Pursuing a New Order II: Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian Reformation (Medieval Translator) (The Medieval Translator: Traduire au moyen age, 17) 9782503581828, 250358182X

Citation preview

The Medieval TranslaTor Traduire au Moyen Âge

The Medieval Translator Traduire au Moyen Âge Volume 17.2 General Editors Catherine Batt Roger Ellis René Tixier

Pursuing A New Order Volume II Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian Reformation Edited by Pavlína Rychterová With the collaboration of Julian Ecker

H F

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) / ERC grant agreement no. 263672.

© 2019, Brepols Publishers n. v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-2-503-58182-8 E-ISBN 978-2-503-58183-5 DOI 10.1484/M.TMT-EB.5.116115 ISSN 1293-8750 E-ISSN 2566-0292 Printed on acid-free paper. D/2019/0095/1

TABLE OF CONTENT Introduction11 Plures lingwas in Praga nescimus: Conrad Waldhauser on Czech and German in Fourteenth-Century Prague David C. Mengel

19

Translating Political Theology into Vernacular: Réécriture Of John Wyclif ’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia Martin Dekarli

53

The Puncta of Jan Hus: The Latin Transmission of Vernacular Preaching Pavel Soukup

91

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages: Remarks on the Textual Transmission of Nicholas of Dresden’s Tabule veteris et novi coloris127 Petra Mutlová Translation and Transformation of Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil Jan Odstrčilík The Vernacular Eulogy of John Wyclif by Master Andrzej of Dobczyn: Textual Transmission of Dissident Ideas in Fifteenth-Century Poland Paweł Kras Vernacular Vitaspatrum in the Religious Polemic between Catholics and Utraquists in Bohemia, around the Year 1500 Jakub Sichálek The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and their German-Language Apologias Jiří Černý

153

185

205 233

Bibliography265 Index of Authors and Anonymous Texts

319

NOTES ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS Jiří Černý is an assistant at the Institute for German Studies at Palacký ­University, Olomouc, where he studied German philology and art history. He obtained his Phd in 2017. His research emphazises on handwritten and early printed German literature in late medieval Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia. In collaboration with Soňa Černá he published an introductory volume on medieval German studies: Arbeitsblätter zur Einführung in die (germanistische) Mediävistik (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2012). Martin Dekarli obtained his ThD from the Hussite theological Faculty of the Charles University in Prague in 2012. His research includes the traditions of nominalism and realism in Central Europe, especially at the Universities of Prague and Vienna during the Late Middle Ages, in particular the reception of Jean Buridan, John Wyclif, and the Bohemian Reformation. 2015–17 he has been research fellow at the Austrian Acadamy of Science in Vienna and is an assistant editor of the series The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice. Currently, he is a principal investigator of the project ‘Opera logica of Štěpán of Palecz († 1423) and the Reception of Oxford Logic in Late Medieval Bohemia’ at the University of Hradec Králové. Paweł Kras is Professor at the Department of History, John Paul II Catholic University, Lublin. His research interests are focused on the history of religion in the Middle Ages, including the Wycliffite and Hussite movements in East Central Europe. He published a monograph on the history of medieval inquisition (‘Ad abolendam diversarum haeresium pravitatem’: System inkwizycyjny w średniowiecznej Europie, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL 2006) and several collaborative volumes on the social history of eastern Central Europe in the Middle Ages. With his essay ‘“Pastor bonus et lupi rapaces”: The Polemic Against Hussite Doctrine in the Writings of Stanisław of Skarbimierz’ he contributed to the recently published collective volume Českopolské kazatelské vztahy ve středověku [Bohemian-Polish Preaching Relations in the Middle Ages], ed. by Krzysztof Bracha and Martin Nodl, Colloquia mediaevalia Pragensia, 16 (Prague: Filosofia, 2016), pp. 63–79. David  C. Mengel is Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Xavier ­University, Cincinnati, OH, since 2016. As a professor at the Department of History he conducts research with an emphasis on the medieval history of

8

Notes about the Contributors

religion, cultural history, and the urban history of Prague under the rule of Emperor Charles IV. He edited together with Lisa Ann Wolverton the collective volume Christianity and Culture in the Middle Ages: Essays to Honor John Van Engen (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2014). Petra Mutlová is a research assistant at the Institute of Classical Studies, Masaryk University, Brno. She studied medieval Latin philology, medieval studies, historical auxiliary sciences, and archival studies. She obtained her PhD for her dissertation ‘Mikuláše z Drážd’an Apologie proti rozhodnutí kostnického sněmu’ [Nicholas of Dresden’s Apologia Against the Decision of the Council of Constance] in 2007. Her research work is concentrated on the critical edition and interpretation of texts from the early Bohemian Reformation. Between 2017 and 2019 she coordinates the research project ‘Jan Hus a husitská literatura pro 21. století’ [ Jan Hus and the Hussite Literature for the Twenty-First Century] at the Faculty of Philosophy of Masaryk University. Jan Odstrčilík is a member of the working group ‘Vernacularization in Late Medieval Europe’ at the Institute for Medieval Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna. His main area of research are medieval Latin text and manuscript studies emphazising Latin translations of works by Jan Hus and Henry Totting of Oyta. He accomplished his doctoral thesis in 2015 within the PhD programme Medieval and Neo-Latin Studies at Charles University, Prague, under the title ‘Analýza dvou latinských překladů Husovy České nedělní postily v rkp. Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 56 a Mk 91 a jejich částečná edice’ [Analysis of Two Latin Translations of Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil in the MSS Brno, Moravian Library, Mk 56 and Mk 91, and their Partial Edition]. Jakub Sichálek is a lecturer at the Philosophical Faculty, Charles university of Prague, he studied Bohemian studies at the University of Ostrava and at Charles University, Prague. 2011–2017 he has been a member of the working group ‘Vernacularization in Late Medieval Europe’ at the Institute for Medieval Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna. He obtained his PhD from the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles university in Prague in 2018. His research focuses on the history of literature and multilingualism in the Czech lands of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and on the biblical translation in the late Middle Ages. His PhD thesis, The Old Czech Apocryphal Story of Joseph (Son of Jacob) Edition of the texts and analysis will be published by the publishing house Filosofia in Prague.

Notes about the Contributors

9

Pavel Soukup is the Associate Director of the Centre for Medieval Studies, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague. Following his studies in history at the Universities of Prague, Bern, and Constance he wrote his PhD thesis on late medieval reform preaching in Bohemia. His research interests lie in the analysis of religious texts, theological debades, and crusading in the fifteenth century. He is a coordinator of the Project of Excellence in Basic Research ‘Cultural Codes and their Transformations in the Hussite Period’ awarded by the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR). One of his recently published papers is ‘Preaching the Cross against the Hussites, 1420–1431’, in Partir en croisade à la fin du Moyen Âge: Financement et logistique, ed. by Daniel Baloup and Manuel Sánchez Martínez, Méridiennes: Série Croisades tardives, 4 (Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Midi, 2015), pp. 195–212.

