John Blahoslav, "Father and Charioteer of the Lord's People in the Unitas Fratrum"

Home , John Amos Comenius, Matthias Flacius

MILOS STRUPL

Brief was the span of life which the Lord had allotted to Brother John Blahoslav. When he, "of the topmost four", one of the bishops of his communion, died on the twenty-fourth day of November 1571, while on a visit near Moravsky Krumlov, he had not yet reached his forty- ninth year. "All too soon, according to our judgment", sighed Lawrence Orlik, Blahoslav's faithful co-worker, as he was recording the death of his superior in the Necrology of the Unitas Fratrum, "it pleased the Lord to take him away; he himself knows for what reason. Mysterious divine judgments!" 1 And yet, its brevity notwithstanding, it had been a full life, crowded with the most diversified activities in the service of his beloved Unitas. For Blahoslav was indeed - quoting once more from Orlik's Necrology - "a great and outstanding man, whose fame, having been carried far and wide, excelled among other nations, a great and precious jewel of the Unitas".2 In this glowing appraisal Orlik did not remain alone. Others have voiced similar opinions. To mention just one, a modern historian, Vaclav Novotny, referred to Blahoslav as "one of the noblest spirits of his time, one of the most learned of his contemporaries, and therefore one of the most celebrated sons of his nation".3 No one will seriously question that in the history of the Unitas Fratrum Blahoslav holds a truly pivotal position. His importance must be judged in comparison with that of Brother Lucas of Prague, "the second founder of the Unitas", and that of John Amos Comenius, its last great spiritual leader and a man of undeniable international stature. However, in order to evaluate Blahoslav's true significance, we must

1 Joseph Fiedler, ed., Todtenbuch der Geistlichkeit der Böhmischen Brüder (Wien, Aus der kaiserlich-königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1863), p. 257. 2 Ibid. 3 In the lecture "Jan Blahoslav", which he delivered at Ivancice, June 21, 3 931. Printed in the Rocenka krajinského musea v Ivancicich (1932), p. 4. John Blahoslav 1233 take into account the total perspective of Czech religious and cultural life in the sixteenth century. The Unitas into which Blahoslav was born on February 20, 1523, had passed through a series of trials which, however, merely helped to solidify it theologically, give it a firm ecclesiastical structure, and trans- form it into a vital force in the religious life of the Czech nation. Shortly before the turn of the century the Unitas Fratrum emerged from its isolation and assumed an increasingly important role in the shaping of the Czech Reformation. More than that: the Unitas Fratrum entered into a fruitful dialogue with other reformatory groups on the European scene. But if, during the reign of King Louis of the Jagellonian dynasty (1516-26), it could breathe more easily, enjoying a greater freedom than before, the election of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand of the House of Habsburg to the throne of Bohemia portended difficult days ahead. Blahoslav was a native of Prerov, born into a family where tradi- tions of the Unitas ran deep, especially on his mother's side. From her brother, his uncle Tobias Bezpero, Blahoslav heard accounts of the origins of the Unitas Fratrum and its leading personalities. The at- tachment of the family to the principles of the Unitas was further demonstrated by the fact that not only John, but his younger brother Martin Abdon, as well, became a priest of the communion. The talented boy received his first education under the tutelage of Brother John Volf, pastor of the Prerov congregation. Years later Blahoslav still remembered his first teacher with gratitude and affection as "vir pietate et innocentia insignis".4 However, when Blahoslav reached his seventeenth year, Brother Volf, well aware of the limitations of his own scholarly erudition, took his prodigious charge to Prostejov, then the seat of Brother Martin Michalec, one of the bishops or seniors of the Unitas. Blahoslav remained a member of the bishop's household until the latter's death in 1547. Yet he did not spend the whole length of time from 1540-47 in Prostejov. As early as 1543 he was sent, together with other young men, candidates for priesthood in the Unitas Fratrum, to Goldberg in Silesia, there to attend the famous Latin school of Valerian Trotzendorf. This renowned Christian humanist and peda- gogue imparted to Blahoslav a love for the beauty of the classical Latin.

