Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:05:14.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Strange Fate of Czech Utraquism: The Second Century, 1517–1621

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2016

Zdeněk V. David
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article aims to reassess current historical judgements on the Czech Utraquist Church during the second century of its existence, from 1517 to 1621. It seeks to outline the special problems which Bohemian Utraquism faced as a religious via media, partly viewed from the comparative perspective of the kindred phenomenon of the post-Reformation Church of England. After a discussion of the historiographic issues, the focus is on the distinctive development of sixteenth-century Utraquism and its relations to English theology and eastern Orthodoxy. The Church's intermediate position between the Church of Rome and the fully reformed Protestant Churches is then explored more systematically through the writings of the authoritative, but neglected, theologian of sixteenth-century Utraquism, Bohuslav Bílejovský.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , October 1995 , pp. 641 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

The author wishes to thank John W. Brennan for his help in improving, both conceptually and stylistically, two successive drafts of this article.

1 Pronounced Bee-lay-yof-skee.

2 Examined against the American religious spectrum the Utraquist Church would occupy a place in the High Church category, close to the Episcopal Church or more particularly to its Anglo-Catholic wing.Zeman notes, Jarold K., without elaborating, the similarity between Utraquism and Anglicanism in his The Hussite movement and the Reformation in Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia, 1350-1650, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1977, p. xvi.Google Scholar On the Anglican acceptance of Scripture, reason and tradition see for instance Paul, Avis, Anglicanism and the Christian Church, Minneapolis 1989, 63–7.Google Scholar

3 ‘Hussiti’ seemed to be a term of opprobrium favored by the curia: Die Hauptinstruktionen Clemens’ VIII. für die Nuntien und Legaten an den europäischen Fürstenhöfen, 1592–1605, ed. Klaus Jaitner, Tübingen, 1984, i. 59; ii. 10; Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken, Abt. 2, 1560–72, viii, ed. Johann Rainer, Graz 1967, 46–7; Abt. 3, 1572-85, vi, ed. Helmut Goetz, Tübingen 1982, 154, 365, 369; Abt. 3, vii, ed. Almut Bues, Tübingen 1990, 49, 88. The courteous designation was ‘ communicantes sub utraque’: ibid. Abt. 3, vii. 467; Abt. 3, vii. 98, 176.

4 On the Bohemian reform movement prior to 1415 see Holeton, David R., ‘The communion of infants and Hussitism’, Communio Viatorum xxvii (1984), esp. pp. 217-19Google Scholar, and Kaminsky, Howard, A history of the Hussite revolution, Berkeley, CA 1967, 5–96.Google Scholar See also Cameron, Euan, The European Reformation, Oxford 1991, 71–3.Google Scholar On the early, Utraquist, synods, see Zilinská, Blanka, Husitské synody v Čechách,1417–1440, Prague 1985.Google Scholar

5 Tomek, Václav V., ‘O církevní správě strany pod obojív Čechách od r. 1415 aă 1622’, Časopis českého muzea xxii (1848), 365–83, 441-68Google Scholar; Krofta, Kamil, ‘Boj o konsistor pod obojí v letech 1562-1575 a jeho historický základ’, Český časopis historický xvii (1911), 28-57, 178-99, 283-303, 383–420.Google Scholar On the repudiation of the Taborites see Bartoš, František, The Hussite revolution, 1424-1437, ed. Klassen, John M., Boulder, Colorado 1986, 112–18Google Scholar, and (for documentation) Nejedlý, Zdeněk, Prameny k synodám strany pražské a táborské (uznik husitské konfesse) v létech 1441–1444, Prague 1900, esp. pp. 56–95.Google Scholar The Taborites were defeated militarily in 1434, and suppressed in 1452. For theories about their reincarnation seventy or eighty years later as Lutherans or ‘Neo-Utraquists’ see below.

6 The sect was destined to survive in exile as the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum). As of 1991 it claimed more than 56,000 members in the United States, and over 2,000 in Canada. On its origins see Wagner, Murray L., Petr Chelčicky: a radical separatist in Hussite Bohemia, Scottsdale, Penn. 1983.Google Scholar

7 On the significance of Utraquist eucharistie reforms see Holeton, David R., ‘Sacramental and liturgical reform in late medieval Bohemia’, Studia Liturgica xviii (1987), 94Google Scholar; ‘The communion of infants and Hussitism’, 217–19; and ‘The communion of infants: the Basel years’, Communia Viatorum xxix (1986), 35–6. In ‘The communion of infants and Hussitism’, 222 n. 39, he describes the manner of communicating infants, established by the Utraquist Synod of 1418.

