, Aleš of Riesenburg, Bořek of Miletinek, formerly one of Žižka’s best generals, Henry of Wartenberg, son of Čeněk of Wartenberg, who had played so great a part at the beginning of the war, Kostka of Postupic, George of Poděbrad, a youth who was once to become King of Bohemia, and many others. The troops of Ulrich of Rosenberg and of other Catholic nobles of Southern Bohemia had not yet arrived, and the men of Plzeň, who afterwards played a considerable part in the battle of Lipany, were then still occupied in defending their town against the Táborites. The commanders of the league decided to make an immediate attempt to obtain possession of Prague. They may have thought that the New Town would more readily admit a Utraquist army than the Roman Catholic soldiers of Rosenberg. The Old Town, as already mentioned, had immediately joined the league. The nobles now summoned the New Town to do the same, but, largely through the influence of the fanatical preacher, Jacob Vlk, the citizens refused to enter into negotiations, and remained faithful to the party of the Orphans. The Táborites, informed of the plans of the league, hurriedly sent one of their generals, Andrew of Kersky, to organise the defence of the New Town, in which Prokop the Great, who appears to have remained in Prague since the beginning of the year 1434, also took part. The citizens of the New Town began the hostilities. They took possession of the Horská and Pořice gates of the Old Town and occupied several church towers, from which they opened fire on the Old Town. The citizens of that town immediately sent messengers to the army at the Kačin hill requesting aid. This was immediately granted, as the generals of the league had already decided to force the citizens of the New Town to join the confederacy. The army of the league arrived before Prague on May 5, and, after marching through the Malá Strana, crossed by the bridge of Prague into the Old Town. They called on the citizens of the New Town to demolish the fortifications which they had constructed, to conclude a treaty of alliance with the Old Town, and to cease troubling the public peace. It appears likely that no answer was given to this summons, and none was probably expected. On the day of the arrival of the troops of the league an artillery duel began, and on the following day they, with their allies of the Old Town, took possession of the New Town without much bloodshed.^[24]

Though the capture of the New Town was no great military exploit it must be considered as a great success for the league of the nobles. They had thus deprived the Táborites of the powerful aid of the New Town of Prague, and had forced them to abandon the siege of Plzeň without any further effort. Prokop the Great left the New Town immediately after its capture.^[25] He proceeded hurriedly to Tábor, the centre of his community, where he hoped to organise a new army in view of the decisive conflict which was evidently impending. On his way he sent a letter to the priest Prokop the Lesser, who was then commanding the troops before Plzeň. The letter^[26] is interesting, as throwing some light on the enigmatical character of Prokop the Great. He wrote: “Our Lord is omnipotent, He who after a storm grants calm and consoles His faithful after affliction. My most beloved brother in Christ! I wish it to be known to you that, by God’s will, the false nobles, with the Praguers of the Old Town, attacked our very dear brethren the citizens of the New Town; they killed some and, as we have seen, took possession of the city. It therefore seems well to us that you should, abandoning everything, move from the city of Plzeň in the direction of Sedlčany; for Čapek is assembling large forces, and we of Tábor will, we hope, do the same; for it is better for us to die than to leave unavenged the innocent blood of our dearest brethren, which was fraudulently shed. Farewell in the name of the Lord, who after our trials will console us.” As mentioned in the letter, Čapek of San, the best cavalry general of the Orphans and Táborites, was rapidly raising troops in the district of Králové Hradec, where the Orphans had their most numerous and staunch adherents. Prokop himself still succeeded in obtaining a considerable number of recruits in the town of Tábor and its vicinity.