4 Quoted by F. Chudoba in his essay "Jak pribyvalo vedomosti o Janu Blaho- slavovi od doby obrozenske", Sbornik Blahoslavuv, Vaclav Novotny and Rudolf Urbanek, eds. (Prerov, Nakladem Vyboru pro postaveni pomniku Blahoslava v Prerove, 1923), p. 8. 1234 Milos Strupl The Latin language became to Blahoslav almost second nature; he delighted in using it, even when writing in Czech, whenever he wanted to add color to his style or give a greater precision to the power of his expression. However, Trotzendorf's influence was even more penetrating: it was he who won Blahoslav permanently for the cause of Christian humanism. This dedication was further strengthened in the following year when, once more in the company of other theological students, Blahos- lav was sent to the University of Wittenberg. There he could still hear the great reformer, Dr. Martin Luther, but he was especially attracted to the Praeceptor Germaniae, Philipp Melanchthon. The one overriding reason for this attraction was Melanchthon's humanistic orientation. Blahoslav came to understand Christian humanism as "the perpetual task of a Christian who has consciously received his intellect and his talents from God with the obligation of using these gifts for the understanding of God's things and in God's service".5 When, after a year of study, Blahoslav returned to Prostejov, dark clouds were already beginning to appear on the political horizon. From the very first moment that Ferdinand I became King of Bohemia, he was determined, not only to force through the principle of monarchistic absolutism, but also gradually to lead the Czech Utraquism into the fold of the Church of Rome. In order to accomplish this goal he first had to suppress the more radical groups of the Czech Reformation, especially the so-called Neo-Utraquists and the Unitas Fratrum. Some leaders of both of these groups saw clearly that it would be to the ad- vantage of Czech Protestantism to present a unified front. Among the Brethren it was particularly John Augusta, one of its bishops since 1532, who strove for a union between the Unitas Fratrum and the Lutheran-oriented Neo-Utraquists. The negotiations which he originated as early as 1534 with the Administrator of the Utraquist Church, Wenceslas Unhost'sky, proved to be premature. Not even a later attempt, instigated this time by Dr. Wenceslas Mitmanek, a former Brother who eventually became a leading personality among the Neo- Utraquists, had positive results. There were misunderstandings and re- criminations on both sides. The Neo-Utraquists were not willing to become a part of a national church led by the Unitas. They were, moreover, disorganized ecclesiastically, disunited theologically, and sorely lacking a strong leading personality. And the Brethren, too, for the

5 Rudolf ftiian, Dejiny Jednoty bratrske (Praha, Kalich, 1957), p. 221. John Blahoslav 1235 most part, looked with disfavor on Augusta's efforts to achieve union among the Bohemian Protestants. In any proposed union, they feared, the Unitas Fratrum, being numerically much smaller, was bound to come out the loser. And, of course, the lack of order and discipline in the Utraquist Church presented an almost insurmountable obstacle to the Brethren, who always jealously guarded this their "precious jewel".6 Against the background of such a situation there emerged Blahoslav's first literary attempt, On the Origin of the Unitas Fratrum and the Order in It.1 The slender volume was written in Prostejov during the Lent of the momentous year 1547. Since the work was based on older historical literature of the Unitas, it has no source value. "I have collected almost everything from the writings of the Brethren and from what I used to hear from the pious old men, who intimately knew those men on whom the first lot fell",8 remarked Blahoslav candidly at the end of his writing. However, the work combined "an inner ardor with a charming presentation" 9 to such an extent that it could not fail to exercise a notable influence on subsequent presentations of the same subject matter. For it was Blahoslav's aim, as he wrote his little book, to strengthen the Brethren in the conviction that it was God himself who had willed the genesis of their communion and who still was the guarantor of its existence. Blahoslav's work remained in manuscript form, but it could hardly have escaped the attention of his superiors. The following year Blaho- slav, now a young man of twenty-five, was sent to Mlada Boleslav, the Bohemian center of the Unitas Fratrum, there to serve as assistant to Brother John Cerny-Nigranus. In the meantime the Unitas had been caught up in the vortex of events which came on the heels of the unfortunate and ill-conceived rebellion of the Bohemian Protestant nobles against their sovereign. They were naturally reluctant to aid Ferdinand, who wanted to assist his brother, Emperor Charles V, in his struggle with the Schmalkald League in Germany. They realized that a victory of their German core-