8 For negative attitudes in French and German historical writing see Denis, Ernest, Fin de l’indépendance Bohême, 2nd edn, Paris 1930, ii. 83, 91–4, 295–302Google Scholar, and Eberhard, Winfried, Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen, 1478–1530, Munich 1981, esp. pp. 19–25.Google Scholar For a cautionary note against the denunciations and dismissals of traditional Utraquism see Evans, Robert J. W., Rudolf II and his world: a study in intellectual history, 1576–1612 ,Oxford 1973, 2gff., esp. pp. 36-7.Google Scholar

9 Hrejsa, F., Česká konfesse : její vznik, pdstata a dějiny, Prague 1912, 4.Google Scholar

10 Böhm, Jaroslav and others, Československá vlastivěda, II: Dějiny, Prague 1963, i. 380, 390Google Scholar. For a sampling of the almost routine denunciations of the Utraquists in Czech historiography see Vlček, Jaroslav, Dějiny česke literatury, Prague 1951, i. 304–6Google Scholar; Winter, Zikmund, Źivot církevniv Čechach, Prague 1896, i. 157–8Google Scholar;Stloukal, K., ‘Pocatky nunciatury v Praze: Bonhomini v Cechach, 1581–84’, Český časopishistorický xxxiv (1928), 256Google Scholar; Bednar, František, ‘Uvodem’, in Jakub Bílek, Jan Augusta v letech samoty, 1548–1564, Prague 1942, 6Google Scholar; Janáček, Josef, Ceske dějiny: Doba Předbelohorska, Prague 1971, i, pt 1, esp. pp. 191, n. 21, 192, 198-9Google Scholar; Frantisek, Kutnar, Přehledne dejiny ceskeho a slovenského dějepisectvi, Prague 1973, i. 53Google Scholar; Janáček, Josef, Ceske dejin: Doba Předbelohorska, Prague 1971, i, pt 1, esp. pp. 191 n. 21, 192Google Scholar, Přehled dĕjin Československa, ed. Purš, Jaroslav and Kropilák, Miroslav, Prague 1982, i, pt 2, 61-5.Google Scholar For deprecatory characterisations in the post-Marxist Dějiny zemí Koruny české, ed. Petr Čornej, Prague 1992, see i. 242. Noemi Rejchrtova, however, seeks to qualify the charge of the Utraquists’ moral corruption in Česky časopis historický xc (1992), 125–6.

11 Hrejsa, , Česka konfesse, 640–58.Google Scholar

12 Palacký classifies the Lutherans as the party of progress (pokrok) and the Utraquists as the party of stagnation (utkvélost) during the 1520s in his Dějiny národu českeho, Prague 1893, v. 514

13 Luther's assertion that ‘without knowing it, we have been Hussites all along’, is cited by Molnar, Enrico C. S., The Catholicity of the Utraquist Church of Bohemia, Sewanee, Tenn. 1959, 1.Google Scholar See also Fudge, Thomas A., ‘Ansellus Dei and the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague’, Communio Viatorum xxxv (1993), 161.Google Scholar

14 On Johann Eck's accusing Luther of ‘Hussitism’ see Pelikan, Jaroslav, ‘Luther's attitude toward John Hus’, Concordia Theological Monthly xix (1948), esp. pp. 751–5.Google Scholar On Counter-Reformation propaganda see Florovskii, Antonii V., Jan Hus v ruském pojetí,Prague 1935, 30-1Google Scholar, and his Chekhi i vostochnye slavian: ocherki po istorii cheshsko-russkikh otnoshenii, X—XVIII vv., Prague 1935, i. 400–1.

15 Laws of ecclesiastical polity (hereinafter cited as LEP), vi. 4. 14. in Richard, Hooker, Works, Oxford 1865, ii. 274–5.Google Scholar

16 See Foxe, John, Fox's book of martyrs: the acts and monuments of the Church, ed. John, Cumming, London 1875, i. 823–945.Google Scholar

