« PredošláPokračovať »
ones, and the one containing the Latin works has not been superseded up to the present day. During the period of Bohemian independence the Bohemian works of the master were frequently reprinted; this applies particularly to the Postilla, of which an edition was published at Nuremberg in I 563, and another at Prague by the celebrated printer Melantrich in 1564. The latter edition, which is illustrated, contains, besides the Postilla, several of Hus’s letters, which have always been very popular. After the year 1620 such publications necessarily ceased. When the Bohemians in the latter part of the eighteenth century again obtained a limited amount of religious freedom, their thoughts again turned to Hus. Joseph Dobrovsky,1 in his history of the Bohemian language and literature, is the first Bohemian writer who again ventured to mention Hus. In the third edition of his work, to which I have just referred, he gives a list of the writings of Hus, which is principally interesting as proving how very limited was the number of works of Hus that were known at that time. Dobrovsky in this work also gives short extracts from some of Hus’s writings. Joseph Jungmann, in his history of Bohemian literature was already able to enumerate a considerably larger number of works of Hus. To no other Bohemian writer of the nineteenth century is the memory of Hus so greatly indebted as to Francis Palacky.2 His history of Bohemia, founded on almost unknown documents, revealed the great Bohemian as he really was. In his extensive collection of documents concerning Hus published in 1869, Palacky has printed the fullest and most correct version of Hus’s letters, both Bohemian and Latin, which exists. Professor Hofler, in his Geschichtschreiber der Hussitischen Bewegung, has also published a considerable number of letters of Hus. Dr. Hofler's superficiality, his very slight knowledge of the Bohemian language, and his fanatical hatred of church-reform and the Bohemian nation, render it necessary to use his works with great caution. A large number of Hus’s letters, among them some not contained in Palacky's
1 17 53—! 829. See my History of Bohemian Literatwe, pp. 359—362. ' Ibid. pp. 388—403.
collection, were published by Mr. Bohumil Mares in 189I. The Latin letters, however, appear only in a Bohemian translation. Karel Jaromir Erben, in his edition of Bohemian works of Hus, which will be mentioned presently, has included fifteen Bohemian letters of the master. Some of the letters were translated into English by the late Rev. A. Wratislaw, who was acquainted with the Bohemian language, and I have translated a few in my previous writings. I have done so on a larger scale in the present work. Hus’s letters have also been translated into English by Mr. Mackenzie, who used the French version of M. de Bonnechose, and by Mr. Workman, who for the Bohemian letters used the Latin translation of Professor Kvicala, as well as the not always trustworthy German translation of Professor H6fler.
Though the letters have remained and perhaps always will remain the work of Hus that has most admirers, other works of the master were also again published in the nineteenth century. This task was not always an easy one. Though the Austrian government no longer attempted entirely to suppress all memory of Hus among the people, the absolutist authorities of Vienna still viewed with marked displeasure all mention, and particularly all praise of Hus. As late as in I857 the celebrated Bohemian philologist, Safarik,1 wrote to the Russian scholar Pogodin: “ Nobody here dares to edit Hus’s works, writings against Hus would be more in request. Let the dead repose. Hus ne nominetm' quidem, aut umtur denuo ! ” The editors of Hus’s writings had also up to 1848 to face the perils of a double censorship.2 Of the two censors one investigated whether a book contained anything opposed to the policy of the government, while the other, an ecclesiastic, suppressed everything antagonistic to the Church of Rome. In spite of these obstacles Venceslas Hanka 3 published in 1825 an edition of the Dcerka (daughter), one of Hus’s best works. The edition is not, however, complete, as several passages were omitted by order of the censor. In the years 1864 to 1868 Karel Jaromir Erben published three large volumes containing the principal Bohemian works of Hus, such as the Postilla, the different expositions (Vyklady), the treatise on simony (Svatokupector), the Dcerka, some of the Bohemian letters, and a large number of other treatises. This has remained and probably will long remain the standard edition of the Bohemian works of the master, and it is therefore all the more to be regretted that though censorship had then already been nominally suppressed, some passages in this work were altered, others suppressed by order of the government. Several Bohemian works of Hus have been newly edited and published within the last years. Thus Dr. Flajshans, the foremost authority on Hus at the present time, published in 1900 a very handsome illustrated edition of the Postilla. Dr. Flajshans has very skilfully modernised the language, thus rendering the valuable book more accessible to scholars unacquainted with the Bohemian of the fifteenth century. In 1907 Dr. Novotny published a small edition of the treatise on Simony, which has very useful notes. The Latin works of Hus have also not been entirely neglected within the last years. Under the patronage of the Bohemian Academy the publication of the Latin works in a new edition has been begun, and it is sincerely to be hoped that this undertaking will meet with the success which it fully deserves. The editors decided wisely not to begin their publication with the one or two Latin works that have hitherto been almost exclusively known, and have indeed already included two or three works of Hus that had never previously been printed. The works already published are the Expositum Decalogi, De Corpore Christi, De Sanguine Christi, Super IV. Sententiarum, and the Sermones de Sanctis. The lastnamed work, just printed for the first time, contains, as Dr. Flajshans the editor writes, a collection of sermons of unequal value. Some are Hus’s own, while others are merely copies from the writings of St. Chrysostomus and St. Bernard.