6 Cf. Otakar Odloziliik, "Two Reformation Leaders of the Unitas Fratrum", Church History, Vol. IX (1940), pp. 253-63. 7 O puvodu Jednoty bratrske a radu v ni. Published three times: once by N. V. Yastrebov in Sbornik oddeleniya russkago yazyka i slovesnosti lmperatorskoi Akademii nauk, LXXI (Petrograd, 1902), and twice by Otakar Odlozilik: a critical edition in the Vestnik Krai. Ces. spol. nauk, Tr. I (1928), a popular one as "SpaliCek" V (Praha, Karel Reichel, 1928). 8 Ibid., ("Spalicek" V), p. 144. • Ibid., p. 162. 1236 Milos Strupl ligionists would bring about a more tolerable situation in Bohemia as well. On the other hand, their defeat would necessarily spell the growth of Ferdinand's monarchistic absolutism and considerably worsen the prospects of religious liberty for both the Neo-Utraquists and the Brethren. The emperor defeated the Schmalkald League, thanks to the lackadaisical manner in which the Bohemian nobility had behaved. And this provided Ferdinand with an excellent pretext, not only to solidify his personal power, but also to vent his wrath on the hated Unitas. It is true that some noblemen, members of the Unitas, took part in the rebellion against the king, but the spiritual leadership of the Brethren was strongly opposed to any political involvement. In vain did Augusta warn the nobles: "But, my dear lords, it is a foolish thing you are under- taking." 10 As it turned out, Augusta himself was accused of high treason, arrested in April, 1548, and held for sixteen long years in prison. Through confiscation of the estates of those noblemen who had offended the king, and expulsion of others from the land, the Brethren lost a number of their protectors in Bohemia. This resulted in the first exile of the Unitas, with many of the hardest hit congregations emi- grating to Prussia and Poland. Since the Moravian nobility was not im- plicated in the rebellion against King Ferdinand, the church life in Moravia was not affected. Moravia was spared religious persecution, and the geographical center of the Unitas shifted from Bohemia to Moravia. The only congregation which escaped without great harm was that of Mlada Boleslav, where the Brethren still enjoyed at least a limited protection of the lords Krajif of Krajek. All in all, 1547 was a year of heavy losses for the Unitas. Two of its seniors died in rapid succession: Brother Martin Michalec, Blahoslav's own superior, on January 22, and Brother John Roh, who from Mlada Boleslav had administered the whole Bohemian branch of the Unitas, on February 11. Brother John Augusta, now in the Krivoklat' prison, was effectively removed from the scene. The fourth senior, Brother Mach Sionsky, accompanied the exiles to their new homeland. However, new leaders were gradually emerging onto the scene. One of these was the pastor of the Boleslav congregation, Brother John Cerny. Another was the erudite Matthias Cervenka-Erythraeus, Blaho- slav's senior by only two years, who was eventually to become a bishop of the Unitas, having as his seat Pferov, Blahoslav's place of birth. Young Blahoslav, as well, was coming more and more into prominence.

10 Quoted by Amedeo Molnar, Boleslavsti bratri (Praha, Komenskeho evange- licka fakulta bohoslovecka, 1952), p. 161. John Blahoslav 1237 However, his student days were not yet over. In 1549 the Brethren sent him to the newly established university in the Prussian Königsberg. He did not stay there long. Theological controversies stirred up by the temperamental Lutheran theologian, Andrew Osiander, then professor at Königsberg, and a sudden outbreak of plague in Prussia caused his recall. Similarly, his other study period, this time at the University of Basel, was of but brief duration. A serious illness early in 1550 forced him to cut his studies short and return to his native Moravia after Easter of the same year. But even while he was recovering from his illness, he did not remain idle. Shortly before Christmas of 1550 he completed a small book, A Writing about the Eyesight.n He wrote, at the request of his friend Simeon Kocourek-Felinus, by then an amanuensis in the service of the Lord Ernest Krajir of Krajek, "how a man may do harm both to himself and to others by means of his eyesight, that is by seeing and be- holding". After he had sufficiently recovered, Blahoslav taught for a while in the school of the Brethren at Prostejov, where, not so long ago, he himself had been a pupil. But the leadership of the Unitas intended to employ his extraordinary talents in more important places and for weightier tasks. Thus, in 1552 we find Blahoslav once more in Mladä Boleslav, again as an assistant to Brother John Cerny. For some time during the preceding year Cerny had conceived and developed the idea of collecting, transcribing, and properly arranging all the documents pertinent to the tragic events of 1547 and the years following. It is not impossible to imagine, as Kamil Krofta does, that in his resolve Cerny had been stimulated by Blahoslav's first literary attempt.12 At any rate, Cerny could not have chosen a better qualified collaborator. The gigantic project upon which Cerny embarked with Blahoslav's assistance was to become the new archives of the Unitas Fratrum, re- placing those which had been destroyed in the great fire of Litomysl in 1546. Generally referred to as the "Acta Unitatis Fratrum", the archives would eventually grow into a collection of fourteen large folios.18 The documents they comprise cover the period from the earliest days of the Unitas to 1589, and represent an almost inexhaustible source of