17 On Saxon intolerance see Hrejsa, , Česká konfesse, 583–6.Google Scholar

18 Janáček, , České dějiny, i pt 1, 187.Google Scholar Much of the Vatican's extraordinary detestation may stem from the immolation, by the radical Taborites in the 1420s, of an inordinate number of Roman ecclesiastical personnel, particularly monks and nuns. The mainstream Utraquists rejected the religiously inspired excesses, except for the liquidation of the monasteries: Bílejovský, Bohuslav, Kronyka Cýrkeoní, ed. Skalický, Josef, Prague 1816, 25–6;Google ScholarJohannes, Cochläeus, Historiae Hussitarum libri duodecim, Mainz 1549, 94.Google Scholar For nuncio Camillo Caetano's view of Bohemia as where the Protestant ‘evil took its beginning’ see Karel, Stloukal, Papežská politika a císařsky dvùr pražský na předélu XVI. a XVII. véku, Prague 1925, 156.Google Scholar

19 The Jesuit Apology is cited by Winter, Život církevní, i. 275.

20 De Vooght, P., L’hérésie de Jean Huss, 2nd edn, Louvain 1975, i, esp. p. 516.Google ScholarDe, Vooght still hedges on Hus's concept of papal primacy: ‘John Hus’, Mew Catholic encyclopedia, New York 1967, vii. 272Google Scholar; see also Francis, Oakley ‘Councils, Western, 1311–1449’, Dictionary of the Middle Ages, New York 1983, iii. 650.Google Scholar

21 On the misguided tendency to link the Bohemian and the German reformations see Heymann, Frederick G., ‘John Rokycana: the church reformer between Hus and Luther’, Church History xxviii (1959), 240–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and his ‘The Hussite-Utraquist Church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte lii (1961), 1–2; also Eberhard, Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen, 15–18.

22 For such a negative attitude toward Eastern orthodox influences, often under the code word of cyrilometodějství [Cyrillo-Methodianism], see, for instance, Glücklich, Juliusin Václav Budovec z Budova, Korrespondence z let 1579–1619, Prague 1808, p. xxGoogle Scholar; Kamil, Krofta, ‘Novějši bádání o Husovi a hnutí husitském’, Český časopis historický xxi (1915), 76–7Google Scholar; Vlček, , Dějiny české literatury i. 305Google Scholar; Jakubec, , Dějiny literatury české, Prague 1929, i. 652Google Scholar; and Ivo, Kořán, ‘ Obraz a slovo v našich dějinách ‘, Kapitoly z českého dějepisu uměni, ed. Rudolf, Chadraba and others, Prague 1986, i. 17–18.Google Scholar

23 On nunciojohn Bonhomini see Stloukal, , ‘Počátky nunciatury v Praze’, 242, 251–2, 260, 264–5Google Scholar. On nuncio Cesare Speciano see Josef Matoušek, ‘Kurie a boj o konsistoř pod obojí za administrátora Rezka’, Český časopis historický xxxvii (1931) 252,254,262, 267, 275, 284–5Google Scholar, and Epistulae el acta nuntiorum apostolicorwm apud imperatorem, 1592–1628, tomus 4, Epistulae et acta Antonii Caetani, 1607–1611, ed.Linhartová, Milena, Prague 1932, i. 324.Google Scholar

24 Bílejovský, Kronyka Cýrkemi, 26; Kavka, František and Skýbová, Anna, Husitský epilog na koncilu tridentském a původní koncepce habsburské rekatolizace Čech, Prague 1968, 183-4Google Scholar; Winter, Živol církevní,, i. 245–6, 281, 340–1.

25 See his dry, but learned, disquisitions comparing the Sektentypus with the Kirchentypus, in Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen in his Gesammelte Schriften, Tübingen 1912, for example i. 407, 834–5, 967, 980.

26 The typical sources for the treatment of the Utraquists have been Borovýs, KlementJednání a dopisy konsistoře katolické a utrakvistické, Prague 1868Google Scholar, or Pažout's, Juliusfednání a dopisy konsistorě pod abojí zpusobou přijíimajicích, 1562–1570, Prague 1906.Google Scholar In addition, Antonín Podlaha collects material on Utraquist clergy's moral lapses in his ‘Úpadek strany podobojí na sklonku XVI. století’, Sborník Historického kroužku v (1904), 29–36, 65–9, 161 —4, 219–27.

27 The typical sources for the treatment of the Brethren have been Akty Jednoty bratrské, ed. Jaroslav Bidlo, Brno 1915–23, i–ii; Gindely, Anton, Quellen Zur Geschichte der böhmischen Brüder, Vienna 1859;Google Scholar or ‘ Diarium… Bratříčeských Sněmy české, Prague 1886, iv. 392–464. On the Brethren's expressions of vengefulness see Winter, Život cirkevní, i. 495–6.