INTRODUCTION

I

n the first two decades of the fifteenth century, the Hussite reform movement formed in Bohemia; it used one of the vernacular languages of the realm, Czech, as a vehicle for the dissemination of its reform ideas, and for the creation of a strong and stable basis for the reform. The leaders of the reform used existing strategies of identification to strengthen the group of adherents of idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture. They pursued a universalist goal but relied on local supporters. They were determined to build a community of true believers, of the ‘faithful’ in the terminology of John Wyclif, whose ecclesiological ideas they adopted. They saw in vernacular preaching a crucial way of securing the success of the reform. The vernacular therefore became a very important strategy of identification able to bind the usually disconnected religious, ethnic, and political (regional) identities together and generate a very potent aggregate of identifications. Most probably the distinctive character of Prague at the beginning of the fifteenth century made this possible: first, it was a city in which the German and Czech languages were repeatedly interpreted as attributes of a group of distinct political interests; then, there was the university, ‘with nations’ as basic organizational units with distinct political and economic interests; and last but not least it was the centre of a group consisting mainly of Czech speaking theologians pursuing subversive reform ideas and defying the opposition, which consisted mainly of the German-speaking theologians at the university. Both parties feverishly sought means to strengthen their adherents’ sense of belonging to their own group, as true for those religiously educated as for the illiterate, and for the rulers as for their subordinates. Not until he was prohibited from preaching, and banned from Prague, in 1412, did the leader of the movement, Jan Hus, start to write his reformist teachings in Czech which he carried on doing until his departure for the Council in Constance. By then, his vernacular works were already an issue; the Council condemned them and ordered them burnt. Hus’s followers, who took over the movement after his death in 1415, very soon had to face its disintegration into moderate and radical factions (basically the moderate faction centered around the university theologians who initiated the movement at the beginning of the fifteenth century, the radical adherents of the reform founded a new city called Tabor by them – they were therefore called the Taborite faction). The individual vernacular works aimed to

Pursuing a New Order, Volume II: Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian R ­ eformation, ed. by Pavlína Rychterová with the collaboration of Julian Ecker TMT 17.2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 11–17 ©  DOI 10.1484/M.TMT-EB.5.116596

FHG

12 Introduction

educate lay followers of the movement (and adherents of the reform among the less ­educated clerics), but besides that they became the means of intraconfessional polemics. The most important Czech text, the Commentary on the Apocalypse, written in 1422 by the leader of the movement, Jakoubek of Stříbro, was an attempt to interpret the recent division of the movement as an integral part of the divine plan of salvation and by this means to re-gain the interpretational authority. As the events gained momentum and the movement departed more and more from the ideas and goals of its fathers, Jan Příbram, one of the most prolific ideologists of the moderate Hussite party of the second generation, and fierce polemicist against the Taborites, wrote a voluminous treatise in Czech, the Books on Great Tribulations of the Holy Church (1430s), in which he tried to formulate a comprehensive spiritual teaching based on the concept of imitatio Christi, in which he very probably saw a remedy for the disintegrated reformation. His follower in the office of the administrator of the Hussite Church, Jan Rokycana, produced a comprehensive Czech postil mirroring his Latin works and targeting professional as well as lay users at the same time as did Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil, the main model of his work. The leaders of the movement, then, offered their adherents, in their own vernacular rather traditional spiritual instruction as a tool for the interpretation of recent events. Only one author developed an ‘original’ (speaking in modern terms) vernacular theology. Petr Chelčický (c. 1390–1460) was a layman; his Latin knowledge was, it seems, not very good – there are no Latin writings by him extant and evidence suggests that his friends and adherents among universityeducated clerics translated key texts for him. Certainly, Chelčický did not express himself in scholastic Latin, but more, perhaps, because he distrusted scholastic discourse than because of his meagre knowledge of Latin. In him the collapse of the authority of scholastic theology found an impressive expression. His thinking was indeed ‘biblical’ – the message should be formulated and disseminated, in the language of the congregatio. Chelčický was a sort of ‘stylite’ of the radical wing of the Hussite movement – a charismatic personality whose importance was based on his consequent refusal of any public role and on his intransigence about the path of salvation. He participated in the theological debate, conducted mainly in Latin between moderate and radical Utraquists, with his Czech written input and gained enough influence to become a founder figure of a new confession the Unity of Bohemian Brethren. The understanding of the vernacular language as the only ‘genuine’ language of the true (Hussite) faith was present in the movement from its beginnings, but it never was supported by an elaborated doctrine and as such it

Introduction

13

never gained an overwhelming authority, very likely because communication with ‘the enemy’ and the primary goal of the movement, the reform of the universal Church, had both to be maintained even then when it was clear that reform would stay limited to Bohemia. The leaders of the movement highlighted repeatedly the idea of the vernacular as the sole language of the ‘true’ faith: one of the leading Utraquist theologians, the follower of Jan Rokycana in the office of the administrator of the Hussite Church (from 1471), Václav Koranda the Younger, engaged in  1464 in a polemic on the issue of communion under both kinds with Hilarius of Litoměřice, a former pupil of Jan Rokycana, a Catholic convert, and from 1462 the administrator of the Prague archdiocese.1 The dispute was led bilingually, beginning with the question formulated by Koranda in Czech (not extant), answered in Latin by Hilarius, responded to by Koranda in Czech, and answered again in Latin by Hilarius. The polemic as it is extant ends with a rejoinder by Koranda in Czech. Koranda and Hilarius thematized the languages of their choice repeatedly. Hilarius commented that his adversary keeps using the vernacular for the discussion of a theologically complex issue. According to him, only Latin was the appropriate language for theological discussion: like every other educated man, Koranda, trained in Latin, should use Latin to speak on theological questions. Hilarius even insinuated that Koranda wrote first in Latin and only later translated himself into Czech. Koranda argued on the contrary that he decided to write in Czech so that disorienting Latin wordplay might be avoided and so that laymen might follow the argumentation. The participants generally used both Latin and Czech in their writings. But the polemic on communion under both kinds for the laity was a crucial element of Hussite identity. Introduced by Jakoubek of Stříbro in 1414, it was, from the beginning identified with the language of the lay adherents of the reform. By now the most important textual sources are available – the Czech works of Jan Hus, for example, were critically edited by Jiří Daňhelka – but analysis of the individual texts remains patchy at best.2 The same is true for Jakoubek of Stříbro’s Commentary, published in a semi-critical edition in The dispute is partially extant in Václav Koranda the Younger, Manualník, ed. by Truhlář, pp. 187–202, as well as in other two manuscripts (Prague, Národní knihovna České republiky, MS  XI C 8 and Prague, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly, MS  N 58). The course of the polemic was reconstructed by Urbánek, Věk poděbradský, iv, pp. 729–35. 2  See on this Rychterová, ‘The Vernacular Theology of Jan Hus’, pp. 170–213. 1 