11 Spis o zraku, jak clovek zrakem, to jest, videnim a hledenim sobe nebo jinym skoditi muze. Modern ed. by Frantisek Chudoba as "Spalicek" IV (Praha, Karel Reichel, 1928). 12 Kamil Krofta, O bratrskem dejepisectvi (Praha, Jan Laichter, 1946), p. 85. 13 Most recently, Krofta, op. cit., pp. 45-47, where also further literature is given. 1238 Milos Strupl knowledge not only of the Unitas Fratrum itself, but of the Czech religious and ecclesiastico-political life during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries as well. The project began with what today is folio number VII, which in- cludes material for the years 1547-49. This material was collected by Brother Cerny, Blahoslav apparently serving only as the transcriber. However, the documents pertaining to the years 1549-66, present-day folios VIII and IX, were collected in part by Cerny and in part by Blahoslav. Then, on his own initiative, Blahoslav began a second series, collecting and transcribing documents which related to the period from the beginning of the Unitas until 1547. This material is incorporated in today's folios II-VI. Folios I and X-XIV were added by Blaho- slav's pupils and successors.14 The magnitude of the project in which Blahoslav played such an outstanding part was sufficient to grant him one of the foremost places in the development of the Czech historiography. Besides being their chief editor, Blahoslav contributed to the "Acta Unitatis Fratrum" several important essays which had to do with the contemporary situation of the Unitas. Perhaps Krofta is right when he asserts that Blaho- slav's "many-sided and heterogeneous activity tended, for the most part, in other directions than to historiography",15 but one cannot escape the feeling that history - especially the history of his beloved Unitas - was then and always remained his first love. Furthermore, it is certainly undeniable that his excellent knowledge of the history of the Unitas, as well as of the issues confronting it, his splendid command of humanistic Latin, and his almost aristocratic polish made him an ideal representative of the church. As an apologist and diplomat, he rendered his Unitas most valuable service. He progressed rapidly through the ranks of the Unitas. In February 1553, he became a deacon, and in June of the same year he received his priestly ordination. This took place at the Pferov Synod, during which Brethren John Cerny and Matthias Cervenka were elevated, also, "to the foremost care", i.e., to the office of seniors, or bishops. This action was taken without the knowledge of the imprisoned Augusta and was very much against his wishes. Even in prison Augusta did not cease insisting that he was the only true head of the Unitas Fratrum and that nothing should be done without his express permission. Little did

14 Edita Sterikova, "Blahoslavova Akta Jednoty bratrske", Theologicka phloha Krest'anske revue (1964), pp. 81-88, 97-105. 15 Krofta, op. cit., p. 83. John Blahoslav 1239 he realize that some children had grown to reach the age of maturity!16 Shortly thereafter, another calamity befell the congregation of Mlada Boleslav. A more relaxed situation in Germany, where the nobility had once more gained the upper hand over the emperor, encouraged the Boleslav Brethren, who by royal mandate had been forbidden to hold public meetings since October 1547, to seek permission from Lord Ernest Krajif of Krajek to renew the privilege of free public worship. This they received, and immediately began the construction of a new, spacious church. The sanctuary was actually opened on Good Friday in 1554. It was a step taken in defiance of the royal decree which de- manded that the Lord of Krajek put an immediate end to this audacity. The defiance of the Brethren did not last long. The courageous Lord Ernest died on March 18 in the same year, and his sons, fearful of the monarch's wrath, quickly closed the church. Blahoslav took an indirect part in these events, which he described as "a terrible divine thunder- bolt",17 by drawing up letters in the name of Lord Ernest which then were sent to the royal office in Prague. The Boleslav Brethren were only permitted to hold house meetings. Their spiritual leaders scattered in all directions. At this point, Blahoslav was sent by Brother Cerny on his first diplomatic mission to Vienna. It had been rumored among the Brethren that Ferdinand's eldest son, Maximilian, at that time already crowned King of Bohemia, was favorably disposed toward the cause of the Re- formation. Actually, Maximilian's court preacher, Sebastian Pfauser, had Lutheran leanings and did his best to shield the young king from the influence of the Jesuits, but hardly anything more. Although Blaho- slav made four trips to Vienna (twice in 1555 and twice in 1557), he never succeeded in obtaining an audience with Maximilian himself. Pfauser kept promising to speak to the king on behalf of the Brethren and to secure a release for the imprisoned Augusta, and he consoled Blahoslav with cheap hopes for a better future. In the meantime the Unitas Fratrum had to consider its involvement with other groups of the Reformation. In Prussia and Poland the Brethren were forced to rub shoulders with the Lutherans, the Re- formed, and even the Socinians. In 1555 the Brethren were able to achieve a substantial degree of understanding, a working union, with the Reformed in Little Poland (the Union of Kozminek). However, they were caught in the middle of an ugly strife which had recently