28 ‘človék nevážný, lhář, ožralec, kurevník zjevný’, Krofta's ‘Boj o konsistoř’, 302; n.2.

29 Hrejsa, , Česká konfesse, 6 n. 1.Google Scholar

30 Lake, Peter, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist thought from Whilgift to Hooker, London 1988, 5.Google Scholar Compare also the Puritans’ charges of laxity against the Anglican Church in the sixteenth century’: Marshall, John S., Hooker and the Anglican tradition: an historical and theological study of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Sewanee, Tenn.1963, 32–3.Google Scholar

31 Matoušek, , ‘ Kurie a boj o konsistoř’, 31, 267Google Scholar; also Skýbová, Anne, ‘ Cesta po Čechách v roce 1561 ‘, Český lid lxiii (1975), 99.Google Scholar

32 On the consistory's abject and evasive dealings with Archbishops Brus and Medek, and with papal nuncios see, for instance, Krofta, ‘Boj o konsistoř’, 386, 391, 401–3; Matoušek, ‘Kurie a boj o konsistoř’, 23, 27–8, 31, 252, 274, 281; Stloukal, ‘Počátky nunciatury v Praze’, 15–16, 256; Winter, život církevní, i. 182–3, 330–4.

33 Oakley, , ‘Councils, Western, 1311–1449’, iii. 650.Google Scholar

34 See, for instance, Bílejovský, Kronyka Cýrkevní, 27.

35 Borový, Klement, Antonín Brus z Mohelnice, arcibiskup pražský, Prague 1873, 176Google Scholar; Krofta, ‘Boj o konsistoř’, 385.

36 Bílejovský, , Kronyka Cýrkevní, 88–104.Google Scholar

37 For instance his Knijžky o přivijmánij Tiela a Krwe Pana nasseho Gežijsse Krysta…, Prague 1539,52–5; Tato Knizka toto try ukazuge…, n.p. 1542, 14–16; Tento spis ukazuge zie Biskupowee Biskupa a Biskup Kniežij…, n.p. 1543, 12–15; Jireček, Josef, Rukoět' k dějinám literatury české, Prague 1875, i. 114–15.Google Scholar

38 For the Anglican position see Marshall, Hooker and the Anglican tradition, 36, 64. On the Lutheran initiatives of 1522–3 and 1541–3 see Pelikan, Jaroslav, ‘Luther's negotiations with the Hussites’, Concordia Theological Monthly xx (1949), 499–503Google Scholar, and Thomson, S.Harrison, ‘Luther and Bohemia’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte xliv (1953), 177–8.Google Scholar

39 Hrejsa, Česká konfesse, esp. pp. 186–9; Krofta, ‘Boj o konsistoř’, 404–6, 411–16; Pánek, Jaroslav, Stavovská opozice a její zápas s Habsburky, 1547–1577, Prague 1982, 101–19.Google Scholar

40 On the prevalence of Utraquist worship see Winter, Zikmund, Zlatá doba měst českých,Prague 1991, 139–42, 144–5; nn. 49. 50. 95 below.Google Scholar

41 Hrejsa, Česká konfesse, 4, and ‘Luterství, kalvinismus a podobojí na Moravé před Bílou horou’, Český casopis historicky xliv (1938), 483–5; Krofta, Kamil, ‘Nobý názor na český vývoj náboženský v dobé předbélohorské’, český časopis historický xx (1914), 10–13.Google Scholar Concerning the name ‘Evangelicals’ see Tomek, ‘O cirkevní správé strany pod obojí v Čechäch’, 452; Krofta, ‘Boj o konsistor’, 185; and Stránský, Pavel, Českí stát. Okřik, Prague 1953. 176, 178.Google Scholar

42 Hrubý, František, ‘Luterství a novoutrakvismus v českych zemích v 16. a 17. stolení, Český časopis historický xlv (1939), 40, 42–4Google Scholar; Stloukal, ‘Počätky nunciatury v Praze’, 16 n. I ; Pekař, Josef in Ceský časopis historický xxxix (1933), 356, n. 1.Google Scholar

43 Hrubý, , ‘Luterství a novoutrakvismus’, 40, 43.Google Scholar On Eduard Winter's nomenclature, see his Tausend Jahre Geisteskampf im Sudetenraum: das religiöse Ringen zweier Völker, 2nd edn, Munich 1955, esp. p. 202.

