Part 95

In 1489 Vladislav "was elected to the throne of Hungary after the death of Mathias Corvinus. He died in 1516, and was succeeded on the throne of Bohemia and Hungary by his minor son, Louis, who perished in 1526 at the battle of Mohacz against the Turks [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526]. An equality of rights was maintained between the Hussites and the Roman Catholics during these two reigns. Louis left no children, and was succeeded on the throne of Hungary and Bohemia by Ferdinand of Austria [see, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1406-1526], brother of the Emperor Charles V., and married to the sister of Louis, a prince of a bigoted and despotic character. The doctrines of Luther had already found a speedy echo amongst the Calixtines under the preceding reign; and Protestantism gained so much ground under that of Ferdinand, that the Bohemians refused to take part in the war against the Protestant league of Smalkalden, and formed a union for the defence of the national and religious liberties, which were menaced by Ferdinand. The defeat of the Protestants at the battle of Muhlberg, in 1547, by Charles V., which laid prostrate their cause in Germany, produced a severe reaction in Bohemia. Several leaders of the union were executed, others imprisoned or banished; the property of many nobles was confiscated, the towns were heavily fined, deprived of several privileges, and subjected to new taxes. These measures were carried into execution with the assistance of German, Spanish, and Hungarian soldiers, and legalized by an assembly known under the name of the Bloody Diet. … The Jesuits were also introduced during that reign into Bohemia. The privileges of the Calixtine, or, as it was officially called, the Utraquist Church, were not abolished; and Ferdinand, who had succeeded to the imperial crown after the abdication of his brother Charles V., softened, during the latter years of his reign, his harsh and despotic character. … He died in 1564, sincerely regretting, it is said, the acts of oppression which he had committed against his Bohemian subjects. He was succeeded by his son, the Emperor Maximilian II., a man of noble character and tolerant disposition, which led to the belief that he himself inclined towards the doctrines of the Reformation. He died in 1576, leaving a name venerated by all parties. … Maximilian's son, the Emperor Rudolph, was educated at the court of his cousin, Philip II. of Spain, and could not be but adverse to Protestantism, which had, however, become too strong, not only in Bohemia, but also in Austria proper, to be easily suppressed; but several indirect means were adopted, in order gradually to effect this object."

_V. Krasinski, Lectures on the Religious History of the Slavonic Nations, lecture 2._

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1576-1604. Persecution of Protestants by Rudolph.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

{292}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618. The Letter of Majesty, or Royal Charter, and Matthias's violation of it. Ferdinand of Styria forced upon the nation as king by hereditary right. The throwing of the Royal Counsellors from the window. Beginning of the Thirty Years War.

