Page:The Net of Faith.pdf/75

23 settled either. The historian S̄afar̄i̍k thought that Chelc̄icky̍ was a priest, Lenz assumed that he was a member of the Waldensian Church and even of a Waldensian family; later sources identify him as belonging to the cobbler's trade; other guesses range from regarding him a serf to a squire. On one occasion, Chelc̄icky̍ calls himself a peasant. This was often interpreted literally but

it is hardly possible to think of him as a serf. Sedla̍c̄ek already sought him among the noblemen of Chelc̄ice, while Chaloupecky̍ argued that the views, peculiar knowledge and traditions manifested in the writings of Chelc̄icky̍ identify him as belonging to the class of country squires.

This only corroborates the hypothesis of Bartos̄. All available evidence seems to point in the direction of such a conclusion. In discussing Chelc̄icky̍'s social position, Professor Spinka writes:

Judging from his obvious sympathy and identification of himself with the common people, it seems fairly safe to assume that he was one of them; for had he been a serf, he would not have been free to go to Prague to study and later to devote himself to his literary work of religious reformation as he did.

Chelc̄icky̍ had no regular academic education; many of his adversaries took advantage of this fact reproaching him that he "not a priest, mingled into questions pertaining to priests only"; another shocking fact perturbed his more academic adver- Holinka,, p.6.

Lenz,, p.20,n.2; Holinka,, p.6 and 7; Palacky̍, , IV, pt.1, p.409.

Holinka,, p.7.

Matthew Spinka, "Peter Chelc̄icky̍ – Spiritual Father of the Unitas Fratrum,", vol.XII,4, p.272.