14 Introduction

the 1920s, and Jan Příbram’s Books on Great Tribulations, which lacks any treatment altogether, although both works may be regarded as crucial for the understanding of the development of Hussite vernacular theology in the first half of the fifteenth century. Only the oeuvre of Petr Chelčický, has been treated analytically.3 The vernacular works of the administrator of the Hussite church, Jan Rokycana and Václav Koranda the Younger though partially edited, have been used mainly in research into the history of the movement.4 In the present volume, the Czech works of these authors are not included because of their complexity and scale. Resorting to existing literary-historical and historical narratives would be unavoidable. Vernacular Hussite texts have been repeatedly used to affirm historical and literary-historical meta-narratives, mainly nationalistic and pseudo-Marxist ones, appealing to concepts of social organization remote from the Hussite material: A simplified Marxist approach was applied to selected literary sources produced in the time of the Hussite revolt in the first half of the fifteenth century. The strong anticlerical rhetoric present in a high number of extant texts allowed a seemingly plausible interpretation of medieval roots of the class struggle. The undisputable ‘Czech’ character of the Hussite movement and especially recurrent spectacular victories of Czech-speaking adherents of the reform over the (mainly German-speaking) crusaders in the 1420s and 1430s offered a perfect material for an identification narrative which has not lose its power till today. Although the internationalization of Czech Hussite studies in the 1960s successfully prevented their petrification by pseudo-Marxist interpretation and provided innovative theoretical as well methodological inputs, religious texts produced in Czech in this context remained largely marginalized, confined to Czech literary studies and philology both lacking international scholarly networks and struggling, as they still do, to counter prevailing nationalistic and vulgar Marxist models. So scholarly treatment of the given material has never made any headway. Many of the Czech religious and theological texts do not have any personal ‘history’, quoted mainly to illustrate preconceived judgements about their role in the development of Czech language, identity, and literary production. By contrast, this volume aims to provide materials for a future history of the Hussite vernacular theology and to contribute to the transformation of the scholarly narrative(s) about the Hussite movement by including works of vernacular religious 3  See especially the more recent research and editorial effort of Jaroslav Boubín, whose work is crucial for a better understanding of this particular material. 4  See on these works Rychterová, ‘Preaching, the Vernacular, and the Laity’ (forthcoming).

Introduction

15

e­ ducation among the most important source material; formulating an analytical approach, which this volume aims to do, is vital. The material presented in this volume covers the second half of the fourteenth century to the first half of the sixteenth beginning with the so called Hussite ‘forerunners’ including the Austrian Augustinian canon and preacher Conrad Waldhauser. Fourteenth-century Prague was a city where two vernaculars were present – Czech and German. The starting point of David Mengel’s article is a passage of Waldhauser’s Postilla studentium sanctae Pragensis universitatis, in which textual elements have been identified, referring to the act of singing in three different languages during the celebration of Easter. This evidence raises the question of the practice of multilingualism in the parishes of Prague during the pre-Hussite period. The survey of primary sources provides an insight into the practical use of and the relation between Czech, German, and Latin as an act of collective participation in liturgical performance. The study of Martin Dekarli provides a typology of manuscript traditions of the works by John Wyclif in late-medieval Bohemia, understood as a product of late-medieval ruminatio or réécriture, a concept focusing on the individual reading and reproduction of texts. Conceiving the act of translation as a political undertaking, Dekarli concentrates on the reception of Wyclif ’s works in the context of the Bohemian Reformation, paying particular attention to the only extant medieval translation of the Dialogus in the Czech vernacular, ascribed to Jakoubek of Stříbro, which is analysed from a literary-critical perspective with regard to the authoritative character of John Wyclif ’s oeuvre. Pavel Soukup’s analysis focuses on a hitherto unedited and understudied Latin postil by Jan Hus, the so-called Puncta, composed at the beginning of the fifteenth century. A detailed comparative study of the relevant manuscript variants and fragments mirrors the processes of linguistic modification and transformation of Hus’s sermons, which were delivered in Czech but written down in Latin. The author scrutinizes stylistic characteristics of the Puncta, the corpus of its sources, and the preservation of, predominantly paratextual, vernacular materials in the text. The methodological limits of reconstructing the oral delivery of Hus’s preaching are also discussed in the essay. The Tabule veteris et novi coloris, a propagandistic and very popular work among the Hussite reformers by Nicholas of Dresden, contrasting the Apostolic and the Roman Church, and its Czech adaptation from the turn of the fifteenth and to the sixteenth century have attracted considerable scholarly attention. Nonetheless, several central aspects of this text have been neglected so far. Petra Mutlová’s study is devoted to the structural analysis

16 Introduction

of the Tabule in the context of the manuscript transmission of Latin and Czech versions; special emphasis has been placed on a comparison of the different Latin and vernacular versions significantly varying from each other, enhanced with a broader view of related sources. Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil was composed in the most precarious period of conflict in the Bohemian reform movement and represents his first and only complete compilation of sermons in the Czech language. From a philological perspective, Jan Odstrčilík pursues a detailed analysis of the only almost complete Latin translation of the Czech Sunday Postil, preserved in a manuscript in Brno. Besides the context of transmission, the author analyses the multilingual characteristics of the translation, with a particular focus on linguistic phenomena. The essay offers a first discussion of methodological problems of research into multilingual sermons. Master Andrzej of Dobczyn is an outstanding proponent of religious reforming ideas formulated in the Polish vernacular, one of the few supporters of Wycliffite doctrines in fifteenth-century Cracow known by name. Paweł Kras devotes his article to the so-called Song on Wyclif (Pieśń o Wiklefie) transmitted in a letter by Andrzej in 1449 to an unknown feudal lord, which points to the corruption of the Roman Church by praising Wyclif ’s philosophical and ecclesiastical teachings. Considering the intellectual and political framework of Andrzej’s writings, the essay analyses the role of Polish as a medium of religious communication, concentrating on the strategies and consequences of using the vernacular for the dissemination of dissident theological concepts in late-medieval Poland. The prose adaption of the Vitaspatrum in the Czech vernacular may be characterized as a ‘bestseller’ among late-medieval and early-modern Bohemian literature. Nevertheless, due to the lack of a modern edition it has only attracted limited scholarly attention, which explains the motivation for the present study. Jakub Sichálek addresses himself to the translation of the Vitaspatrum written by the Bohemian country nobleman Řehoř Hrubý of Jelení. His essay focuses on the transmission of the manuscripts with a special emphasis on the widely overlooked preface in two different text versions, including a reflection on the ideological and methodological foundation of Řehoř Hrubý’s translation. This leads subsequently to the question of the target group and recipients of the Czech Vitaspatrum among the Catholic and Utraquist readership. The essay of Jiří Černý concentrates on the literary production of the Anabaptist groups in sixteenth-century Moravia. The author investigates early printings of the Nikolsburg reformers Johannes Spittelmaier, Oswald

Introduction

17

Glaidt, and Balthasar Hubmaier, in order to reveal Anabaptist strategies in the creation and promotion of a unifying religious identity. In the setting of the Reformation, the German language appears as an effective means to construct a religious sense of belonging, dissociating itself from those used by other religious denominations. Apart from the ideological significance of using the vernacular, the proponents’ approach to the languages of the Scripture and its translation as well as theoretical reflections on oral communication in the vernacular are considered.