In 1611 the Emperor Rodolph was forced to surrender the crown of Bohemia to his brother Matthias. The next year he died, and Matthias succeeded him as Emperor also. "The tranquillity which Rodolph II.'s Letter of Majesty [see GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618] had established in Bohemia lasted for some time, under the administration of Matthias, till the nomination of a new heir to this kingdom in the person of Ferdinand of Gratz [Styria]. This prince, whom we shall afterwards become better acquainted with under the title of Ferdinand II., Emperor of Germany, had, by the violent extirpation of the Protestant religion within his hereditary dominions, announced himself as an inexorable zealot for popery, and was consequently looked upon by the Catholic part of Bohemia as the future pillar of their church. The declining health of the Emperor brought on this hour rapidly; and, relying on so powerful a supporter, the Bohemian Papists began to treat the Protestants with little moderation. The Protestant vassals of Roman Catholic nobles, in particular, experienced the harshest treatment. At length several of the former were incautious enough to speak somewhat loudly of their hopes, and by threatening hints to awaken among the Protestants a suspicion of their future sovereign. But this mistrust would never have broken out into actual violence, had the Roman Catholics confined themselves to general expressions, and not by attacks on individuals furnished the discontent of the people with enterprising leaders. Henry Matthias, Count Thurn, not a native of Bohemia, but proprietor of some estates in that kingdom, had, by his zeal for the Protestant cause, and an enthusiastic attachment to his newly adopted country, gained the entire confidence of the Utraquists, which opened him the way to the most important posts. … Of a hot and impetuous disposition, which loved tumult because his talents shone in it—rash and thoughtless enough to undertake things which cold prudence and a calmer temper would not have ventured upon—unscrupulous enough, where the gratification of his passions was concerned, to sport with the fate of thousands, and at the same time politic enough to hold in leading-strings such a people as the Bohemians then were. He had already taken an active part in the troubles under Rodolph's administration; and the Letter of Majesty which the States had extorted from that Emperor, was chiefly to be laid to his merit. The court had intrusted to him, as burgrave or castellan of Calstein, the custody of the Bohemian crown, and of the national charter. But the nation had placed in his hands something far more important—itself —with the office of defender or protector of the faith. The aristocracy by which the Emperor was ruled, imprudently deprived him of this harmless guardianship of the dead, to leave him his full influence over the living. They took from him his office of burgrave, or constable of the castle, which had rendered him dependent on the court, thereby opening his eyes to the importance of the other which remained, and wounded his vanity, which yet was the thing that made his ambition harmless. From this moment he was actuated solely by a desire of revenge; and the opportunity of gratifying it was not long wanting. In the Royal Letter which the Bohemians had extorted from Rodolph II., as well as in the German religious treaty, one material article remained undetermined. All the privileges granted by the latter to the Protestants, were conceived in favour of the Estates or governing bodies, not of the subjects; for only to those of ecclesiastical states had a toleration, and that precarious, been conceded. The Bohemian Letter of Majesty, in the same manner, spoke only of the Estates and the imperial towns, the magistrates of which had contrived to obtain equal privileges with the former. These alone were free to erect churches and schools, and openly to celebrate their Protestant worship: in all other towns, it was left entirely to the government to which they belonged, to determine the religion of the inhabitants. The Estates of the Empire had availed themselves of this privilege in its fullest extent; the secular indeed without opposition; while the ecclesiastical, in whose case the declaration of Ferdinand had limited this privilege, disputed, not without reason, the validity of that limitation. What was a disputed point in the religious treaty, was left still more doubtful in the Letter of Majesty. … In the little town of Klostergrab, subject to the Archbishop of Prague; and in Braunau, which belonged to the abbot of that monastery, churches were founded by the Protestants, and completed notwithstanding the opposition of their superiors, and the disapprobation of the Emperor. … By the Emperor's orders, the church at Klostergrab was pulled down; that at Braunau forcibly shut up, and the most turbulent of the citizens thrown into prison. A general commotion among the Protestants was the consequence of this measure; a loud outcry was everywhere raised at this violation of the Letter of Majesty; and Count Thurn animated by revenge, and particularly called upon by his office of defender, showed himself not a little busy in inflaming the minds of the people. At his instigation deputies were summoned to Prague from every circle in the empire, to concert the necessary measures against the common danger. It was resolved to petition the Emperor to press for the liberation of the prisoners. The answer of the Emperor, already offensive to the states, from its being addressed, not to them, but to his viceroy, denounced their conduct as illegal and rebellious, justified what had been done at Klostergrab and Braunau as the result of an imperial mandate, and contained some passages that might be construed into threats. Count Thurn did not fail to augment the unfavourable impression which this imperial edict made upon the assembled Estates. … He held it … advisable first to direct their indignation against the Emperor's counsellors; and for that purpose circulated a report, that the imperial proclamation had been drawn up by the government at Prague and only signed in Vienna. Among the imperial delegates, the chief objects of the popular hatred, were the President of the Chamber, Slawata, and Baron Martinitz, who had been elected in place of Count Thurn, Burgrave of Calstein. … Against two characters so unpopular the public indignation was easily excited, and they were marked out for a sacrifice to the general indignation. {293} On the 23rd of May, 1618, the deputies appeared armed, and in great numbers, at the royal palace, and forced their way into the hall where the Commissioners Sternberg, Martinitz, Lobkowitz, and Slawata were assembled. In a threatening tone they demanded to know from each of them, whether he had taken any part, or had consented to, the imperial proclamation. Sternberg received them with composure, Martinitz and Slawata with defiance. This decided their fate; Sternberg and Lobkowitz, less hated, and more feared, were led by the arm out of the room; Martinitz and Slawata were seized, dragged to a window, and precipitated from a height of 80 feet, into the castle trench. Their creature, the secretary Fabricius, was thrown after them. This singular mode of execution naturally excited the surprise of civilized nations. The Bohemians justified it as a national custom, and saw nothing remarkable in the whole affair, excepting that anyone should have got up again safe and sound after such a fall. A dunghill, on which the imperial commissioners chanced to be deposited, had saved them from injury. [The incident of the flinging of the obnoxious ministers from the window is often referred to as 'the defenestration at Prague.'] … By this brutal act of self-redress, no room was left for irresolution or repentance, and it seemed as if a single crime could be absolved only by a series of violences. As the deed itself could not be undone, nothing was left but to disarm the hand of punishment. Thirty directors were appointed to organize a regular insurrection. They seized upon all the offices of state, and all the imperial revenues, took into their own service the royal functionaries and the soldiers, and summoned the whole Bohemian nation to avenge the common cause."