Though the contemporary records are silent on this subject, it yet appears that the exhausted population of Bohemia did not receive this new call to arms with great enthusiasm. This is proved by the fact that a comparatively small army of Táborites encountered the enemies at the decisive battle of Lipany. The first result of the capture of the New Town was the final raising of the siege of Plzeň. It was probably rather an excuse for this decision than its actual cause that about this time the Catholics again succeeded in provisioning the city.^[27] On May 9 the besieging army retired from Plzeň, after having burnt their tents and destroyed the earthworks which they had erected. Besides the permanent armies of the Táborites and Orphans, the levies of the New Town of Prague, of Beroun, and of Žatec took part in the march. The few soldiers of the Old Town of Prague who were still in the camp were taken prisoners. For reasons that are not known to us the armies divided after a short time; the Táborites marched on Tábor while the Orphans, after crossing the Vltava, proceeded in the direction of Králové Hradec, the great stronghold of their community. We are not well informed as to the very rapid movements^[28] of the two contending armies during the month of May. Prokop the Great’s plan, that the whole army which had besieged Plzeň should march together to Sedlčany, was not carried out—no doubt because his letter was intercepted. Both the Orphans and the Táborites, however, appear to have agreed to attempt to regain possession of Prague. The Orphans, under Čapek of San, were the first to appear in the neighbourhood of the capital. The Utraquist nobles who occupied Prague, still hoping for a reconciliation, entered into negotiations with Čapek. The leader of the Orphans, however, made the surrender of the New Town a condition of peace, and an accord was thus impossible. Almost immediately afterwards—on May 17—the Táborite forces, under Prokop the Great, also arrived in the vicinity of Prague. The re-united Táborite and Orphan armies appear to have desired to give battle to the lords of the league under the walls of the capital. The lords, however, who expected large reinforcements, cautiously remained within the city walls. These reinforcements soon arrived. The powerful Lord Ulrich of Rosenberg, the faithful friend of King Sigismund and leader of the Roman party in Bohemia, sent a large force. The citizens of Plzeň and the nobles allied with them joined the army of the league, as did also the garrison of the Karlštýn, who, during the whole course of the war, had held that stronghold for King Sigismund. The new army which joined the Utraquist lords consisted of 10,000 infantry and 500 horsemen.^[29]

On receiving the news that their opponents had received such strong reinforcements the Orphans and Táborites left the neighbourhood of Prague and marched on Kolin, to be nearer to the district of Králové Hradec, where they still had many adherents. Immediately afterwards the Utraquist nobles also left Prague and, following their enemies, first marched to Zaběhlic, where, on May 26, their complete junction with the Roman Catholic allies took place, though the troops had already previously been in connection. The joint armies then marched on Český Brod and laid siege to that city, which still sided with the Táborites. Up to the day of the great battle both parties continued to receive reinforcements. At Kolin the Táborites were met by a few new recruits from the district of Králové Hradec, while several knights and nobles, who had hitherto wavered, at the last moment joined the army of the nobles. Finding more resistance at Německý Brod than they had expected the nobles, now vastly superior in number to their antagonists, determined to attack them as soon as possible. They divided their forces into four army corps; the first comprised the Utraquist nobles and their followers, the second consisted of the citizens of Plzeň, and the third of the troops of Lord Ulrich of Rosenberg. The fourth corps was composed of the levies of the three towns of Prague—the men of the New Town only reluctantly followed the standards of their enemies—and of those of the city of Mělnik. Our information concerning the events that immediately preceded the battle is very insufficient and contradictory.^[30] On the advance of the army of the league the Táborites and their allies retreated from the neighbourhood of Kolin and took up a strong position between the villages of Lipany and Hrib, on the slopes of a hill known as Lipské, which is, in the southern direction, connected with a line of other hills. By this apparently retrogade movement the Táborite army had come somewhat nearer to Prague. According to a probably truthful tradition Prokop still hoped that the citizens of the New Town, who had submitted so easily, might rise in arms against the league. Well aware of the superiority of the forces of the enemy he determined to remain in this defensive position. Probably on the 29th his army came in touch with the troops of the league, who occupied a position the centre of which was the village of Hrib. The Utraquist nobles, who here again played the thankless though meritorious part of mediators, even at this last moment attempted to obtain a peaceful agreement. They alone understood that the victory of either party would be fatal to the principles which were dear to them, and which they had so long defended. The obstinacy of the Táborites, who opposed all compromises, caused the immediate failure of the negotiations. The Táborites broke them off, saying: “Then we will settle this matter with our fists.”