PLURES LINGWAS IN PRAGA NESCIMUS: CONRAD WALDHAUSER ON CZECH AND GERMAN IN FOURTEENTH-CENTURY PRAGUE David C. Mengel

T

ucked at the end of a sermon’s introductory section, a single passage from the collected model sermons of Conrad Waldhauser (d. 1369) first caught my attention many years ago. The text seems to describe the use of vernacular languages in the celebration of Easter in Prague. Waldhauser preached in that city during the reign of Emperor Charles IV (1346–78), a generation before the Czech language figured prominently in the Hussite movement and the associated emergence – as numerous scholars have argued – of something very much like a Czech ‘national’ identity.1 As a German-speaking Augustinian canon who preached in a city of two vernaculars, Waldhauser should have been well placed to describe the roles of the Czech and German languages in Prague parish life. Given how few relevant witnesses survive from this period, the following passage from Waldhauser’s sermon, in a manuscript of his Postilla studentium sanctae Pragensis universitatis in the National Museum in Prague, immediately attracts attention: Sicut dicit ad Philippenses iio, humiliauit se usque ad mortem crucis. Deus eum exaltauit ut omnis lingwa confiteatur quia dominus Ihesus Christus est in gloria patris. Vnde theutunice et bohemice cantate sicut et nos cantamus latine Kryst yst erstanden. Item Bohemycz boh wzemohuczy quia plures ­lingwas nescimus Prage.2

The Czech and German words in particular stand out. Yet the text from this unprinted sermon is rather baffling. On first reading, it seems to describe Šmahel, ‘The Idea of the “Nation” in Hussite Bohemia’, trans. by Samsour, pp. 143–247, pp.  93–197. Šmahel, Idea národa v husitských Čechách. Seltzer, ‘Framing Faith, Forging a Nation’. 2  Waldhauser, Postilla studentium sanctae Pragensis universitatis, Prague, NM, MS  XII E 3 (dated 1378), fol. 120vb. 1 

Pursuing a New Order, Volume II: Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian ­Reformation, ed. by Pavlína Rychterová with the collaboration of Julian Ecker TMT 17.2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 19–52 © DOI 10.1484/M.TMT-EB.5.116597

FHG

20

David C. Mengel

quite specifically a vernacular and multilingual element of the celebration for Easter: ‘Therefore sing in German and Czech, just as we sing in Latin’.3 Puzzling, however, is the presence of the Czech phrase, ‘Buóh všemohúcí’, which means ‘almighty God’ and thus is not simply a translation of the parallel German phrase, ‘Christ ist erstanden’ (‘Christ is risen’). Why, we may wonder? The text furthermore seemed to conclude with a general claim about multilingualism in the city, namely that ‘in Prague we do not know many (or more) languages’. That assertion seems at odds with the preceding references to people singing in German, Czech, and Latin. What, then, does the text mean? What does it tell us about Conrad Waldhauser’s activity in Prague? Is it a clear witness of local religious practice in the city or the region? And does it perhaps offer a rare contemporary evaluation of the extent of Czech and German bilingualism in fourteenth-century Prague? The last two questions especially point to the potential significance of the passage. Historians have long been interested in the interactions between the Czech-speaking and German-speaking inhabitants of Prague, medieval as well as modern.4 Yet specific evidence from the time of Charles IV is sparse. Using indirect and often later sources, historians have nevertheless made some cautious generalizations. The presence of loan words in each language, for example, points to some level of practical bilingualism.5 A study of German-sounding and Czech-sounding names of householders at the start of the fifteenth century confirms Prague’s mixed population. Some areas had more German speakers and others more Czech speakers, but the overall picture is one of intermingling.6 Such evidence contributes to the conventional suggestion that Czechs and Germans co-existed peacefully during the reign of Charles IV, with signs of division between two language communities appearing especially in the decades after the emperor’s death in 1378.7

All the English translations of primary and secondary sources are my own. e.g., Šmahel, ‘The Idea of the “Nation”’, trans. by Samsour; Šmahel, Idea národa; Boháč, ‘Národnostní poměry v zemích České koruny v době předhusitské až do třicetileté války’, pp. 123–32. 5  Skála, ‘Die Entwicklung der Sprachgrenze in Böhmen vom 1300 bis etwa 1650’, pp. 7–20; Skála, ‘Die Entwicklung des Bilinguismus in der Tschechoslowakei vom 13.-18. Jahrhundert’, pp.  69–106; Skála, ‘Vznik a vývoj česko-německého bilingvismu’, pp.  197–207; Skála, ‘Německý jazyk v českých zemích ve 14. století’, pp. 73–84. 6  Mezník, ‘Národnostní složení předhusitské Prahy’, pp. 5–30. 7  e.g., Zerlik, ‘Konrad von Waldhausen (Zu seinem 600. Todestag)’, p. 36. 3  4 

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

21

Whether and when Czechs and Germans began to develop identities rightly called ‘national’ has been a matter of debate.8 Language differences undoubtedly affected the practice of religion in the city. Judging from householder names, all or nearly all parishes included both Czechs and Germans. Inhabitants furthermore were required to attend their geographically-determined parish church.9 Parish communities, in other words, were undoubtedly mixed. The Latin liturgy did not entirely remove the challenges this must have posed because central aspects of parish religion took place in the vernacular languages. Prague synodal statutes from 1343 enjoined local priests to teach lay people the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed in their own languages, using the archdiocese’s approved Czech and German translations.10 How well did this work? We know that not all Prague priests mastered both languages.11 The records of a visitation from 1379/80 reveal the sorts of problems that resulted. Some parishioners ‘unable to speak or confess in Czech’ complained that they lacked anyone to hear their German confessions. Other lay people whose wealthy parish boasted both a parish priest and a preacher complained that they needed an additional, German-speaking preacher so that the parish’s German speakers would not instead visit other churches.12 Some other parishes did hire a ‘Preacher to the Germans’, but no separate Czech preacher. In other words, not all parishes served both their Czechs and Germans well when it came to preaching and hearing confession. The 1391 establishment of Bethlehem Chapel for the purpose of Czech preaching confirms that some contemporaries recognized this as a problem. So does the architectural evidence from the fourteenth and

8  For an especially clear and careful discussion of selecting terms to describe these identities, see Scales, The Shaping of German Identity, pp. 8–15. 9  Priests were specifically instructed to inquire before the celebration of the mass whether any ‘alterius parochianus’ was present, and to expel any that were. See Pražské synody a koncily předhusitské doby, ed. by Polc and Hledíková, p. 138. 10  Ibid., p. 110; cf. 1399 evidence cited by Šmahel: Šmahel, ‘The Idea of the “Nation”’, trans. by Samsour, p. 152, no. 22. 11  Šmahel, ‘The Idea of the “Nation”’, trans. by Samsour, pp. 151–52; Šmahel, Idea národa, p. 27. 12  Protocollum visitationis archidiaconatus Pragensis annis 1379–1382 per Paulum de Janowicz archidiaconum Pragensem, factae, ed. by Hlaváček and Hledíková, p. 78: ‘Item dicit, quod pro maiori parte sunt homines parrochiani dicte ecclesie teotonici, et si plebanus teneret ipsis predicatorem theotonicum, multum alicerentur ad ipsam ecclesiam, sed ex quo non facit, tunc eciam non curant et intrant ecclesias alienas’.