_F. Schiller, History of the Thirty Years' War, book 1, pages 51-55._

ALSO IN: _S. R. Gardiner, The Thirty Years' War, chapter 2._

_A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War, chapter 1._

_F. Kohlrausch, History of Germany, chapter 22._

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1618-1620. Conciliatory measures defeated by Ferdinand. His election to the Imperial throne, and his deposition in Bohemia. Acceptance of the crown by Frederick the Palatine Elector. His unsupported situation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1620. Disappointment in the newly elected King. His aggressive Calvinism. Battle of the White Mountain before Prague. Frederick's flight. Annulling of the Royal charter. Loss of Bohemian Liberties.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1620, and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648. The Reign of Terror. Death, banishment, confiscation, dragoonades. The country a desert. Protestantism crushed, but not slain.

"In June, 1621, a fearful reign of terror began in Bohemia, with the execution of 27 of the most distinguished heretics. For years the unhappy people bled under it; thousands were banished, and yet Protestantism was not fully exterminated. The charter was cut into shreds by the Emperor himself; there could be no forbearance towards 'such acknowledged rebels.' As a matter of course, the Lutheran preaching was forbidden under the heaviest penalties; heretical works, Bibles especially, were taken away in heaps. Jesuit colleges, churches, and schools came into power; but this was not all. A large number of distinguished Protestant families were deprived of their property, and, as if that were not enough, it was decreed that no non-Catholic could be a citizen, nor carry on a trade, enter into a marriage, nor make a will; anyone who harboured a Protestant preacher forfeited his property; whoever permitted Protestant instruction to be given was to be fined, and whipped out of town; the Protestant poor who were not converted were to be driven out of the hospitals, and to be replaced by Catholic poor; he who gave free expression to his opinions about religion was to be executed. In 1624 an order was issued to all preachers and teachers to leave the country within eight days under pain of death; and finally, it was ordained that whoever had not become Catholic by Easter, 1626, must emigrate. … But the real conversions were few; thousands quietly remained true to the faith; other thousands wandered as beggars into foreign lands, more than 30,000 Bohemian families, and among them 500 belonging to the aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled Bohemians were to be found in every country of Europe, and were not wanting in any of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who could not or would not emigrate, held to their faith in secret. Against them dragoonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were sent into the various districts to torment the heretics till they were converted. The 'Converters' (Seligmacher) went thus throughout all Bohemia, plundering and murdering. … No succour reached the unfortunate people; but neither did the victors attain their end. Protestantism and the Hussite memories could not be slain, and only outward submission was extorted. … A respectable Protestant party exists to this day in Bohemia and Moravia. But a desert was created; the land was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had 4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or 800,000. These figures appear preposterous, but they are certified by Bohemian historians. In some parts of the country the population has not attained the standard of 1620 to this day."

_L. Häusser, The Period of the Reformation, chapter 32._

ALSO IN: _C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia, volume 2._

_E. de Schweinitz, History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum, chapter 47-51._

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1631-1632. Temporary occupation by the Saxons. Their expulsion by Wallenstein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1640-1645. Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1646-1648. Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War. Surprise and capture of part of Prague by the Swedes. Siege of the old city. Peace.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1740. The question of the Austrian Succession. The Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1741. See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER), and (OCTOBER).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY). Prussian invasion. Battle of Chotusitz.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

{294}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER). Expulsion of the French. Belleisle's retreat. Maria Theresa crowned at Prague.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1757. The Seven Years War. Frederick's invasion and defeat. Battles of Prague and Kolin.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

BOHEMIA: End----------

BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457, and GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

BOHEMIANS (Gypsies).

See GYPSIES.

BOIANS, OR BOII.