The battle began immediately afterwards. The army of the league consisted of about 25,000^[31] men on the morning of the battle (May 30). The whole army was under the command of Bořek of Miletinek, an experienced general who had fought under Žižka. With him were Menhard of Jindřichův Hradec, the regent, Aleš of Riesenburg, Nicholas Krchlebec, Burgrave of Zvikov, who commanded the troops of the Lord of Rosenberg, John Malovec of Pacov, and many other nobles whose names have frequently appeared in these pages.^[32] We have less information concerning the organisation of the Orphans and Táborites at the beginning of this their last battle. It seems certain that the supreme command was now again assumed by Prokop the Great; under him Andrew of Kerský commanded the Táborites. The leader of the Orphans was Čapek of San, with whom was the priest Prokupek (Prokop the Lesser). Besides the permanent mercenary soldiers of the Orphans and Táborites the army comprised the levies of thirty-three Bohemian cities, Tábor, Králové Hradec, Domážlice, Pisek, Beroun and many others. A few nobles, among whom were Lord Rohač of Duba, Lord Kolda of Žampach, and the Moravian lord, Sezima of Kunštat, still remained faithful to the cause of Tábor. The united forces of the Orphans and Táborites amounted to about 18,000 men. On this occasion, as on many others during the Hussite wars, the artillery played a great part. As soon as the army of the nobles was within range of the Táborite artillery the wagon-forts, which had been formed in six columns,^[33] opened a murderous fire on the enemy. Their losses were considerable, and the infantry loudly demanded to be allowed to attack the strong position of the enemy; this would probably have been unsuccessful, and it would at any rate have caused an enormous loss of life. Nicholas of Krchlebec, commander of the forces of the Lord of Rosenberg, however, by a skilful stratagem, succeeded in enticing the Táborites to leave their almost impregnable position. He placed four field-pieces in front of the vanguard which he commanded, placing the rest of his guns on his flanks, so that they could continue to fire while he advanced. After they had been fired once and the enemy had replied, he immediately advanced at full speed in the direction of the lager, before the enemy could fire again. It need hardly be mentioned that the slowness of the fire of the primitive cannons of that day rendered this possible. It was not, however, the intention of Krchlebec to storm the wagon-forts. When he had come near to them he suddenly retreated. The Táborites and Orphans raised the cry, “The enemies fly,” left their wagons and rushed in pursuit of the troops of Krchlebec. Meanwhile the principal forces of the league had outflanked the Táborite lager on both flanks, broken down or climbed the chains that secured it, and attacked the Táborites in the rear. It is evident that the Táborites no longer had preserved the discipline which had formerly distinguished them. Though some of their leaders—according to tradition, also Prokop the Great—attempted to restrain them, they pursued the troops of Krchlebec till the general of the league ceased to retreat and turned on the pursuers. The Táborites now attempted to return to their camp, which had already been invaded by the main body of the army of the league. The battle now became a massacre. As soon as the defeat appeared certain Čapek of San, with his cavalry, and the Táborite captain, Andrew of Kerský, fled in the direction of Kolin. Čapek, whose cavalry might at least have attempted to cover the retreat, thus rendered the defeat even more disastrous. Almost the whole army of the Orphans and Táborites, except those who had fled with Čapek and Kerský, perished. The dead numbered 13,000 men or more. Both Prokop the Great and Prokupek fell in this battle. We have many accounts of the death of Prokop the Great. Though, in consequence of his priestly dignity, he generally took no active part in battle, he is said here to have rushed among the thickest foes and perished fighting desperately.^[34] It appears more probable that Prokop perished with many other priests of his community, and that his body was only recognised on the following day.

Dr. Toman has written very judiciously that the battle had been very skilfully planned by the leaders of the army of the league. It is probable that the victory was mainly due to Bořek of Miletinek. His subsequent political career is probably the reason why most writers, particularly Roman Catholic ones, attribute the victory principally to Menhard of Jindřichův Hradec and to the leader of the troops of the Lord of Rosenberg. Bořek of Miletinek always remained a staunch Utraquist, and protected Rokycan when he was menaced during the short reign of Sigismund.^[35]

It will be my duty in the next chapter to study the momentous consequences of the battle of Lipany. The Bohemians had totally vanquished their countrymen, who had been victorious over all foreign enemies. As a Bohemian historian of the eighteenth century writes: “Thus the Bohemians could only be vanquished by other Bohemians, they who had proved invincible to all Germans, and had terribly spread their heroic glory through the whole world.”^[36]

 

1. This motive, to which the contemporary German chroniclers frequently allude, has remained unnoticed by many writers on Bohemian history.