16 fti£an, op. cit., p. 235. 17 Chudoba, op. cit., p. 19; Krofta, op. cit., p. 87. 1240 Milos Strupl divided the Lutheran Reformation into the Flacian (or Gnesiolutheran) and the Philippist (or Cryptocalvinist) camp. In Prussia, especially, the Brethren were hard pressed to retain their identity. One Anthony Bodenstein, a Lutheran pastor at Torun, even accused them of the Osiandrian heresy. The accusation was referred to Matthias Flacius Ulyricus, a pugnacious Magdeburg theologian with historical interests, who, with the air of an expert, insisted that the Unitas Fratrum was a direct offshoot of the Waldenses, only artificially grafted onto the tree of the Czech Reformation. Once more, it fell to Blahoslav to act as envoy of his communion and pay a friendly call on Flacius. In preparation for the journey to Magdeburg he wrote, in 1556, a brief Latin treatise entitled "Summa quaedam brevissima collecta e variis scriptis Fratrum, qui falso Valden- ses vel Piccardi vocantur, de eorundem Fratrum origine et actis." 18 It is a sketch of the history of the Unitas Fratrum from the days of its origin up to Blahoslav's own time. Like his literary first-fruits, this work can hardly lay any claim to originality. It was penned to counteract the false assumptions of Flacius. If this treatise was written in preparation for the journey, the out- come was a report describing the journey itself and Blahoslav's own negotiations with Flacius.19 As far as improving the relationship of the Unitas to Flacius was concerned, the result was nil. The Brethren had been having difficulties in Prussia with the Gnesiolutherans, and these were not alleviated in consequence of Blahoslav's mission to Magde- burg. With greater satisfaction, however, Blahoslav was able to report a chance meeting with his former teacher at Wittenberg, Philipp Me- lanchthon himself. The theological orientation of the Unitas vis-à-vis the mainstream of the Reformation was undergoing an adjustment, thanks for the most part to Blahoslav's own influence. As a Czech, Brother Blahoslav had an almost innate dislike of the rabies theolo- gorum which raged in Germany among the theological faculties of va- rious universities. The Gnesiolutheran intolerance was more than re- pugnant to the Brethren and to Blahoslav, especially. Although the Brethren would have preferred to remain on the sidelines, going their own way, they were being dragged into the unpleasant strife among the several Protestant groups: away from the unyielding Gnesiolutherans