Some passages in the earlier history and movements of the powerful Gallic tribe known as the Boii will be found touched upon under ROME: B. C. 390-347, and B. C. 295-191, in accounts given of the destruction of Rome by the Gauls, and of the subsequent wars of the Romans with the Cisalpine Gauls. After the final conquest of the Boians in Gallia Cisalpina, early in the second century, B. C., the Romans seem to have expelled them, wholly or partly, from that country, forcing them to cross the Alps. They afterwards occupied a region embraced in modern Bavaria and Bohemia, both of which countries are thought to have derived their names from these Boian people. Some part of the nation, however, associated itself with the Helvetii and joined in the migration which Cæsar arrested. He settled these Boians in Gaul, within the Æduan territory, between the Loire and the Allier. Their capital city was Gergovia, which was also the name of a city of the Arverni. The Gergovia of the Boians is conjectured to have been modern Moulius. Their territory was the modern Bourbonnais, which probably derived its name from them. Three important names, therefore, in European geography and history, viz.—Bourbon, Bavaria and Bohemia, are traced to the Gallic nation of the Boii.

_Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb, notes._

ALSO IN: _C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12, note._

BOIS-LE-DUC. Siege and capture by the Dutch (1629).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BOKHARA (Ancient Transoxania).

"Taken literally, the name [Transoxania] is a translation of the Arabic Mavera-un-nehr (that which lies beyond or across the river), and it might therefore be supposed that Transoxania meant the country lying beyond or on the right shore of the Oxus. But this is not strictly speaking the case. … From the period of the Samanides down to modern times, the districts of Talkan, Tokharistan and Zem, although lying partly or entirely on the left bank of the Oxus, have been looked on as integral portions of Bokhara. Our historical researches seem to prove that this arrangement dates from the Samanides, who were themselves originally natives of that part of Khorassan. … It is almost impossible in dealing geographically with Transoxania to assign definitely an accurate frontier. We can and will therefore comprehend in our definition of Transoxania solely Bokhara, or the khanate of Bokhara; for although it has only been known by the latter name since the time of Sheïbani and of the Ozbegs [A. D. 1500], the shores of the Zerefshan and the tract of country stretching southwards to the Oxus and northwards to the desert of Kizil Kum, represent the only parts of the territory which have remained uninterruptedly portions of the original undivided state of Transoxania from the earliest historical times. … Bokhara, the capital from the time of the Samanides, and at the date of the very earliest geographical reports concerning Transoxania, is said, during its prosperity, to have been the largest city of the Islamite world. … Bokhara was not, however, merely a luxurious city, distinguished by great natural advantages; it was also the principal emporium for the trade between China and Western Asia; in addition to the vast warehouses for silks, brocades, and cotton stuffs, for the finest carpets, and all kinds of gold and silversmiths' work, it boasted of a great money-market, being in fact the Exchange of all the population of Eastern and Western Asia. … Sogd … comprised the mountainous part of Transoxania (which may be described as the extreme western spurs of the Thien-Shan). … The capital was Samarkand, undoubtedly the Maracanda of the Greeks, which they specify as the capital of Sogdia. The city has, throughout the history of Transoxania been the rival of Bokhara. Before the time of the Samanides, Samarkand was the largest city beyond the Oxus, and only began to decline from its former importance when Ismail chose Bokhara for his own residence. Under the Khahrezmians it is said to have raised itself again, and become much larger than its rival, and under Timour to have reached the culminating point of its prosperity."

_A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, introduction._

ALSO IN: _J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapters 2-3._

BOKHARA: B. C. 329-327. Conquest by Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

BOKHARA: 6th Century. Conquest from the White Huns by the Turks.

See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

BOKHARA: A. D. 710. The Moslem Conquest.

See. MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

BOKHARA: A. D. 991-998. Under the Samanides.

See SAMANIDES.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1004-1193. The Seldjuk Turks.

See TURKS (THE SELDJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and after.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1209-1220. Under the Khuarezmians.

See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1219. Destruction of the city by Jingis Khan.

Bokhara was taken by Jingis Khan in the summer of 1219. "It was then a very large and magnificent city. Its name, according to the historian Alai-ud-din, is derived from Bokhar, which in the Magian language means the Centre of Science." The city surrendered after a siege of a few days. Jingis Khan, on entering the town, saw the great mosque and asked if it was the Sultan's palace. "Being told it was the house of God, he dismounted, climbed the steps, and said in a loud voice to his followers, 'The hay is cut, give your horses fodder.' They easily understood this cynical invitation to plunder. … The inhabitants were ordered to leave the town in a body, with only their clothes, so that it might be more easily pillaged, after which the spoil was divided among the victors. 'It was a fearful day,' says Ibn al Ithir; 'one only heard the sobs and weeping of men, women and children, who were separated forever; women were ravished, while men died rather than survive the dishonour of their wives and daughters.' The Mongols ended by setting fire to all the wooden portion of the town, and only the great mosque and certain palaces which were built of brick remained standing."

_H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, chapter 3._

{295}