2. This letter is published in John of Ragusa’s “Tractatus quomodo Bohemi reducti sunt ad Unitatem Ecclesiæ” (Monumenta Conciliorum Generalium Seculi Decimi Ouinti, Tom. I. pp. 135–137). It states: “Sacrosancta Basiliensis Synodus . . .: universis viris ecclesiasticis, nobilibus et toti populo regni Bohemiæ unitatem et pacem in Christo domino nostro. Compulit nos caritas Christi egredi de terra nostra . . . et venire ad locum, quem ostendit nobis Dominus pro pace ecclesiæ et salute populi Christiani. Et quid mirum si pro Christo in terra aliena peregrinari decrevimus, cum ipse Deus noster pro nobis durissimam usque ad mortem crucis peregrinationem pati dignatus sit? Si Deus ita dilexit mundum ut filium suum unigenitum daret: et nos merito ipsum diligere debemus ut pro ovibus suis, si oporteat animas nostras libenter exponamus. . . . Si sciretis quanto affectu salutem et pacem vestram optamus . . . obmissis omnibus sine mora huc properantes projiceretis vos in ulnas nostras confidentes quod a nobis, qui vos propter Christum ut nos ipsos amamus requiem animabus vestris invenire possetis. . . . Licebit omnibus libere exponere quidquid Christianae religione expedire judicaverint. . . . Rogamus autem ut viros tales mittatis super quos spiritus domini requiescere speratur; mites videlicet humiles corde pacem optantes et non quæ sua sunt quærenteas, sed quæ Jesu Christi; qui nobis et vobis et toti populo Christiano hic pacem et in futuro seculo vitam æternam donare dignetur qui vivit benedictus in secula. Amen.”
3. M. Noël Valois in his Le Pape et le concile, quotes a document entitled “De Justificatione vocationis Bohemorum” (Paris, Bib. nat. MS. lat. 1548), which justifies the action of the Council. The author writes: “Et pro illis jam inveteratis hereticis [the Greeks] novum indicitur concilium; cur pro istis novellis, ex quibus majus timetur periculum non permittitur manere concilium ceptum et longe ante indictum.”
4. In a letter sent by John Nider, prior of the Dominicans, one of the peace negotiators to John of Ragusa, on January 5, 1532, he notes the report of an envoy of the Town of Cheb who was at Prague when the Orphans returned there. “Dixit [the envoy] quod XIII Decembris fuit Pragæ per VIII circiter dies; vidit eadem die i. e. in crastino S. Luciæ redire de Hungaria Hussitas et intrare Pragam non ut antea viderat aliquando cum spoliis, lætitia et fistulationibus, sed cum magna tristitia et irrisionibus. Sunt enim in Praga, præsertim Veteri, quæ in triplo validior est in omnibus Nova qui corde fideles sunt et cum summo gaudio perceperunt stragem Orphanorum, optantes ut malis Bohemiæ finis detur. Fuerunt autem præfati Hussitæ qui Pragam intraverunt hi quos hæretici percipientes eorum confratres circumdatos in Ungaria direxerunt eisdem fratribus in adjutorium. Sed mentita est iniquitas sibi. Ungariæ enim appropinquantes, perceperunt, prout alias audisti, nedum multitudinem Orphanorum fame et gladio occisam, verum etiam plures ignobiles, nobiles et capitaneos Taboritarum peremptos. Siquidem postquam Procopius cum suis et Orphanorum exercitus Ungariam intrasset et spolia multa collegisset captam prædam cum dissidio et seditione dividere cœperunt. Ex quo in iram motus Procopius cum paucis, quibus vitam optavit caute fugiendo, reliquit post se multitudinem gladiis statim præstandam Ungarorum. Est autem prope Montem Cauthnis [Kutna Hora] in castro sine omni campestri exercitu infamis fere apud omnes hæreticos qui eum proclamant fratres seduxisse” (Monumenta Conciliorum, as above, Tom. I., p. 140). It must not be overlooked that the citizens of Cheb were strong adherents of the Church of Rome.
