Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:32:44.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Wyclif and Hussite Theology 1415–1436

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

William R. Cook
William R. Cook
Affiliation:
Assistant professor of history in the State University College, Geneseo, New York.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A good deal of literature has dealt with the relationship between the works of John Wyclif and John Hus. It seems clear now that John Hus did not simply parrot Wyclif as Johann Loserth argued in the nineteenth century, but rather he was the product of a native Bohemian reform movement. He regarded Wyclif as a fellow reformer and was reliant on him for much of his realist philosophy and ecclesiology but was largely independent of Wyclif in matters of dogmatic theology. Concerning the eucharist, for example, Hus clearly accepted the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation rather than Wyclif's remanence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , September 1973 , pp. 335 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Several articles and books have appeared on this subject. See Poole, Reginald L., “On the Intercourse Between English and Bohemian Wycliffites in the Early Years of the Fifteenth Century”, English Historical Review 7 (1892), pp. 306–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Betts, R. R., “English and Cech Influences on the Hussite Movement” Royal Historical Society Transactions 21 (4th series, 1939), pp. 71–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in Betts, R. B., Essays in Czech History (London, 1969), pp. 132–159Google Scholar; Odlozilík, Otakar, “Wycliffe's Influence upon Central and Eastern Europe” Slavonic and Eastern European Review 7 (1929), pp. 634–648Google Scholar; Loserth, Johann, Wyclif and Hus, trans. Evans, M. J. (London, 1884)Google Scholar; Bartoš, F. M., “Hus, Lollardism, and Devotio Moderna in the Fight for a National Bible”, Communio Viatorum 3 (1960), pp. 247–254Google Scholar; Bartoš, F. M., Husitství a Cizina (Prague, 1931)Google Scholar; Leff, Gordon, “Wyclif and Hus: a Doctrinal Comparison”, Bulletin of John Rylands Library 50 (1968), pp. 387–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peschke, Erhard, “Die Bedeutung Wielefs für die Theologie der Böhmen”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935), pp. 462–483Google Scholar; Odlozilik, Otakar, Wyclif and Bohemia (Prague, 1937).Google Scholar

2. The best general treatments of this period include Bartoš, F. M., Husitská Revoluce (Prague, 1965), 2Google Scholar; Heymann, Frederick G., John Zizka and the Hussite Revolution (Princeton, 1955)Google Scholar; Kaminsky, Howard, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley, 1967)Google Scholar; Lützow, Count, The Hussite Wars (London, 1914)Google Scholar; Palacký, F., Geschichte von Bühmen (Prague, 1845, 1857), 3, 4.Google Scholar

3. See my Ph. D. thesis “Peter Payne, Theologian and Diplomat of the Hussite Revolution” (Cornell University, 1971)Google Scholar. Other works focusing on Peter Payne include Polišensky, J. V., ed., Addresses and Essays in Commemoration of the Life and Works of the English Hussite Peter Payne-Engliš 1456–1956 (Prague, 1957)Google Scholar which is also known as Universitas Carolina, Historica, 3, no. 1 (1957)Google Scholar; Bartos', F. M.M. Petr Payne Diplomat Husitské Revoluce (Prague, 1956)Google Scholar; Bartoš, F. M.Literární Cinnost M. Jana Rokycana, M. Jana Příbrama, M. Petra Payne (Prague, 1928).Google Scholar

4. For Payne's career in England, see Emden, A. B., An Oxford Hall in Medieval Times (Oxford, 1927; reprinted 1968) pp. 133–161Google Scholar, and Betts, R. B., “Peter Payne in England”, in Addresses and Essays, ed. J. V. Polišnsky, pp. 5–14Google Scholar, reprinted in Betts, Essays in Czech History, pp. 236–246.

5. The letter is printed in Wilkins, D., ed., Concilia Magnae Brittaniae et Hiberniac (London, 1737), 3: 202Google Scholar. It is translated into English in Foxe, John, The Acts and Monuments, ed. Pratt, Josiah (London, 1877), 3: 57–58.Google Scholar

6. Replica, M.Petri Anglici contra scripta prefati Galli, Prague Cathedral Library MS D.109/2, ff. 157a–166bGoogle Scholar and Wolfenbüttel Library MS Helmstedt 669, ff. 238a–244a.