22

David C. Mengel

especially fifteenth centuries that Seth Hindin has used to argue that some Bohemian parishes established separate ‘Czech chapels’.13 Nearly all of this evidence comes from after Charles IV’s reign. For the 1360s, Conrad Waldhauser’s own testimony provides a sense of the practical limits to bilingualism in Prague. Some of those who heard him preach in German did not understand him, as Waldhauser claimed in his defence against accusations brought by a coalition of Prague friars. One of the charges depended on a notary’s testimony about Waldhauser’s preaching. ‘Upon examination’, Waldhauser responded, ‘it was discovered that he was purus Bohemus – and I preached in German’. In other words, Waldhauser claimed that this non-German speaker must have relied on the friars to tell him what to write.14 Waldhauser uses the phrase ‘purus Bohemus’ rather differently from Jerome of Prague in the fifteenth century.15 Here the point is not purity of parentage or nationality, but rather the notary’s inability – or purported inability – to understand German. Waldhauser uses a similar construction elsewhere to refer to the French Master-General of the Dominican Order, Simon of Langres, who for a time led the mendicant opposition to Waldhauser in Prague. The Master-General, he argues, had not formed his own opinion of Waldhauser but had been influenced by his fellow friars, for he was ‘purus Gallicus’ – and thus, the preacher implies, had not been able to understand the German sermons for himself.16 In this case Waldhauser is of course not claiming that the Dominican Master-General was monolingual, but rather that he did not speak German. On yet another occasion, Waldhauser describes a limited ability to understand German in similar terms: ‘One man was a partisan of the friars in the beginning of my preaching in Prague, but is now my good friend. For he was not able to understand me well, since he was Bohemus’.17 This last example testifies both to the existence of bilingualism in Prague parishes and its limits during the reign of  Charles  IV. Hindin, ‘Ethnische Bedeutungen der sakralen Baukunst’, pp. 11–34.   Conrad Waldhauser, Apologia: Prague, NKČR, MS XIV G 17, fol. 49r: ‘Sed mirandum est omnibus lectoribus scripture presentis quod ille publicus notarius de quo hic scribunt cum examinaretur fuit inventus purus Bohemus et ego predicaueram theutunice et scripserat tantum ea que captiosi fratres suggessauerant sibi per quod non modica innotuit insipientia prefatorum fratrum et per consequens illa que scripserat merito fuerunt falsa.’ 15  Šmahel, ‘The Idea of the “Nation”’, trans. by Samsour, p. 176. 16  Conrad Waldhauser, Apologia: Prague, NKČR, MS  XIV G 17, fol.  46r; cf.  Conrad Waldhauser, ‘Apologia Konradi in Waldhausen’, ed.  by Höfler, p.  24, who misreads ‘purus Gallicus’ in the same manuscript as ‘praesens Gallicus’. 17  Conrad Waldhauser, Apologia: Prague, NKČR, MS XIV G 17, fol. 50v. 13  14

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

23

The same man who had struggled to understand Waldhauser’s German sermon later became his ‘good friend’. Such a relationship presumably required the two of them to communicate using one of the two languages, or some combination of both.18 These glimpses of interactions between Czech and German speakers offer a reminder of how much remains unclear about the use of the two vernacular languages in Prague during the reign of Charles IV. This explains my interest in the passage from Waldhauser’s sermon, and provides the context for this essay’s questions about its meaning and significance. To answer each of them, I must also clear away confusion introduced by previous scholars. As I learned soon after reading it, generations of Czech and German scholars already knew this text. As early as 1893, a Czech historian had drawn attention to it.19 Moreover, musicologists such as Zdeněk Nejedlý and František Mužík had carefully worked out what the text said (or seemed to say) about the singing of vernacular religious songs in medieval Prague.20 Yet the historians and musicologists had not fully answered my questions. In fact, they and other scholars who had encountered the text – but not always one another’s scholarship – had made different and even contradictory claims for it. In some cases, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the identities of the scholars themselves influenced their conclusions. The lack of a critical edition or even a complete manuscript list of Waldhauser’s Postilla studentium posed (and poses) another substantial problem. Most scholars have based their conclusions on one or two manuscripts. None saw more than a small fraction of the surviving total. Nor has any discussed these few lines within the context of the sermon itself. And what of Waldhauser’s possible sources? Might the Prague preacher have simply adapted a text describing religious practice in another time and place? That too remained unclear. For these reasons, answering my original four questions has required progress on three fronts: the historiography, the manuscripts, and the text of the sermon itself. I have accordingly compared forty-one manuscript copies of this text, analyzed the differences between the Easter sermons in three related model

Whether Conrad Waldhauser learned enough Czech to converse in that language is not clear, and there is no evidence that Waldhauser ever preached in Czech. 19  Klicman, ‘Zpráva o cestě po knihovnách v Rakousku a Německu, kterou s podporou České Akademie a c. k. ministerstva vyučování za účelem badání o předchůdcích Husových a hnutí husitském vůbec’, p. 65; Loskot, Konrad Waldhauser, p. 106. 20  Nejedlý, Dějiny husitského zpěvu, i, p. 353, ii, pp. 93–95; Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden – Buóh všemohúcí’, pp. 7–45. 18 

24

David C. Mengel

s­ermon cycles attributed to Conrad Waldhauser, made a careful reading of the sermon itself, and finally identified some of Waldhauser’s uncited sources. The results inform my conclusions about what this passage reveals about the use of vernacular languages in Charles  IV’s Prague. They also contribute to the still meagre body of research about Conrad Waldhauser and his model s­ ermons. Czechs and Germans, Medieval and Modern In 1893, a young Czech scholar in Vienna, Ladislav Klicman, introduced this passage from Waldhauser’s Easter sermon into academic discourse when he published a summary of his 1892 tour of ‘Austrian and German’ libraries. Klicman’s three-month journey took him well beyond today’s borders of those two countries, namely to Kraków, Wrocław, Olomouc, Kroměříž, Brno, Znojmo, Český Krumlov, Munich, and Prague. In each place he sought out manuscripts related to Hussite ‘forerunners’. He focused primarily on Conrad Waldhauser and the three other fourteenth-century Prague preachers whom František Palacký had categorized as ‘forerunners of Hussitism’ in his 1846 study.21 Waldhauser had posed something of a conundrum for Palacký, for whom the Hussite movement figured prominently in a story of centurieslong struggles between Czechs and Germans. How could a Germanspeaking Austrian have helped to inspire this quintessentially Czech movement? Palacký formulated a rather strained explanation: through the Austrian canon’s long residence in Prague, his death and burial there, his connection with Charles IV and the Prague archbishop, and his preaching, along with Milíč of Kroměříž, of moral reform, Waldhauser ‘had naturalized himself in Bohemia’.22 Subsequent Czech historians tended to echo Palacký’s equivocation about Waldhauser’s national identity.23 That context helps to explain Klicman’s initial description of Waldhauser’s Easter sermon and how it was received. Klicman, after cataloguing some of the differences he had seen among manuscripts of the Postilla studentium, concluded that: Despite these exceptions, which only prove the rule, I can submit this much: that Waldhauser’s Postilla as a whole has a completely stable form, in which