5. John of Segovia writes (Monumenta Conciliorum, as above, Tom. II. pp. 5–6): “Accidit rursus his diebus publicatas fuisse eciam ad Hyspaniam plurimas copias diversarum et diffusarum epistolarum Bohemorum ex parte ad honorabiles, providos, honestos dominos in tota communitate, divites et pauperes. Que salutacionis loco premittebant se desiderare, ut illis opperiret intellectum Deus illuminans corda eorum narrantes quomodo iam a pluribus annis inter se et illos magna fuisset discordia et utrimque nobiles et ignobiles multi fatui sua corpora perdissent; nunquam tamen audivissent de ore eorum fidem suam an possent vel non ex scriptura sacra probare eam et nichilominus reges et principes, domini et communitates magna interim ab eis percepissent damna ideoque admirarentur . . . quod pape et omni sacerdocii suo tantum confiderent dantibus . . . remissionem peccatorum . . . ut contra eos bellare deberent.”
6. In this letter, dated May 21, 1432, Prokop wrote: “Notifico Vobis ex parte mei et aliorum nunciorum nostrorum regni Bohemiæ et marchionatus Moraviæ qualiter nunc in Egra cum nunciis Vestris et cum illustribus principibus Frederico marchione Brandeburgensi et Johanne duce Bavariæ et doctoribus de concilio ad hanc congregationem ad Basileam pro conductibus ac modis sub quibus in Basilea ad concilium stare debemus, jam concordavimus. Ideo studiose optamus quatenus etiam in hoc concilio personaliter esse dignemini et hoc non negligere quia de hoc nobiscum sæpius loquebamini quod utique huic concilio vultis interesse.” The letter is signed “Procopius presbyter, director communitatis Taboritarum in campo laborantis” (Martène et Durand, Veterum scriptorum amplissima coll., Vol. VIII. p. 133).
7. Sigismund wrote: “Procopi quemadmodum nobis ad præsens scripsisti parte tua et aliorum nunciorum vestrorum qualiter cum principibus cumque doctoribus per sacrum concilium ad Egram missis, concordes sitis super adventu vestro ad Basileam prosalvis conductibus et modis ibidem tenendis, et ita tibi notificamus quod memoratum sacrum concilium super rebus illis etiam ad nos misit religiosum fratrem Jo. de Maulbrunno ordinis Cisterciensis qui etiam illi diætæ Egrensi interfuit informando nos de omnibus modis conclusis, quos bene intelleximus ac libenter ac multum lætanter audivimus sperantes in Deo omnipotente quod res illæ cadent ad laudem suæ divinitatis et ad profectum Christianismi, et pacem et tranquillitatem coronæ Bohemiæ. Et quicquid sacrum concilium de salvis conductibus et aliis rebus necessariis requisivit a nobis, mox expedivimus, et omnia vobis mittentur. Etiam scripsimus Bohemis de parte nostra, ut vos per regnum Bohemiæ conducant. Super illo autem ubi desideratis in sacro concilio personalem præsentiam nostram, etiam clare præfato Jo. mentem nostram deteximus, qui eam vobis latius notificabit quam possumus describere. Nam in omnibus quæ tendunt ad bonum et pacificum statum regni præfati nunquam deficiemus; sed ita nos exhibebimus, sicut rex gratiosus et dominus” (Martène et Durand, as above, Vol. VIII, p. 134).