44 Eberhard, Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen, seeks to qualify Luther's influence on Czech Lutherans, and in a way reinstate Hrejsa's Neo-Utraquism as a ‘Left Utraquism’ (Linksutraquismus), 144-9; in his Monarchie und Widerstand: zur ständischen Oppositionsbildung im Herrschaftssystem Ferdinands I. in Böhmen, Munich 1985, 380-3, he favours the term Reformutraquismus.

45 The terminological issue is further complicated by the fact that, for extraneous and opportunistic reasons, the Lutherans tended to seek cover under the label of‘Utraquism’ [podoboji]. In the latter part of the sixteenth century this misnomer facilitated legal selfprotection. Subsequently it was required by the fiat of the royal government, though the Lutherans themselves preferred the more authentic description ‘Evangelicals’. See Stloukal, , ‘Počátky nunciatury v Praze’, 252Google Scholar; Hrejsa, , Česká konfesse, 462-3Google Scholar; Glücklich, Julius, ‘ Koncept Majestâtu a vznik porovnâní’, Česky časopis historický xxiii (1917), 120, 126.Google Scholar

46 On the principle of apostolic succession see, for instance, Molnar, , The Catholicity of the Utraquisl Church of Bohemia, 3-5Google Scholar; Krofta, , ‘Boj o konsistoř’, 412–13Google Scholar; Akty fednoly Bratrské, i. 327.

47 Hrejsa, , Česka konfesse, 19–20, 206–7Google Scholar; Borový, Antonín Brus z Mohelnice, 176, 180–96, esp. p. 195, and his Martin Medek, Arcibiskup Prazsky, Prague 1877, 73–4; Kavka and Skýbová, Husitsky epilog na koncilu tridentském, 184–93. See also Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 1572–1585, abt. 3, vi. 153–4, 467. On the anathema of the communion for infants, see Holeton, , ‘The communion of infants: the Basel years’, 40 n. 99.Google Scholar

48 On the Utraquist liturgy see Molnar, , The Catholicity of the Utraquist Church of Bohemia,6–8Google Scholar; David R. Holeton, , ‘On the evolution of the Utraquist liturgy: a precursor of western liturgical reform ‘, unpublished paper presented at the World Congress of the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences, Prague, 29 June 1992.Google Scholar For documentation see Borový, Jednam a dopisy konsistoře katolické i utrakvistické, i. 10–13, 260–2; and Bílejovský, Kronyka Cýrkevm, 98.

49 Tři francouzšti kavaliři v rudolfínské Praze,ed. Fuciková, Eliška, Prague 1989, 44–5, 144 n. 2Google Scholar; Skýbová, , ‘Cesta po Čechách v roce 1561 ‘, 99.Google Scholar

50 Pánek, Jaroslav, ‘Čechy, Morava a Lužice v německém cestopisu ze sklonku 16. stoleti’, Folia Historica Bohemica xiii (1990), 208–9Google Scholar. Moryson, Fynes, travelling in 1591 (An itinerary, Glasgow 1908, iv. 332–3), is correct on the Utraquists’ liturgy, but wrong on their ordinations.Google Scholar

51 Matoušek, , ‘Kurie a boj o konsistoř’ 285–91Google Scholar ; Sněmy českéxi, pt 1 (1910), 74, 79; Vávra, Josef, ‘Katolici a sněm ceský roku 1608 a 1609’, Sborník historicke'ho kroužku, Sešit 1 (1893), 4.Google Scholar

52 Ibid. 15. For Hus's theological Orientation, see n. 94 of this article.

53 Vávra, , ‘Katolíci a sněm český’, 12–13Google Scholar; Glücklich, , ‘Koncept Majestátu a vznik porovnání’, 121–2, 127Google Scholar.

54 Tischer, František, Dopisy konsistoře podobojí z let 1610–1619, Prague 1917–1925, pp. x–xi.Google Scholar

55 See, for instance, Sněmy česke, xi, pt. 1 (1910), 62, 78–9; Stloukal, , ‘Počátky nunciatury v Praze’, 251, 275, 277Google Scholar; Matoušek, , ‘Kurie a boj o konsistoř’, 23, 26, 288.Google Scholar

56 Gindely, Anton, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, 2nd edn, Prague 1861–2, ii. 413.Google Scholar See also Hrejsa, , Českd konfesse, 533–7Google Scholar, and Tischer, , Dopisy konsistoře podobojí, pp. x–xiGoogle Scholar.