Jordan, Die Vorläufer des Husitenthums in Böhmen. The other three were Milíč of Kroměříž, Matthias of Janov, and John Štěkna. 22  Jordan, Die Vorläufer des Husitenthums in Böhmen, p. 1. 23  e.g., Loskot, Konrad Waldhauser, p. 7. 21 

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

25

nothing significant was changed in all the different countries in which it appeared, from the Swiss Alps to the Oder, so that for example even manuscripts of well-established German origin have at the end of the sermon for Easter Sunday: ‘Unde theutunice et bohemice cantate dicentes: Boh ­wssemohuczy’.24

Klicman’s clear – but very misleading – assertion quickly developed a powerful legacy. Hynek Hrubý echoed Klicman’s words nearly verbatim in 1901. Three years later the musicologist Zdeněk Nejedlý (1878–1962) cited Hrubý and this single phrase from Waldhauser’s sermon in the first volume of his study of medieval of Czech vernacular religious songs. This monumental work achieved its final, six-volume form in a post-war edition.25 Why did a musicologist take such interest in this sermon passage? Nejedlý, like Klicman and Hrubý before him, would have immediately recognized in Waldhauser’s sermon that ‘Buóh všemohúcí’ and ‘Christ ist erstanden’ are the names of two of the best-known vernacular religious songs of medieval Central Europe.26 They are, in fact, versions of the same Easter song (or Lied), despite the fact that their opening words do not have the same meaning. Both probably originated in the context of Easter liturgical dramas, and their association with the popular celebration of this most important Christian holiday remained strong. ‘Buoh všemohúcí’ was sung, for example, at one of the most notorious Easter events in Prague’s history: the Easter 1389 massacre of local Jews. One Latin account concludes, in a single line of Czech: ‘The Prague people sang “Buoh všemohúcí” as they destroyed the Jews’.27 By the turn of the century, ‘Buoh všemohúcí’ had also become a point of controversy between Czech and German inhabitants of Prague on at least one occasion. In 1399 the German parish priest of Saint Mary before Týn – the same church where Waldhauser was rector three decades earlier – ‘created a controversy between Czechs and Germans by prohibiting the singing of “Buoh všemohúcí” at Easter’. In response, his Czech parishioners cited the priest to the archbishop who subsequently had the priest arrested.28

Klicman, ‘Zpráva o cestě po knihovnách’, p. 65. Hrubý, České postilly, p.  3. Nejedlý, Dějiny předhusitského zpěvu, p.  267; Nejedlý, Dějiny husitského zpěvu, i, p. 353, ii, p. 51, p. 94, pp. 123–25. 26  e.g., Cantiones Bohemicae, ed. by Dreves, p. 99. 27  Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, pp.  18–19, with edition on pp.  32–33; cf.  Newman, ‘The Passion of the Jews of Prague’, p. 8, no. 36. 28  Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, iii, pp. 444–45, no. 7 cites a document in the archive of the city of Prague, which he identifies as number 2445: ‘Anno domini Mill. trecent. nonagesimo 24  25 

26

David C. Mengel

The motivation and final outcome of the episode remain unknown, but the great historian of Prague, Václav Vladivoj Tomek, speculated that the dispute stemmed from a recently-added verse that called upon God to deliver ‘the Czech people’.29 Nine years after that, when Czech vernacular singing was increasingly associated with followers of Jan Hus, the well-established ‘Buoh všemohúcí’ was nevertheless deemed safe for all to sing: in 1408, a Prague archbishop concerned about ‘the opinions of Wyclif ’ prohibited the singing of ‘new songs’, but specifically exempted ‘Buoh všemohúcí’ and three other vernacular Czech religious songs.30 For Nejedlý, then, this sermon cited by Klicman offered unique insight into the mid-fourteenth-century singing of a vernacular Czech song, one which by the end of the century had become a point of controversy between Czechs and Germans. Klicman’s assertion, repeated by Hrubý, that the manuscripts of the Postilla studentium uniformly included ‘Unde theutunice et bohemice cantate dicentes: Boh wssemohuczy’ inspired Nejedlý to elaborate a remarkable theory: since Conrad Waldhauser instructed the mixed sermon audiences to sing only ‘Buoh všemohúcí’, then we must assume that all German vernacular songs were entirely forbidden in Prague churches. Only in this way can we explain that even Waldhauser, a native German, in delivering his German sermons always introduces the Czech ‘Buoh všemohúcí’ and never ‘Christ ist erstanden’. From this it was evident to Nejedlý that, after the German sermon, Waldhauser’s listeners sang – in Czech.31 Nejedlý develops this argument at some length, and repeats it multiple times in the first two volumes of his masterwork.32 He also credits Waldhauser with the liturgical innovation of singing ‘Buoh všemohúcí’ at the moment after the sermon.33 Nejedlý’s claims long remained influential. In a footnote to his

nono in civitate Pragensi in ecclesia beatae virginis ante Laetam curiam plebanus ecclesiae ejusdem fecit rumorem inter Bohemos et Theutunicos, defendendo cantare Bomice “buoh wšemohúcí”; et hoc fuit factum in festo Pascae. Qui plebanus fuit per Boemos citatus ad dominum archiepiscopum et ibidem incarceratus’. 29  Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, iii, pp. 444–45, no. 7; Nejedlý suggested that the politics of the papal schism may have informed this verse, Nejedlý, Dějiny husitského zpěvu, i, pp. 341– 42; For the verse identified by Tomek, see Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, p. 35, no. 14. 30  The two statutes before the one concerning music specifically mention the threat of Wyclif ’s ideas: Pražské synody a koncily předhusitské doby, ed. by Polc and Hledíková, p. 286; Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, pp. 19–20. 31  Nejedlý, Dějiny husitského zpěvu, i, p. 353. 32  e.g., Nejedlý, Dějiny husitského zpěvu, ii, p. 51, p. 94. 33  Nejedlý, Dějiny husitského zpěvu, ii, p. 22.