8. Letter printed by Palecký (Vol. III, iii. p. 5 of German edition), from MS. in the Imperial Library in Vienna.
9. The passage in Æneas Sylvius describing the arrival of the Bohemians at Basel has often been quoted, but well deserves to be quoted again; he writes: “Effusus extra mœnia urbanus populus, ex synodo quoque complures adventum fortissime gentis pro portis expectavere. Alii frequentes in plateas qua transitus esset convenire; matrone, pueri puelle fenestras atque tecta complere. Alii hunc, alii illum digito designare, peregrinos habitus, non visa prius vestimenta mirari horribiles hominum facies, truces notare oculos, non esse alienum dicere ab ea hominum specie facta que fama prodiderat. In unum tamen cuncti Procopium defigere lumina, illum esse qui totiens fidelium fudisset exercitus, qui tot oppida subvertisset, tot hominum milia neci dedisset, quem sui pariter atque hostes metuerunt, invictum ducem, audacem intrepidum neque labore neque timore superandum” (Historia Bohemica, cap. xlix).
10. “Eodem die [January 9] hora vesperorum . . . archiepiscopus Lugdunensis cum duobus doctoribus Parisiensibus in medium Bohemorum venit, qui honorifice susceptus, legationem quam a rege christianissimo suo Francorum habuit, sibi sub fide et honore et quasi juramento astrictus, inter cetera retulit, quod memor beneficiorum per regem Bohemiæ Johannem cæcum, et filiam cujusdam regis Bohemiæ in matrimonium Francorum cuidam datam, a qua ipse processit seu natus est; ob hoc commissit suis legatis, Bohemis famulari et complacere quantum possent. Cui pro tunc responsum non dabant, sed differebant inde post” (“Petri Zatecensis Liber,” in Monumenta Conciliorum, etc., Tom. I. p. 290).
11. “Feria 4^a venimus in Scafusam, ubi altera die quievimus propter Bohemos, ut suos possent adaptare currus, quos ibi derelinquerant. Vidimus tunc in hospicio Mathei de Louda pendere arma in quibus stetit: ‘Veritas vincit ’ et superius ‘Jhesus Nazarenus, rex Judæorum’ et ad latera ‘Matthias de Louda.’ Ivimus in principio ad Procopium et suos, petentes ut illa et eciam que in curribus habebat, deponantur. Respondit quod vellent secum loqui. Ivimus similiter ad Pragenses et ipsum Matthiam petentes idem, quia non deceret illa vice signa ostendi diversitatis, et alia multo pro illo suadentes. Qui post deliberacionem dixerunt, quod de hopicio vellet removere, sed non de curribus; promisserunt tamen simul convenire et super isto nobis requisiti respondere. Post dies forte sex requisiti promisserunt se sequenti die responsuros; et ita scilicet fecerunt mittentes quatuor . . . et dixerunt ‘Petimus quod non desideretis a nobis que sunt contra honorem nostrum,’ etc. Fuit responsum quod putemus hoc esse pro honore eorum, ut signa caritatis ostenderent non divisionis” (“Ægidii Carlerii Decani Cameracensis Liber de legationibus Concilii Basiliensis,” in Monumenta Conciliorum, etc., Tom. I. p. 361).
12. The present town-hall of Prague.
13. Tomek, History of the Town of Prague, Vol. IV. p. 517.
14. The arguments of the envoys of the Council are very clearly explained in a letter sent to the abbot of Tegernsee by one of his monks, brother Ulrick Stockel (printed by Palacký, Urkunden, etc., Vol. II. pp. 376–379). Stockel writes: “Die Landschaft [the estates] hat gar einen grossen Verdruss und sprachen alle gemeinschaftlich, sie wollten, noch möchten nicht, länger bleiben, sie verzehrten viel Gutes umsonst und sie wollten doch den Artikel de communione sub utraque specie durch keinerlei Sache wegen fallen lassen, eher wollten sie alle sterben. . . . Die [ambasioteres concilii] nahmen die Ritterschaft auf einen Ort [25 Jun.] und . . . redeten sie also an: ‘Ihr edelen Herren und Ritter und Knechte, denket daran dass Ihr die Vordersten seit in dem Königreiche zu Böhmen, und es Euch billig zugehört dass Ihr das Königreich erhaltet. Seht an wie gross das Königreich vor Zeiten gewesen ist und dass Ihr nun darum gekommen seit. Denn die Euere Vorfahren als Diener verschmäht hätten die sind jetzt Euer Herren geworden.’ Darauf antwortete die Ritterschaft: möchten sie einen Weg erdenken dadurch in Concilio communoonem sub utraque erlaubet, so hofften sie es werde Einigkeit.” This valuable letter is unfortunately too long to be quoted in its entirety. I have somewhat modernised the very difficult German of brother Ulrick.
