chelCicky

I

s

5

defence was permissible, and even a duty for those who held the true doctrine, Chelcicky maintained the abso-

I

("

I,

If,

lute sinfulness of war under whatever circumstances. In his Reply to Rokycan he writes : " Has Christ re' If pealed His command — ' Thou shalt not kill ? Christ has not revoked that order, then it must still be obeyed both at Prague and at Tabor." Chelcicky was, therefore, entirely out of sympathy with his countrymen during the momentous period (from 1420 to 1434) when their great victories attracted the attenIt is a natural consequence that tion of all Europe. even at a period of general national enthusiasm, Chelcicky — similar in this respect to the socialists of all times — shows an almost complete absence of pride in his distinctive nationality. A result of Chelcicky's intense hatred of all social privileges and distinctions was his repeated quaint jibes against the nobility and the clergy, and his pronounced affection for the humble life of the peasantry, another of the many traits in Chelcicky in which he appears similar to Tolstoy. Though the uncontested fact that he was able to spend a considerable time at Prague at his own expense proves that Chelcicky was not entirely without means, and it is probable that he was a small landowner, yet he always speaks of himself as a peasant. thereThus, in his Reply to Rokycan he writes : " the peasant, strike out blindly with my club, your fore, reverence must not be scandalised." Chelcicky has nowhere attempted to expound his views on the constitution of Church and State systeNet of Faith "), undoubtedly matically. In the Sit Viry his masterpiece, we find the nearest approach to such The sum of his teaching — as have written an attempt.