1 See my History of Bohemian Literature, pp. 383—337“ Ibid. pp. 366—367 and 396—3933 Ibid. pp. 403-404.
It will be seen from what I have written that the works of Hus have been greatly neglected, if we consider the world-wide im
portance of the master. Even now it is impossible to state with certainty the number of genuine works of Hus that have been preserved. Josef Jungmann, writing about the year 1840, enumerates thirty-eight Bohemian works of the master. Jungmann, whose book treated 0f Bohemian literature, makes no reference to Latin works. Dr. Flajshans, whose work which I have frequently quoted, supersedes Jungmann’s and all other earlier bibliographical attempts, enumerates seventy-four Latin, one German, and thirtysix Bohemian works of Hus.1 The ancient traditions, which saw in Hus only the adversary of the Roman Church, which he became by the force of circumstances, by no means by his own wish, attributed all his numerous works to the last troubled years of his life. This, as previously noted, is quite untrue. Dr. Flajshans has for the first time seriously attempted to establish at least approximately the dates of the principal writings of Hus. Certainly, as the learned professor remarks, is very often not obtainable. The entire obscurity which surrounded all the master’s works renders research very difficult. Dr. Flajshans divides all Hus's works, both Bohemian and Latin, into four periods. The first period, which Dr. Flajshans calls the academic one, extends from the years I402 to 1409. To these peaceful years, during which Hus was not yet in conflict with the Church of Rome, belongs the master's most important Latin work, the treatise SuPer IV. Sententiarum. Other Latin works of this period are the treatises De Corpore Christi and De Sanguine Christi. A large number of sermons also belong to this period, as well as, probably, the hymns attributed to Hus. To this period belong also the synodal sermons (charges) delivered by Hus by order of Archbishop Zajic of Hasenburg. The second period, comprising the years 1409 to 1411, is by Dr. Flajshans called the polemical one, and he has thus generally indicated the purpose of many of these works. Among them are the treatises Contra Anglicum joh. Stokes, Contra occultum adversarium, Hus’s defence against the accusation of having driven the German students from Prague.1 Other works of this period are the Orthographia Bohemica and the Expositio Deealogi, which has recently been printed for the first time. The third period, called by Dr. Flajshans the apostolic one (1412-1414), comprises the time from the beginning of Hus’s exile from Prague to his departure on his fateful journey to Constance. Most of the important works of the master, both Bohemian and Latin, belong to this period. Among these are many of the dogmatic works, in which Hus’s opposition to the Roman see is more marked than in the earlier ones. Many of the writings of the apostolic period have previously been mentioned in this work, and it will here be sufficient to enumerate a few of those that have most importance. Of the Bohemian works the treatise on Simony, the Deerka (daughter), the five Vyklady (expositions) of the faith, the ten commandments and the Lord’s prayer, and the Postilla—Hus’s greatest work in his own language—should be mentioned. Of Latin works the treatise De Ecclesia, one of Hus’s best known but least original books, belongs to this time. Though Dr. Flajshans has named this period the apostolic one in distinction from the previous polemical one, controversial writings abound at this period also. Hus, indeed, “ was ever a fighter.” Of such controversial writings the treatises Contra Palec, Contra Stanislaum de Znoymo, Contra octo doetores, Contra Praedicatorem Plznensem are the most important. The last period, which Dr. Flajshans has not very felicitously called the apologetic one, comprises the time from Hus’s departure for Constance to his death. This period is naturally not fertile in literary productions; but it is to this period that belong the Constance Letters, the most precious memorial of Hus that we possess.
1 I do not enter here into the difficult question of the manuscripts of Hus. Dr. Flajshans has written fully and clearly on this subject.
As is proved by contemporary writings, the tragical death, or as the Bohemians deemed it, the martyrdom of Hus, was immediately considered an event of the highest importance in all
1 The full Latin title of the treatise runs thus: “ M. J. Hus literis publicis diluit crimen falso sibi objectum quod Germanos ex universitate studii Pragensis expulerit.” The manuscript is in a very imperfect state.