7. See Kaminsky, p. 205.

8. For an account of this visit, see Jung, Andreas, Friederich Reiser: Eine Ketzergeschichte aus dem fünfzehnten Jahrhundert, ed. Schmidt, Walther B. (Herrnhut, n.d.), p. 12.Google Scholar

9. See the introduction by Kaminsky, Howard et al. to “Master Nicholas of Dresden: The Old Color and the New”, Transactions of the American Philosphical Society, n.s. 55 (1965), n. 134.Google Scholar

10. Prague National Library MS X.E.9, ff. 210b–214a.

11. Ed. Johann Loserth (London, 1892) pp. 317–318.

12. De Eucharistia Maior, p. 316.

13. De Ymaginibus, f. 211a. “Omnia licita adoracio ymaginis Salvatoris est dulia; nulla dulia est latria. Ergo, nulla licita adoraeio ymaginis Salvatoris est latria”.

14. Ibid., f. 212a.

15. De Presdestinatione survives in Prague National Library MS V.G.15, ff. 16b–21a. De Necessitate Futurorum is found in Prague National Library MS V.F. 9, ff. 68b–75b and in Vienna National Library MS 4937, ff. 28a–34b.

16. De Predestinatione, ff. 16b–17a.

17. De Necessitate Futurorum, Vienna MS 4937, f. 34a. “Non est verum quod quia Deus permittit hominem peccare, ideo peccat; sed … quia homo peecat, ideo Deus permittit hominem peccare”.

18. Payne's, reply, Provocatio ad Nicholaum Stojicin, is printed in Studie a Texty k Nábozenskym, Déjindm Cesk, ed. Sedlák, Jan (Olomouc, 1919), 3: 114–115,Google Scholar

19. The text of the articles is printed in Kaminsky, Revolution, p. 369. For their origins, see Ublirz, Mathilde. “Die Genesis der vier Prager Artikel”. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien 175, pt. 3 (1914), pp. 1–98.Google Scholar

20. One mission went in April 1420 and a second in August; a third including Peter Payne left Prague in December. For the December mission, see Bartoš, , Husitskd Revoluee, 1: 126–127Google Scholar; Lawrence of Březová, Historia Hussitica in Fontes Rerum Bohemicarum, ed. Jarosav Goll (aso known as Prameny Dějin Ceskych, Prague, 1893), 5: 465Google Scholar; Malecyzńska, Ewa, “Piotr Payne a Polska”, in Addresses and Essays, ed. J. V. Polišensky, PP. 50–55.Google Scholar

21. At the death of the great Taborite military leader John Zižka in 1424 a third party was formed called the Orphans. They were closer theologically to Tabor than to the Praguers but had considerable support in the Prague New Town.

22. This occurred at the Konopiště Conference; for an account of this, see Nicholas, of Pelhrřimov, Chronicon Taboritarum in Geschichtschreiber der Husitischen Bewegung in Böhmen, ed. Höfler, Konstantin (vol. 6 of Fontes Rerurm Austriacarum, Vienna, 1865), 2: 574–593.Google Scholar

23. For the beginnings of Tabor, see Macek, Josef, Täbor v Husitském Revolučním Hunti 2 vols. (Prague, 1955, 1956)Google Scholar; Kaminsky, Howard, “Chiliasm and the Hussite Revolution” Church History 26 (1957) pp.43–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaminsky, Howard, “Hussite Radicalism and the Origins of Tabor”, Medievalia et Humanistica 10 (1956), pp. 102–130Google ScholarKaminsky, Howard, “The Religion of Hussite Tabor”, in Miloslav Recvhsigel, ed., The Czechoslovak Contributions to World Culture (The Hague, 1964) pp. 210–223.Google Scholar

24. Those attributed to Payne are De Veritate Sacre Scripture and De Materia et Forma; those mentioned as not being by Payne are De Tempore and De Ydeis. Those with no authorship are De Apostasia, De Civili Dominio, Decalogus, De Dominio Divino, De Ecclesia, De Eucharistia Maior, De Officio Regis, De Potestate Pape, De Simonsa, Trialogus and an Opus Anepigraphum.

25. These registers are of Wyclif 's De Blasphemia, Prague Cathedral Library MS C.118, ff. 16b–32b and Vienna National Library MSS 3933 and 4514 and Dialogus, Vienna National Library MS 4536.

26. Registrum locorum ab auctore citatorum secundum ordinem librorum sacre scripture, Prague National Library MS IV.G.27, ff. 1a–35b and Vienna National Library MS 4522, ff. 24a–108b.

27. This register is printed in Wyclif, John, De ManJatis and De Statu Innocencjc, ed. Loserth, Johann and Matthews, F. D. (London, 1922) pp. 537–567.Google Scholar

28. Betts, , “Peter Payne in England”, in Addresses and Essays, ed. J. V. Polišensky, p. 13Google Scholar, reprinted in Betts, , Essays in Czech History, p. 245Google Scholar. One register of a Wyclif treatise, the Decalogus, survives in an English MS, Cambridge University Library LI. V. 13, but this is not the same as Payne's register of that work.