15. See my Bohemia, a Historical Sketch, pp. 213–214.
16. A contemporary chronicler writes: [the soldiers] “devastated the Bohemian land and caused a great famine in the country; for they took possession of all the churches and dwellings and robbed the people of all that they had, and carried it off, each one to his own home, and then sold it. And therefore did the Lord permit that, wherever they went, they were defeated” (“Scriptores rerum Bohemicarum,” Vol. III. p. 88).
17. Tomek, History of the Town of Prague, Vol. IV. p. 616.
18. It is curious to note that even at this moment, when the power of Prokop was more than vacillating, a letter should have been sent to him entreating him to mend his evil ways. I refer to the anonymous letter sent “sub nomine ecclesiæ Anno 1434 ante 30 Maii,” and addressed: “Infideli Procopio contra Christum in campis degenti, et hunc crucifixum pro salute.” The anonymous author writes: “Quid gloriaris quod in virtute sanguinis Christi frequens tibi arridet victoria bellorum? O stulta æstimatio! O superba jactatio! Nonne Alexander magnus cui deus Jupiter fuit totum mundum sibi subjugavit? Nonne Romani omnium idolorum cultores totum mundum superarunt? . . . Dicis enim sacerdotes in ecclesiis student avaritiis et vacant simoniæ in sacramentorum collatione; quod tu asseris absque veritate. Si tamen sic esset, quod alsit, ob hoc domus Dei non debet tradi incendiis, et Jesus Christus cum invenit in templo vendentes et ementes non templum incendebat; sed facto flagello de funiculis ejos ejecit et pie correxit. . . . Noram certe ex relatu te esse virum magni concilii, utinam in bono. Sed proh dolor talentum tibi creditum non posuisti ad negationem. . . . Totam enim intentionem ostendis ad nova peccata mortalia perpetranda, in novis homicidiis, rapinis, incendiis, pauperum oppressionibus. . . . Obsecro te igitur per viscera misericordiæ Dei nostri et per effusionem sui sanguinis pretiosi, obtestor ac per suum tremendum judicium ut ab ista vita damnabili resilias.” The Iength of this very interesting letter (printed by Martène et Durand, as above, Vol. VIII. pp. 709–714) unfortunately renders it impossible to quote it in its entirety.
19. Dr. Neubauer, in his interesting studies on Prokop, to which I have already referred, notes a great deterioration in the character of Prokop, and quotes several of his denunciations of the Church of Rome couched in most coarse and crude language. Dr. Neubauer adds the very penetrating remark that a long period of brutalising warfare affects the speech and writings of the people; he alludes to the similar effect which the thirty years’ war had on the German language.
20. Bartošek of Drahonic, p. 611.
21. “Pardus reversus ante Plznam eadem septimana est a suis complicibus captus et vinctus et dominus et presbyter Procopius tunc a quodam ribaldo dicto Twaroh fuit ad caput cum sede seu scabello graviter vulneratus et captus sed [post] paucas dies liberatus” (Bartošek of Drahonic, p. 611).
22. Professor Tomek, in his History of the Town of Prague (Vol. IV. p. 601, n. 34), quotes the words of these writers. The statement, to which the learned professor himself does not appear to attach much importance, appears to me very improbable. It is, however, characteristic of the atmosphere of mutual distrust and treachery which marks the last months of the Hussite wars.
23. Brother Ulrick, already quoted, wrote, on February 19, 1434, to the abbot of Tegernsee: “Tunc isti de prædicta obsidione [of Plzeň) miserunt Procopium inimicum pacis cum aliis suis ad civitatem Pragensem qui impediverunt hoc sanctum opus unitatis et pacis quod prius acceptatum erat” (Palacký, Urkunden, etc., Vol. II. pp. 402–405).