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

27

1969 study, for instance, František Šmahel cited Nejedlý to support the conclusion that ‘it is known that Conrad Waldhauser taught his German followers to sing [“Buoh všemohúcí”] in Czech (!)’, even as he noted that Stanisław Bylina’s more recent work on Polish manuscripts suggested otherwise.34 Nejedlý’s theory depended on Klicman’s claim, the origin of which remains puzzling. No manuscript cited by Klicman includes the text precisely as he records it, ‘Unde theutunice et bohemice cantate dicentes: Boh wssemohuczy’.35 Some other manuscripts, including manuscripts in cities Klicman visited, do indeed omit ‘Christ ist erstanden’, but all of those also contain a phrase Klicman leaves out: ‘sicut nos cantamus latine’ (e.g., nos 2, 8, 12, 15, 24, and 28 in the list of manuscript variants below). On the other hand, one manuscript Klicman identifies by call signature includes both ‘Buoh všemohúcí’ and ‘Christ ist erstanden’ (no.  10), while three others mention ‘Christ ist erstanden’, but omit ‘Buoh všemohúcí’ (nos 31, 36, and 37). The only evidence supporting Nejedlý’s conclusion proves false. Yet the status of Nejedlý’s scholarship muted later criticism, even by those who must have noticed his errors. Or perhaps the silence was due partly to the status of the author himself. An outspoken Communist Party member who returned to Prague from the Soviet Union after the Second World War, Nejedlý held a series of powerful cultural and political roles in government until 1953; he lived until 1962.36 Even in 1970, František Mužík’s important study of ‘Buoh všemohúcí’ and ‘Christ ist erstanden’ handles Nejedlý’s scholarship gingerly, avoiding direct criticism despite coming to very different conclusions. In contrast, Mužík takes pains to attack the groundbreaking work on the development of ‘Christ ist erstanden’ by the German musicologist Walther Lipphardt. After briefly acknowleding Lipphardt’s contributions, he strongly protests against the German’s (erroneous, but minor) suggestion that Czech scholars such as Nejedlý believed the Czech version of the song to be the original. He furthermore condemns Lipphardt’s failure to read the Czech musicology carefully.37 Once again, the contemporary context may have informed this exchange between scholars. František Mužík (1922–98), a musicologist who served as dean of the Philosophy Faculty

Šmahel, ‘The Idea of the “Nation”’, trans. by Samsour, p.  151, no.  21; Bylina, Wpływy Konrada Waldhausena na ziemiach polskich w drugiej połowie xiv i pierwszej połowie xv wieku. 35  Klicman, ‘Zpráva o cestě po knihovnách’, p. 65. 36  Křesťan, ‘“Poslední husita” odchází’, pp. 9–44. 37  Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, pp. 8–9; cf. Lipphardt, ‘“Christ ist erstanden”’, p. 100. Mužík is referring to Lipphardt. 34 

28

David C. Mengel

of Charles University in Prague in the early 1960s, had like Nejedlý been powerfully affected by the war years. After joining the anti-Nazi movement, he was captured in 1942 and spent the remainder of the war imprisoned in the Buchenwald concentration camp.38 From at least the time of Palacký, it has understandably been impossible to disentagle fully the scholarly discussion of Czechs and Germans in medieval Bohemia from the modern history of Central Europe. Those best placed to write the history have had their own experiences of its legacies.39 Arguments about medieval Germans and Czech often carried contemporary resonances. Scholarship on this brief excerpt from Waldhauser’s Easter sermon seems to confirm this point. Lipphardt and Mužík nevertheless together advanced considerably our understanding of these vernacular Easter songs.40 Both based their conclusions on extensive manuscript research. Lipphardt, to be sure, confined his interest in this article almost exclusively to the origin and liturgical development of the German ‘Christ ist erstanden’. He traced the Easter song from its twelfthcentury connection with the liturical sequence Victimae paschali within the Easter drama Visitatio sepulchri to its later introduction (with or without the sequence) into the Easter liturgy itself. Wherever placed within the liturgy, manuscript instructions often indicate that ‘the people sing’ its German words. Lipphardt also argued that Augustinian canons seem to have played a central role in the song’s spread.41 For his part, Mužík added or corrected details about manuscripts of Czech provenance, which were sparse among the 160 sources Lipphardt listed from the twelfth through sixteenth centuries. Mužík also identified additional manuscript sources. The Czech musicologist furthermore looked beyond ‘Christ ist erstanden’ to study the additional versions of the Easter song that he found in manuscripts. He catalogues six versions – the German and Czech as well as one in Polish and three in Latin – and then discusses the evidence for each in turn. Mužík argues that they shared a similar or even identical tune.42 A brief biography appears on the faculty’s website: [accessed on 3 April 2015]. 39  A good example is the work of the Sudeten German medieval historian Seibt, Deutschland und die Tschechen. 40  See also Lipphardt’s editions of Easter celebrations from across Europe, including Bohemia: Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, ed. by Lipphardt, 9 vols. 41  Lipphardt, ‘“Christ ist erstanden”’, p. 112 and passim. 42  Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, p. 29. 38 

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

29

In contrast to Lipphardt, Mužík refers specifically to Waldhauser’s Easter sermon, and so speaks more directly to this essay’s questions. Indeed, Mužík relies heavily upon this sermon passage, which he knew from eight Latin manuscripts preserved in Prague libraries.43 His article provides an essential context for interpreting the phrase, ‘thus sing in German and Czech as we sing in Latin, “Christ ist erstanden”; likewise, in Czech, “Buóh všemohúcí”’. The text, as Mužík makes clear, here exhorts the sermon’s audience to sing the Czech and German version of the traditional Easter song as the priests sing one of the three Latin versions. Which Latin version? Evidence from one Prague manuscript suggested to Mužík that Waldhauser specifically intended ‘Christus surrexit’, the closest Latin parallel to ‘Christ ist erstanden’.44 This model sermon, in other words, refers to three versions of a medieval Easter song whose complete texts Mužík reconstructed from other fourteenth- and fifteenth-century manuscripts. Their first stanzas appear below: Christ der ist erstanden von der marter alle des sull wir alle fro sein, christ sol vnser trost sein. Kyriel[eis]45 Buoh všemohúcí vstal z mrtvých žádúcí chvalmež boha s veselím tot’ nám [všem písmo velí] [Kyrieleison]46 Krystus surrexit mala nostra texit et quos hic dilexit hos ad celos vexit alleluia47 Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, pp. 11–13, nos 2–7, 11, 12, 15; he also refers to the Olomouc manuscript (no. 34) of a Czech adaptation of the sermon. 44  Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, pp. 23–24. 45  Lipphardt, ‘“Christ ist erstanden”’, p.  101; Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, Codex Claustroneoburgensis 1213 (dated 1325). 46  Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, pp. 22–33; Prague, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly, MS M 29, fol. 143r; the same manuscript also contains a Latin version of this Czech song’s text. 47  Prague, NM, MS XII F 14, fol. 198v (my transcription); cf. Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, p. 13. 43 