29. See Thomson, S. Harrison, “A Note on Peter Payne and Wyclyf”, Medievalia et Humanistica 16 (1964), pp. 60–64Google Scholar, which gives a list of Wyclif manuscripts containing Payne's marginalia.

30. Quoted in Palacký, 3, bk. 7, p. 423.

31. Petri, Posicio M.Anglici contra Przíbram, Vienna National Library MS 3935, f. 310a.Google Scholar

32. For example, De Civili Dominio 4 MSS, Decalogus 5 MSS, De Dominio Divino 5 MSS, De Ecclesia 4 MSS.

33. Articuli heretici … M. Petri Dicti Anglici, Prague Cathedral Library MS D.49, f. 170a. “… quod Vuicleph obscure posiut, iste (Payne) explanavit”.

34. Kaminsky, , Revolution, p. 465.Google Scholar

35. Sedlák, Jan, “O Táborských Traktátech Eucharistickýeh”, Hlidka 30, (1913), pp. 200–201.Google Scholar

36. Bautzen, East Germany Library MS 8°7 (von Gersdorff collection), ff. la–7b. I have relied on a transcription of this work made by Professor F. M. Bartoš.

37. Tripes, f. lb. “Verum tamen ne ignoretur ipsius doctoris intellectus cum scribit ipsum sacramentum non esse corpus Christi, est secundum qualiter in multa locis librorum suorum et presertim in tractatu De Apostasia, in Trialogo apperit sensum quam habet, circa huiusmodi negativum Se. quod ipsum sacramenturn nec ydemptice nec substancialiter nec naturaliter est corpus Christi sed habitudinaliter et sacramentaliter”.

38. Tripes, f. 2a.

39. The article attributed to Wyclif read, “Si episcopus vel sacerdos existat in mortali peccato, non ordinat, non conficit, nec baptizat, nec consecrat”. Payne emended this (ibid., f. 5b) to read, “Episcopus vel sacerdos existens in peceato mortali non ordinat nec conficit, nec baptizat sc. digne et meritorie”.

40. Confessio, Bautzen, East Germany Library MS 4°22 (von Gersdorff collection), f. 184b and Vienna National Library MS 4342, f. 232a. I have used Professor Bartoš' transcription of the Bautzen MS.

41. Ibid., f. 184b “… credo insuper predictum corpus (Christi) esse veraciter secundum suam substanciam et secundum existenciam realem ad omnem punctum sacramenti sensualis”.

42. Ibid., f. 184b.

43. This conference was arranged following the defeat of a crusade against the Hussites led by Cardinal Beaufort. An unfinished account of this conference written by John Dubá, is printed in Palacký, F., ed., Urkundliche Beiträge zar Geschichte des Hussenkrieges (Prague, 1873), 1: 546–547.Google Scholar

44. See Palacký, , Ukrundliche Beiträge, 2: 65Google Scholar, for the exact conditions.

45. Vyzáni věrnych Cechu, s strany hádáni které bylo mezi M. J. Přbramen a M. P. Angelišem o bludné artikule Viklefovy léta 1429 translated into German (Bekenntnis der glaubigen Böhmen wegen des Streites, welcher zwischen dem Mag. Johann Przibram und dem Mag. Englander, über Wiklefs irrige Artikel, in Jahre 1429 vorgegangen) in F. F. Prochaska, ed. Miscellaneen der Bahmischen unde Mährischen Litteratur (Prague, 1784–1785), pp. 326–342.Google Scholar

46. Příbram, , Vyzáni věrných Cechu, in Prochaska, pp. 340–341.Google Scholar

47. This treatise survives in four MSS; Prague National Library IV.G.14, ff. 130a–156b; Prague Cathedral Library 0.29, ff. 62a–94a; Vienna National Library 3935, ff. 309a–340a; Vienna National Library 4343, ff. 189a–222a. I have seen all the manuscripts; citations are to Vienna 3935.

48. Posicio, f. 313a. “(Christus) est in celo et in sacramento, tamen aliter in celo …aliter in sacramento”, “Item corpus Christi habet triplicem modum essendi; est enim in celo localiter, in verbo personaliter, in altari sacramentaliter”.

49. Ibid., f. 315a.

50. Ibid., ff. 325a–325b.

51. Payne gave a shorter, more formal scholastic presentation of his position in a treatise, De Panis Remanencia, written shortly after the Posicio. This treatise survives in Prague Cathedral Library MS D. 47, ff. 122a–125b.

52. Replica M. Petri Anglici contra scripta prefati Galli (see supra, n. 6 for MSS) and Replica contra Ungarum insulsum (Prague Cathedral Library MS D.109/2, ff. 170b–177b and Prague National Library MS VIILF.13, ff, 240b–245a).