24. A contemporary chronicler writes: “By God’s dispensation few were killed on this occasion, sixteen or twenty at most, and only one house, that of Kucka, was burnt down” (“Scriptores rerum Bohemicarum,” Vol. III. p. 88).
25. According to the “Scriptores rerum Bohemicarum” Prokop the Great and Andrew of Kerský were expelled from the New Town of Prague after its capture by the army of the league.
26. The Latin original of this letter is printed by Palacký, Urkunden, etc., Vol. II. p. 411. Its fate is very curious; it never reached Prokop the Lesser; it was intercepted by the troopers of the Catholic Lord Ulrich of Rosenberg. The original is now preserved at Wittingau (Třeboň), in the archives of the princes of Schwarzenberg, who are descendants of the Lords of Rosenberg.
27. Some contemporary writers state that this provisioning was again the work of Přibik of Klenov. This is certainly untrue.
28. The Lords of the league occupied the New Town of Prague on May 6, the siege of Plzeň was raised on the 9th, and the decisive battle of Lipany was fought on the 30th of that month.
29. “Ipso die sancti Urbani gentes dominorum Ulrici de Rosenberg, Johannis de Rabie et domini Menhard de Nova Domo . . . ante Pragam erant et dominus Johannes de Svamberk, Zdenko Drstka, dominus Alsso de Zylberg et de districtu Plznensi habentes sexingentos equites et decem millia vel circa peditum in adjutorium Antique civitatis Pragensis contra Taborenses et Orfanorum sectam venerunt” (Bartošek of Drahonic, p. 613).
30. The three most valuable contemporary accounts of the great battle are that of Bartošek of Drahonic, whom I have frequently quoted, and those contained in two letters, one written by Martin Husnik, a soldier who, like Bartošek, took part in the battle, the other by the citizens of Plzeň, announcing the victory to some Minorite friars. Both these letters are printed by Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge, etc., Vol. Il. pp. 414–416. The best modern accounts are those of Professor Tomek, in his History of the Town of Prague, and of General Köhler, in his Entwicklung der Kriegskunst in der Ritterzeit. Dr. Toman, Hussite Warfare, is also interesting. Lately articles on some controversial matters connected with the battle have appeared in the Časopis Musea Království Českého (Journal of the Museum of the Kingdom of Bohemia) for 1898 and 1900, in the Věštník České společností nauk (Proceedings of the Bohemian Society for Sciences) for 1903, and elsewhere.
31. I have adopted this figure from Professor Tomek’s work. According to Bartošek the Catholic forces amounted to 10,600 men. If we consider that the vast majority of the nobility of Bohemia was then Utraquist, their forces certainly amounted to 15,000 or 16,000 men.
32. The contemporary chroniclers and, following them, the Bohemian historians give a long list of the nobles who were present. This list, though valuable for the records of the Bohemian nobility, has little interest for English readers, and I have therefore omitted it.
33. “Die Hussen haben ihr Wagen zugerüstet mit 6 Zeilen.” (Letter of Husnik.)
34. Æneas Sylvius writes: “Procopius ubi suos retinere non potest . . . inter confertissimos hostes dilapsus . . . aliquamdiu hostis impetum detinet multisque cæsis victoriam pæne hostibus eripuit: Sed non tam victus quam vincendo fessus telo in incertum misso transfoditur (Historia Bohemica, cap. li.). I have, in my Lectures on the Historians of Bohemia, noted the similarity of this passage to the description of the death of Catilina in Sallust, who writes: “Postquam fusas copias seque cum paucis relictum videt Catilina memor generis atque pristinæ suæ dignitatis in confertissimos hostes incurrit, ibique pugnans confoditur.” The Historia Bohemica, though a fine specimen of Renaissance Latinity, is historically almost valueless.
35. See my Bohemia, a Historical Sketch, p. 175.
36. “Solcher Gestalten konnten die Böhmen nur durch Böhmen bezwungen werden, die bevor allen Deutschen unüberwindlich waren und ihren Heldenruhm fürchterlich durch die Welt verbreiteten” (Bienenberg, Geschichte der Stadt Königgrätz).