18 Published by Jaroslav Göll in his Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, I (Praha, 1878), pp. 114-28. 19 Published by Timoteus C. Zelinka in Cesty Ceskych bratri Matèje Cervenky a Jana Blahoslava (Praha, Jan Laichter, 1942), pp. 159-83. John Blahoslav 1241 toward the so-called Philippists or Cryptocalvinists. When it was sug- gested that the Protestants in Poland unite on the basis of the Augsburg Confession of Faith, the Brethren at first refused even to consider the idea. They valued their own confession of faith above the Augustana. Similar attempts were made in Moravia. On some estates the Lu- theran-oriented nobility (i.e., those adhering to the idea of a reformation imposed from above, by the landlord himself) wanted to form a unified Protestant church in which the Brethren would also participate. The Brethren - Blahoslav in particular - fought these attempts tooth and nail and were losers in only one case, that of the estate of the Lutheran lords of Hardek, 1565-66. Here, the capitulation was politically based, since the Lutheranism represented there was of the Melanchthonian type; and with Master Philipp himself, in particular, and the Wittenberg faculty, in general, Blahoslav wanted to be on good terms. Ferdinand Hrejsa comments: "When the forty-eight-year-old Blaho- slav stands at the head of the Unitas, the Unitas, on the one hand, arrives at full agreement with the teaching of the Wittenberg Philippists, then strongly inclined in the teaching of the Lord's Supper to the Cal- vinistic interpretation; on the other hand, however, at home, in order to preserve its order, discipline, care of life in the following of Christ, and thus its own uniqueness, the Unitas insists on its confession and its ecclesiastical independence." 20 The two bishops who were elected in 1553 could not alone handle the growing needs of the Unitas. The synod, called to Slezany on August 23, 1557, elected two new bishops: George Israel and John Blahoslav. The decisions of the Slezany Synod were supplemented by agreements reached at the meeting of the executive council at Mlada Boleslav, in January 1558. There, John Cerny was empowered to exercise the function of ecclesiastical judge in place of the imprisoned Augusta and thus preside over the executive council. To Israel was entrusted the office of ecclesiastical judge in Poland. Brethren Cervenka and Blahoslav were to perform the function of scribes. The scribal office in the Unitas Fraturm was a highly responsible one. The scribe was not just a secretary or clerk. He had the respon- sibility of following all the literature, whether friendly or hostile, af- fecting the position of the Unitas. He was, to some extent, a censor, as well as an apologist for his communion. At the same time the elders were assigned their areas of jurisdiction:

20 Ferdinand Hrejsa, "Nabozenske stanovisko B. Jana Blahoslava", Sbornik Blahoslavuv, p. 111. 1242 Milos Strupl John Cerny remained in Mlada Boleslav, George Israel was sent to Poland, Matthias Cervenka was to administer northern Moravia from his seat in Pferov, and John Blahoslav was sent to Evancice, with southern Moravia as his administrative district. There, during the last thirteen years of his life, Blahoslav produced a number of literary masterpieces, any one of which would have been sufficient to guarantee him a prominent place in the history of Czech literature. Two magnificent editions (1561 and 1564) of the hymnal, Songs of Divine Praises, were published under his editorship.21 Their companion volume was the Musica, published twice (1558 and 1569), presenting in understandable terms both music theory and practice.22 A new translation of the New Testament from the original Greek also appeared in two editions (1564 and 1568).23 In the last year of his life (1571) Blahoslav finished The Czech Grammar, on which he had been at work for twenty years.24 That same year also witnessed the publication of his rhetorical manual, Preachers' Dejects,25 As Emanuel Havelka has endeavored to demonstrate, all these works were used as textbooks in the school of higher learning which Blahoslav organized shortly after his arrival in Evancice.26 Although Blahoslav respected Augusta as a martyr and did his best to secure his release from the Krivoklat dungeon, the two men had such different personalities and pursued such diametrically opposed goals that their eventual clash was quite inevitable. The first disagreement derived from Augusta's insistence that the present leadership of the Unitas should not undertake anything without his express consent. That, of course, the Elders of the Unitas felt, was quite impossible in the rapidly changing situation, when the church was almost daily con-