57 Hrejsa, , Česká konfesse, 572.Google Scholar

58 ‘O církevní správě strany pod obojí v Čechách’, 463. See also Hrejsa, , Česká konfesse, 574–5.Google Scholar

59 Ibid. 580–1; Tischer, , Dopisy konsistoře, 447–8Google Scholar; Winter, , Tausend jahre Geisteskampf, 203Google Scholar. On the continuation of Lutheran worship until 1624 see Hrejsa, , Ceská konfesse, 581.Google Scholar

60 ‘The accursed memory’, in Anthony Kenny (ed.), Wyclif in his times, Oxford 1986, 160Google Scholar. On Wyclif's influence see also Gordon Leff, ‘ Wyclif and Hus: a doctrinal comparison ibid. 105-25, as well as Betts, Reginald R., Essays in Czech history, London 1969, 29–62, 132–59Google Scholar; Walsh, Katherine, ‘Wyclif's legacy in central Europe in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth century’, Studies in Church History Subsidia v (1987), 397–417Google Scholar; and Holeton, David R., ‘Wyclif's Bohemian fate: a reflection on the contextualization of Wyclif in Bohemia’, Communio Viatorum xxxii (1989), 209–22Google Scholar, with a masterly contrasting portrayal of Wyclif and Hus on pp. 217–19.

61 ‘Petam orationis auxilium, et regracier, quod de benedicta Anglia tanta bona per tuum laborem prestante Ihesu Christo domino Boemia iam suscepit’: Jana Husi, M.Korespondence a dokumenty, ed. Novotny, Václav (Sbírka pramenů českého hnutí náboženského ve XIV. a XV. století, xiv, 1920), 84.Google Scholar On Wyche and Oldcastle see Sedlák, Jan, Mistr Jan Hus, Prague 1915, i. 199–202Google Scholar, and Vooght, de, L’hérésie de Jean Huss, i.163–7.Google Scholar

62 Cook, William R., ‘John Wyclif and Hussite thology, 1415–1436’, Church History xlii (1973) 339Google Scholar See also Betts, , Essays in Czech history, 236–46.Google Scholar

63 Hudson, Anne, Lollards and their books, London 1985, 31–42Google ScholarPubMed; idem, The premature Reformation: Wycliffite texts and Lollard history, Oxford 1988, 8, 264–6Google Scholar; Spinka, Matthew, ‘Paul Kravař and the Lollard-Hussite relations’, Church History xxv (1956), 24–5.Google Scholar

64 Macůrek, , ‘Husitství v rumunských zemích’, Časopis Matice moravské li (1927), 61–1Google Scholar; František Bartoš claims that Constantine was Matthew the Englishman, a Czech with ties to England: ‘A delegate of the Hussite Church at Constantinople‘, Byzantinoslavica xxiv (1963), 289–92.Google Scholar

65 Foxe, , Fox's book of martyrs, i. 823–945.Google Scholar

66 The views of Vasilii A. Elagin, Evgenii P. Novikov, Vasilii A. Bil’basov and Aleksandr F. Gil’ferding are discussed by G. I. Lipatnikova, ‘K izucheniiu gusitskogo dvizheniia v russkoi dorevoliutsionnoi istoriografii’, Voprosy istorii slavian [Voronezh] i (1963), esp. p. 92, and Lapteva, Liudmila P., Russkaia istoriografiia gusilskogo dvizheniia, 40-e gody XIX v-1917 g., Moscow 1978Google Scholar, with a comprehensive bibliography, 326–32.

67 Bartoš, František, ‘Německého husity Petra Turnova spis o řádech a zvycích církve východní’, Věstník Královské Ceské Společnosti Nauk (1915), 1–2Google Scholar; Paulová, Milada, ‘Styky českých husitů s cařihradskou církví na základě církevních poměrů byzantských‘, Časopis českého muzea xcii (1918), 3Google Scholar; Trevor-Roper, H. R., ‘The Church of England and the Greek Church in the time of Charles 1’, (Studies in Church History xv, 1978), 213–40.Google Scholar

68 Bartoš, , ‘Německého husity Petra Turnova spis’, 2–3Google Scholar; Molnar, Enrico E. S., ‘The restoration of holy communion in both kinds’, Anglican Theological Review ii (1954), 105.Google Scholar

69 On the domestic roots of the Utraquists’ eucharistie views see Holeton, David R., La communion des tout-petits enfants : étude du mouvement eucharistique en Bohême vers le fin du Moyen- âge, Rome 1989, 61–6Google Scholar, his ‘Sacramental and liturgical reform in late mediaeval Bohemia’, 87–92, and Kaminsky, , A history of the Hussite revolution, 97–136.Google Scholar

70 On Jerome see Betts, , Essays in Czech history, 195–235.Google Scholar On Wyclif's influence on Jerome's mission see Hrejsa, Ferdinand, Dějiny křest’anství v Ceskoslovensku, Prague 1947, ii. 43Google Scholar, and Bartoš, František, Husitství a cizina, Prague 1931, 72–4Google Scholar.

