Page:Bohemia An Historical Sketch.djvu/102

 an agitation during Charles's reign which was to develop, under that of his son, into the Hussite movement, when Bohemia for a time attracted the attention of all Europe.

The movement in Bohemia in favour of Church reform was originally free from all hostility to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The earliest leaders were among "the truest and most obedient sons of the Church." As the two earliest of these reformers, Conrad Waldhauser and Milič of Kroměřiže, died before the Emperor Charles, it will be as well to mention them here. Conrad Waldhauser, a German by birth, was summoned to Prague by the Emperor Charles in consequence of the great reputation as a preacher which he had acquired in Austria, his original home. In his sermons at Prague he at first inveighed against the immorality and extravagance of the citizens, and the result of his preaching was most extraordinary. The women of Prague left off wearing jewels and costly dresses, and many of the greatest sinners in the town did public penance. Conrad then began attacking the corruption of the clergy, particularly of the mendicant friars. He was denounced both by the Dominican and Augustine monks, but the Emperor continued his protection to him, as is proved by the fact that he appointed him to the most important parish in Prague. Waldhauser therefore remained unmolested by the priests up to his death in the year 1369.

Milič of Kroměřiže, who is also generally considered one of the precursors of Hus, was a canon of the cathedral of Prague, and for some time held the office of vice-chancellor at the court of Prague. Most Bohemian historians agree in attributing the Emperor's attitude at the Diet of Maintz largely to the influence of Milič. In 1363 he suddenly renounced all his dignities, intending in future to live in complete poverty, and for the one purpose of preaching the gospel. As Milič—a Moravian by birth—spoke the language of the country, his preaching attracted more attention, and had a wider influence on the people, than that of Waldhauser.

On the other hand, he seems to have provoked greater enmity on the part of the monks, whose views he very openly exposed. They were therefore only too glad when