21 BohuS Hrejsa, "Kancionaly v Jednote bratrske", Reformacni sborntk, IV (Praha, Nakladem Blahoslavovy spolednosti), pp. 24-32. 22 Reprinted by Otakar Hostinsky in his work, Jan Blahoslav a Jan Josquin. Pnspevek k dejinam ceske hudby a theorie umSni XVI veku (Praha, Rozpravy Ceske akademie ved a umeni, 1896). 23 Second edition photomechanically reproduced by Jaroslav Konopasek in Vol. 1, Blahoslavuv Novy zdkon z roku 1568, 2 vols. (Praha, 1931-32). 24 Grammatyka Ceska od kneze BeneSe Optata a od kneze Vaclava Filomatesa, pfedeslych let vydana a nyni od J. B. P. povysvetlena, nemalo i napravend, a poroziifena, Ignac Hradil and Josef JireSek, eds. (Viden, Tiskem L. Grunda, 1857). 25 Vitia concionatorum to jest Vady kazateluv, edited twice by F. A. Slavik (Praha, 1876 and 1906). 26 Emanuel Havelka, Blahoslav pfedchudcem Komenskeho. Piispevek k dejinam 'oratrskeho skolstvi (Praha, Nakladem vlastnim, 1924), pp. 55-61. John Blahoslav 1243 fronted with new problems. Only with difficulty did Augusta become reconciled to the election of the new bishops and the broadening of the executive council. In the later years of his imprisonment Augusta could devote a con- siderable amount of his time to literary activity. He wrote many hymns, many of which were incorporated in the new hymnals of the Unitas. As a matter of fact, Augusta was represented by a greater number of hymns than any other writer of the Brethren, yet he grumbled because Blahoslav had subjected his hymns to textual revision in order to polish Augusta's style, which, in Blahoslav's opinion, was full of Latinisms. The two men clashed again when Augusta compiled a large volume called "Summovnik" (Book of Summaries), a system of scriptural passages for the whole year arranged according to the Apostles' Creed. The Brethren - Blahoslav, in particular - were not in sympathy with the innovation, preferring the traditional pericopes which had served the Unitas since the days of Brother Lucas. In 1565, to defend the time- honored custom, Blahoslav wrote "A Diligent Meditation".27 The question was solved by means of a compromise: the traditional pericopes were retained for the main holidays of the Christian year, whereas passages arranged according to the Creed were to be used on all other Sundays. Nevertheless, the basic disagreement between Blahoslav and Augusta had not ended. It broke out again after Augusta had been released from prison in 1564, when, without the consent of the executive council, he gave his "Summovnik" to an independent printing house for publication. However, when the executive council learned of this, it put a stop to the printing and reprimanded Augusta for his willfulness. A more fundamental disagreement between Augusta and Blahoslav came to a head when, during the Pferov Synod of 1566, Augusta insisted that the clergy of the Unitas did not need a higher education. In support of his contention Augusta produced a statement made by Brother Lucas of Prague as far back as 1502, viz., that he, Lucas, wrote nothing except what he had received from the Unitas. Yet, as Amedeo Molnar remarks, "Blahoslav's struggle for the right to a higher

27 "Pilne rozjimani otazky te, slu5i-li ieci Bozi, Cteni svata a Epistoly, od starodavna k nedelim pies cely rok prilozene, opovrci a na ne kazani neciniti, ale vyzdvihnouti jiny pofadek podle ilankuv viry obecne krest'anske, kteraz slove symbolum apostolske, a k tomu jine feci Bozi shledati a na nS kazati, z pricin nekterych sepsane tak naspech proste leta 1565." Published in part by Amedeo Molnar in Ceskobratrska vychova pfed Komenskym (Praha, Statni pedagogicke nakladatelstvi, 1956), pp. 129-37. 1244 Milos Strupl education among the Brethren was a struggle for a progressive evalua- tion of Brother Lucas's bequest." 28 Augusta's statement was in apparent opposition to his whole striving prior to his imprisonment: if he had then been bent on unitive efforts, he now supported nothing less than a total isolation of the Unitas Fratrum from the spirit of humanism which was currently sweeping the Reformation. That, in Blahoslav's opinion, was a step backward, based, moreover, on an incorrect evalua- tion of Lucas's significance to the Unitas. Thus, he penned, in February, 1567, his celebrated "Corillarium", i.e., "A Notation of My Judgment Regarding Those Words of Brother Lucas That 'He Wrote Nothing Except What He Had Received from the Unitas."29 It is a fiery out- pouring from Blahoslav's heart. The Unitas, he said, must not consider education and science its enemies. The whole essay expresses Blaho- slav's conviction that "only a thorough education, as for the leaders, so for the simple Brethren, can ensure peaceful development of the Unitas. Of course, all great knowledge is to no avail if it is not guided by true piety." 30 Blahoslav expresses this beautifully in the words: "Knowledge without piety is like a sword in the hands of a madman." 31 What were Blahoslav's innermost convictions? In the "Conclusions" to his Czech Grammar Blahoslav opens his heart, so to speak, and ex- plains just why he dedicated twenty years of his life to the writing of this book: "Somehow I wanted to help our language, in both its purity and its decorum. And I wanted it so earnestly that my mind frequently burned like a lighted torch." 32 He could not rest, he claims, although he had many obstacles to overcome - his own insufficiency, the lack of time, and his advancing age. And since he had been called to greater tasks, he wanted to dedicate his whole being, his all, to the Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, these diversions not infrequently would also cheer him up. And he considered it permissible to steal a little time, as he puts it, for his preoccupation with matters grammatical. "One, that I could not persevere in the reading and diligent appraisal of theological