71 ‘De ritibus misse’, in Höfler, Karl (ed.), Geschichtschreiber der hussitischen Bewegung in Böhmen, Vienna 1865, ii. 506Google Scholar. See also Nejedlý, , Dějiny husilského zpěvu, Prague 1955, v. 169–70Google Scholar.

72 Pal’mov, Ivan S., K voprosu o snosheniiakh Chekhov-gusitov s vostochnuiu tserkov’iu v polovine XV veka, St Petersburg 1889, 15Google Scholar; Paulová, , ‘Styky českých husitů’, xciii (1919), 17–21Google Scholar; Salač, Antonín, ‘Constantinople et Prague en 1452: pourparlers en vue d’une union des églises’ Rozpravy Československé akademie věd. Řada společenských věd lxviii (1958), esp. pp. 1–6, 23.Google Scholar

73 Josef V., Šimák, ‘Bohuslava Bílejovskeho Kronika česká’, Český časopis historický xxxviii (1932), 92–101, 102.Google Scholar For other typical expressions of negative criticism of Bílejovský see, for instance, Kalousek, Josef, ‘O historii kalicha v dobách předhusitských‘, Výroční zpráva obecního realného gymnasia v Praze na školní rok 1880/81, Prague 1881, 5, 18, 23Google Scholar; Vlček, , Dějiny české literatury, i. 304-6Google Scholar; Jakubec, Jan, Dějiny literatury české, Prague 1929, i. 652–3Google Scholar; Kutnar, , Přehledné dějiny českého a slovenského dějepisectví, i. 53–4Google Scholar; Kořán, Ivo, ‘Obraz a slovo v našich dějinách’, i (1986), 17–18.Google Scholar

74 Krofta, Kamil, ‘Slovo o knězi Bohuslavu Bílejovském’ in Jenšovský, Bedřich and Mendl, Bedřich (eds), Sborník prací věnovaný Janu Bedřichu Novákovi k sědesátým narozeninám, Prague 1932, 223, 226Google Scholar.

75 On Hooker's ecclesiological task see Trevor-Roper, H. R., ‘The good and great works of Richard Hooker’, New York Review of Books, 24 Nov. 1977, esp. p. 48.Google Scholar

76 Bílejovský, , Kronyka Cýrkevní, esp. p. 9.Google Scholar There are actually no documented cases of lay communion from the cup according to the Roman rite, for Bohemia in the fourteenth century: see Kalousek, Josef, ‘Ruské badání o přičinách a účelích hnutí husitského’, Časopis českého muzea lvi (1882), 102.Google Scholar

77 Bílejovský, , Kronyka Cýrkevní, 1, 7, 25.Google Scholar

78 On the significance of Utraquist eucharistic reforms see n. 7 above.

79 Bílejovský, , Kronyka Cýrkevní, 21–3, 46.Google Scholar

80 As David R. Holeton points out, even Cyril and Methodius may have introduced the so-called Liturgy of St Peter (a Slavic translation of the contemporary Roman rite) rather than the Byzantine Rite: see his review in Czechoslovak and Central European Journal xi (1992), 115. See also Nejedlý, , Dějiny husilského zpěvu, 1 (1954), 39.Google Scholar

81 Bílejovský, , Kronyka Cýrkevní, introduction p. i, 10–12, 24.Google Scholar William Palmer had to reject propositions, such as: ‘the Church of England was founded at the Reformation by separation from the catholic church; … its faith was then invented or changed by Henry VIII…; the Church of England was responsible for all the views, motives, acts of Henry, Edward, Elizabeth and their courtiers’: Avis, Anglicanism and the Christian Church, 179.

82 Holeton, David R., ‘The office of Jan Hus: an unrecorded antiphonary in the Metropolitan Library at Esztergom’, in Alexander, J. Neil (ed.), Time and community, Washington, DC 1990, 137–43.Google Scholar See also ‘Bohoslužebná skládání o Husovi z XV. a XVI. století’, Prameny dějin českých viii (1932), 419–72. The other martyrs included three of 1412 from Prague, and two of 1415 from Olomouc: Bartoš, F., Husitská revoluce, Prague 1965–6, i. 31Google Scholar.