53. See supra, n.45 for a complete citation.

54. Vyzáni věrných Cechu in Prochaska, p. 333.

55. This treatise is printed in Cochlaeus, Johannis, Historiae Hussitarum Libri Duodecim (n.p., 1549), pp. 503–547.Google Scholar

56. Přbram, , Professio, in Cochlaeus, p. 543.Google Scholar

57. The text of this and other conditions is printed in Mansi, Johannis, ed., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, (Venice, 1788; reprinted Leipsig, 1904), 29, cols. 30–32.Google Scholar

58. Bartoš, , Husitská Revoluce, 2: 49.Google Scholar

59. Rokycana defended the practice of utraquism, Ulrich defended free preaching, and Nicholas defended punishment of public sin.

60. These two speeches, Posicio M.Petri Anglici in contra concilio and Replica M. Petri Anglici contra Auditorem, are printed in Peter Payne pro Bohemis, ed. F. Bartoš (Tabor, 1949), pp. 1–78.Google Scholar

61. Posicio in Peter Payne pro Bohemia, p. 12. This transaltion is from Jacob, B. F., “The Bohemians at the council of Basel”, in Setoat-Watson, R. W., ed., Prague Essays (Oxford, 1949), p. 112.Google Scholar

62. Summarized from Posicio, pp. 36–38. A translation of Payne's summary appears in Jacob, “The Bohemians at the Council of Basel,” pp. 113–114.

63. Replica, , in Peter Payne pro Bohemis, p. 49.Google Scholar

64. Ibid., pp. 68–69.

65. Ibid., pp. 72–78. Payne had previously stated this opinion before the Council on Febrauary 4; see his statement, Hace verba sunt, in Palacký, ;, Urkundliche Beiträge, 2:346Google Scholar; Mansi, , ed., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio (Venice, 1792; reprinted Leipsig, 1903), 30, col 260Google Scholar; Palacký, F. and Birk, E., eds., Monumenta Conoiliorum Generalium Seculi XV (Vienna, 1857), 1: 270.Google Scholar

66. See Tierney, Brian, Medieval Poor Law (Berkeley, 1959).Google Scholar

67. For a good account of the English and their motives, see Schofield, A. N. E. D., “The First English Delegation to the Council of Basel”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 12 (1961), pp. 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. This agreement was later called the Compactata and took effect in slightly revised form in 1436 at Jihlava although the papacy never accepted it. The 1434 text of the Compactata is printed in Palacký, F., ed., Archiv Cesky (Prague, 1844), 3: 398–404Google Scholar

69. Bartoš, , M. Petr Payne Diplomat Husitské Revoluce, p. 33.Google Scholar

70. The articles agreed to are printed in Palacký, , Urkundliche Beiträge, 2: 425–429.Google Scholar

71. His decision, Inter Magistros Pragenses ex una et sacerdotes Thaborienses parts ex altera Pronuntiatio, is contained in Nicholas of Pelhřlmov, Chronicon Taboritarum, which is printed in Höfler, , Geschichtschreiber (vol. 6 of Fontes Rerum Austriacarum), 2: 706–707.Google Scholar

72. Nicholas of Pelhřimov, Chronicon, in Höfler, , Geschichlschreiber, 2: 708.Google Scholar

73. See Maleczyńska, , “Piotr Payne a Polska”, in Addresses and Essays, ed. J. V. Polišensky, p. 63 for details of his capture.Google Scholar

74. De Sacramento, Brno University Library MB Mk 109, ff. 179b–183a.

75. For a good account of the conference, see Palacký, , Geschichte von Böhmen, 4, bk. 9, pp. 96–99Google Scholar. An eyewitness account is contained in Nicholas of Pelhřimov, Chronicon in Höfler, , Geschichtschreiber, 2: 746–753Google Scholar. A collection of relevant documents can be found in Nejedly, Zdeněk, ed., Prameny k Synodám Strany Pražské a Táborské v Létech 1441–1444 (Prague, 1900), pp. 42ff.Google Scholar

76. For Payne's relationship with Rokycana, see Urbánek, Rudolf, Věk Poděbradsky (Prague, 1930), 3: 64Google Scholar n. 7. For Payne and Brother Gregory, see Bartos', M.Petr Payne Diplomat Husitské Revoluce, p. 48, and Addresses and Essays, ed. J. V. Polišensky, p. 46.Google Scholar

77. See Peter, Brock, The Political and Social Doctrines of the Unity of the Czech Brethren in the Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries (London, 1957).Google Scholar

78. Ibid., pp. 36, 53.