28 Molnar, Ceskobratrska vychova, p. 147. 29 Published several times, the best edition being by Molnar in Ceskobratrska vychova, pp. 147-57. In Czech this writing has been termed "Filipika proti misomusum", as it was entitled by P. J. Safarik. Blahoslav's own title was "Corollarium additum anno 1567 die 15. Februarii. Poznamenani soudu meho o tech slovich B. Lukasovych, ze 'nic nepsal, cehoz by v Jednote nevzal' etc.". 30 FrantiSek Malinsky, Zivot Jana Blahoslava (Praha, Nakladem spolku Ko- menskeho, 1923), p. 54. 31 Molnar, Ceskobratrska vychova, p. 155. 32 Ibid., p. 183. John Blahoslav 1245 authors for as long a time as I would have liked because of my poor eyesight and headaches. Second, being frequently tired and worn out, I sought refuge in lighter studies, seeking remedy before books as before scorpions, as Erasmus says. Third, to write about more difficult matters, namely, theological, appeared to me beyond my powers; and also, to tell the truth, as I could have written, I did not want to, and as I wanted to, I could not." 33 This almost cryptic statement led one of the foremost historians of the Unitas, F. M. Bartos, to state that Blahoslav "as much as possible avoided theology proper, viz. dogmatics. Not because he was indifferent to it or because he did not hold it in high esteem. No. However, due to his universal education he differed considerably from the official views of the Unitas." 34 It is true that Blahoslav was not a systematic theologian. From his pen there originated just one essay, a tract, with a genuinely theological topic: "On Divine Election", written in 1562.35 And yet the nature of even this essay is tendentious, for it endeavors to counteract what Blahoslav considered the undue preoccupation of some young priests of the Unitas with Calvin's doctrine of predestination. Nevertheless, this does not mean that Blahoslav was not a theologian in the truest sense of the word. Is it at all conceivable that his views could not have been those of the Unitas? For he was the leading spirit of his communion! Is it posible that he could have enjoyed such a distin- guished career, had he been no theologian? Would he have had the confidence of his superiors, Brethren John Volf, Martin Michalec, and John Cerny? Is it possible, were it true that he adhered to some un- orthodox views, that his fellow priests would have elected him a senior, a bishop? Would they have entrusted him with the editorship of the new hymnbook? Would they have commissioned him to furnish the Unitas with a new translation of the New Testament from the original Greek? The answer to all these questions must be given, of course, in the negative. In conclusion I would like to return to my assertion that in the history of the Unitas Fratrum Blahoslav occupies a truly pivotal position. We can only surmise what would have happened to the Unitas if

33 Ibid. 34 F. M. BartoS, Bojovnici a mucednici, 2nd ed. (Praha, Kalich, 1946), p. 95. 35 "O vyvoleni Bozim", twice reprinted in part by F. A. Slavik in Casopis Ceskeho muzea (1875), pp. 275, 384-87, and by Pavel Vasa in Jan Blahoslav, pochodne zazzena (Praha, Jan Laichter, 1949), pp. 271-75. 1246 Milos Strupl it had not suffered the tragic events of 1546 and 1547. The Brethren in large numbers would not have been forced to leave their homeland and seek refuge in Prussia and Poland. This means that the Brethren would not have been exposed to immediate contact with other branches of the Reformation. Undoubtedly, such contact would have been made, in any case, but later, and at a much slower pace. John Augusta would not have been imprisoned and, more than likely, would have pursued his effort toward union with the Neo-Utraquists in Bohemia and Mora- via. To what this might have led is difficult to surmise. In 1546 both Augusta and John Roh, it is true, counseled the Brethren to return to the heritage of Brother Lucas of Prague, but what direction might this admonition have taken? If Augusta's interpretation had prevailed, the spread of scholarly erudition in the Unitas, to say the least, would have been impeded. It is quite conceivable that the Unitas would once more have divided into a major and minor party. These, admittedly, are mere guesses. But they also underscore the importance of the role which John Blahoslav played, no matter for how brief a time, in the Unitas Fratrum, a true father and charioteer of the Lord's people.