83 Bílejovský, , Kronyka Cýrkevní, 27, 39–41, 114–15Google Scholar; Krofta, ‘Slovo’, 227–8.

84 Jireček, , Rukovět’ k dějinàm literatury české, i. 116.Google Scholar

85 Krofta, ‘Slovo’, 225. See also Stránský's, Český stát, 168–70Google Scholar, and Comenius’, Stručná historie cíkve slovanské, ed. Hendrich, Josef, Prague 1941, 24Google Scholar. Even such experienced scholars as Florovskii (Chekhi i vostochnye slaviane, i. 403) and Kaminsky (A history of the Hussite revolution, 99) accept the allegation that Bílejovský sought to derive Utraquism from eastern Orthodoxy.

86 Marshall, , Hooker, 38–9Google Scholar; Avis, , Anglicanism and the Christian Church, 51–2.Google Scholar The author wishes to thank Robert Evans for suggesting an examination of Hooker's historical and theological views for parallels with Bílejovský's concepts.

87 Hooker, , Works, i. 520Google Scholar (LEP v. 28. 1).

88 Hooker, , Works, i. 283, 283–4Google Scholar (LEP iii. 1. 10).

89 Snémy české, xi pt. 1 (1910), 72–3, 79, and Stloukal,‘Počátky nunciatury v Praze’, 13. The Utraquists’ administrative subordination to the royal government continued after 1609; n. 53 above.

90 On Wenceslaus IV as a Czech Henry VIII see Michael Wilks, ‘Reformatio regni: Wyclif and Hus as leaders of religious protest movements’, (Studies in Church History ix 1972), 130: see also Hudson, Anne, The premature Reformation, 513–14Google Scholar, and Holeton, , ‘Wyclif in Bohemia’, 213.Google Scholar

91 Hooker, , Works, i. 57, 80.Google ScholarDNB ix. 1188, mis-identifies the pontiff as Clement XII.

92 Marshall, Hooker, 38; Spellman, W. M., The Latitudinarians and the Church of England, 1660–1700, Athens, Georgia 1993, 64–6Google Scholar; Krofta, Kamil, ‘Václav Koranda mladší z Nové Plzně a jeho názory náboženské’, Sborník městského historického musea v Plzni iii (1913), 27–8Google Scholar; Bílejovský, , Kronyka Cýrkevni, 7–8.Google Scholar

93 See Holeton, , ‘Wyclif's Bohemian fate’, 215.Google Scholar

94 On sola scriptura and sola fide see the article ‘Jan Hus’, as well as the literature cited by Godbey, John C. in Eliade, Mircea (ed.), Encyclopedia of religion, New York 1987, vi. 535–6Google Scholar. On Luther, and Shepherd, Wyclifsee Massey H. Jr, Wyclif’, John, ibid. xv. 489–90.Google Scholar See also Thomson, , ‘Luther and Bohemia’, 177–8, 180.Google Scholar

95 Holeton, ‘The evolution of Utraquist liturgy’, 11–12.Google Scholar On the popular attachment to Utraquism, see also Šmahel, František, Husitská revoluce, Prague 1993, i. 352Google Scholar; Winter, , Život církeviní., i. 78Google Scholar; his Zlatá. doba měst českých, 139–42, 144–5; Stloukal, , ‘Počátky nunciatury v Praze’, 255, 257Google Scholar; and Vávra, , ‘Katolíci a sněm český’, 12, 27.Google Scholar

96 Sněmy česke, iv (1886), 393.

97 Some of this impatience has apparently affected the accuracy of historical information. Thus the New Catholic encyclopedia, xiv. 505, and Encyclopedia Britannica: Micropaedia, Chicago 1976, x. 316, date the demise of Utraquism sixty years before its actual occurrence. The dictionary of the Middle Ages, ii. 377, however, gives the correct date in an article by Howard Kaminsky.

98 The following might also fittingly apply to the Utraquists: ‘Hooker maintained continuity with the past, looked at the old ways as preferable, would maintain the historic episcopate and traditional worship, but with his views of the freedom of reason he opened a door to the future’: Booty, John E., ‘Hooker and Anglicanism’, in Speed Hill, W. (ed.), Studies in Richard Hooker, Cleveland 1972, 211Google Scholar.