30

David C. Mengel

Mužík read the passage as offering instructions on how and when Waldhauser’s listeners should sing during the Easter celebration. This raises further questions of liturgical practice. How are we to imagine that the preacher intended his German- and Czech-speaking parishioners to sing their songs? Should they sing one version after the other, perhaps alternating verses? Or were they instead to sing simultaneously, perhaps joined in Latin by the priests as well? Mužík argued that this passage indicates that the three were sung concurrently.48 For this essay’s purpose, František Mužík’s important article offers a partial answer to the essay’s first question: what does the passage mean? Mužík did not, however, provide any more clarity about its conclusion – ‘quia plures lingwas nescimus Prage’. Does it, then, represent Waldhauser’s general statement about bilingualism in Prague? To answer this, we must turn next to the manuscripts, and to Conrad Waldhauser himself. Manuscripts of Conrad Waldhauser’s Postilla studentium Active in Prague from 1363, Conrad Waldhauser initially preached in German on the square outside the parish church of Saint Gall (Svatý Havel) in Old Town. In 1365, he became the parish priest of the even more prominent Old Town parish of Saint Mary before Týn, where he served until his death in 1369.49 At some point during these six years he prepared his Postilla studentium; the first dated manuscripts survive from the early 1370s.50 As he explains in its prologue, Waldhauser composed it for Prague university students who had begged him to write what they had heard him preach ‘to the people’. Both the nature of the text and the proliferation of copies complicate its interpretation. Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, p. 29. Machilek, ‘Konrad von Waldhausen (Waldhauser)’, pp.  260–68; Loskot, Konrad Waldhauser. 50  Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, Codex Claustroneoburgensis 442 is dated 1372. As Beda Dudík first noticed in 1852, the copy in Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, MS C 261 is dated 1366; this seems to be an error (possibly for 1376). As the modern cataloguer notes, the same colophon refers to Waldhauser (d. 1369) as ‘pie memorie’. Moreover, the person who bought the book in Prague was known to have studied law there between 1374 and 1378. See Andersson-Schmitt and Hedlund, Mittelalterliche Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Uppsala, pp.  197–98; the earliest copy may be Bad Gandersheim, Stiftsbibliothek zu Gandersheim, MS  248, dated 1370 and described by Härtel, Die Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek zu Gandersheim, pp. 26–27. 48  49 

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

31

First of all, the Postilla studentium comprises a year-long cycle of sermons de tempore intended as a guide and inspiration for aspiring preachers.51 Like other authors of model sermons, Waldhauser made no claim that they are reportationes or even summaries of his actual sermons. In fact, in his prologue Waldhauser encourages his readers to ‘boil down’ the sometimes long model texts with their obscure theological references into a form more palatable to their audiences. Therefore the Postilla studentium sermons represent neither direct Latin translations of Waldhauser’s popular German sermons nor scripts to be read verbatim by other preachers. (Historians have repeatedly asserted that Waldhauser preached in Latin to university students, evidently on the basis of the same prologue, but the text supports no such conclusion.)52 Like other model sermon collections, the Postilla studentium served as a practical handbook that copyists felt free to adapt, excerpt, or rework. Secondly, the number of surviving manuscripts from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries both provides strong evidence of the collection’s popularity and makes the prospect of a critical edition daunting. Even the number of surviving copies remains unknown. Josef Tříška printed the most extensive list of Waldhauser’s known works and manuscripts in 1969, but it is far from complete.53 My own working list includes more than two hundred manuscripts, of which approximately one hundred contain at least significant portions of the Postilla studentium.54 Dozens more contain one or another group of sermons adapted from the Postilla studentium, including numerous copies of a sermon cycle that Tříška called Excerpta postille.55 Much basic work remains before a fuller picture of the textual and manuscript situation can be drawn.

On the genre, see Wenzel, ‘Sermon Collections and Their Taxonomy’, pp. 7–21. Prague, NKČR, MS  V B 18, fol.  1r; Prague, NM, MS  XII E 3, fol.  1r. Seton-Watson transcribed and translated the prologue from Manchester, John Rylands University Library, MS Lat. 448, fol. 1r: Prague Essays, pp. 143–45. 53  Tříška, ‘Příspěvky k středověké literární universitě’, pp. 18–21. 54  These include several manuscripts that were known in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries but have since been lost or destroyed. 55  Tříška, ‘Příspěvky k středověké literární universitě’, p. 19; Schneyer identified this adaptation as ‘Series 1’ in Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit von 1150– 1350, i, ed.  by Schneyer, pp.  792–97. Tříška, ‘Příspěvky k středověké literární universitě’, p.  19; Schneyer identified this adaptation as ‘Series 1’: Repertorium, i, ed.  by Schneyer, pp. 792–97; Machilek follows Tříška in categorizing Waldhauser’s works: Machilek, ‘Konrad von Waldhausen (Waldhauser)’, pp. 260–68. 51  52 

32

David C. Mengel

Most of that extends well beyond the scope of this essay. However, it is important to determine whether the same passage about the Easter songs appears in the adapted sermon cycles. No comparison of sermons from multiple adaptations has ever been printed. For that reason I have made an initial comparison of the Easter sermons in four Prague manuscripts: two of the Postilla studentium, one of the so-called Excerpta postille, and one of another abbreviated adaptation of the same sermon cycle.56 The varying lengths immediately reveal that both adaptations omit the majority of the original sermon. The Postilla studentium sermon for Easter fills approximately twentytwo manuscript columns, of which the first four include the protheme.57 In comparison, the two independent adaptations are each approximately onequarter the length, covering less than six columns each of similarly sized folia. The Excerpta postille includes a very brief protheme filling half a column, but one that does not share the original sermon’s incipit; rather than beginning with the same Gospel pericope, it picks up the original text a few lines later. After the protheme, the Excerpta postille selects, paraphrases, and summarizes text from the full Easter sermon. It also includes quotations from authorities that are not drawn from the original sermon, or at least not from the same part of the original. After reaching the midpoint of the model sermon, this manuscript of the Excerpta postille becomes still more selective before ending with a series of brief conclusions.58 The second adaptation proceeds very differently. It begins with the same Gospel pericope as the Postilla studentium sermon itself: ‘Maria Magdalene et Maria Jacobi et Salomee etc’. (That makes it easy for manuscript cataloguers to confuse this adaptation with the longer original.) After the pericope, however, it omits the protheme entirely. From there the text follows the order of the original sermon, skipping inconsistent amounts of text, from one sentence to as much as three columns.59 This brief comparison illustrates the malleability of Waldhauser’s model sermon cycle, just as one would expect for this genre. The Postilla studentium was a practical text, and copyists did not hesitate to adapt or abbreviate it. It furthermore confirms that we can safely exclude from our consideration these manuscripts of adaptations – more than three dozen of them, by my

Prague, NM, MS XII E 3 and Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11 (Postilla studentium); Prague, NKČR, MS VIII C 17 (Excerpta postille); Prague, NKČR, Cod. VII D 9 (another adaptation). 57  Schneyer labels Easter as T28, and this Easter sermon as Waldhauser’s Series 1 no. 109: Repertorium, i, ed. by Schneyer, p. 801. 58  Prague, NKČR, MS VIII C 17, fols 92ra–93rb. 59  Prague, NKČR, MS VII D 9, fols 101ra–02rb. 56 

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

33

estimation; neither the Excerpta postille nor the other abbreviated version considered here includes the protheme’s passage about the Easter songs. What about Klicman’s claim that the manuscripts of the Postilla studentium otherwise preserve a very stable text? Apart from the abbreviated adaptations, many manuscripts of the Postilla do maintain a general consistency, with common incipits and explicits for each sermon that a particular manuscript includes. Numerous copies include sermons from the entire liturgical year, covering more than two hundred folia. Many others include either the winter or the summer half of the cycle. More recent manuscript catalogues are nevertheless slowly confirming that even some of the ostensibly complete cycles omit sermons here and there. What about textual variants among copies of the entire Postilla studentium? The passage from the Easter sermon about singing provides an excellent test. Manuscripts of the Postilla studentium routinely include the passage, but my survey demonstrates that the words vary considerably – far more than has been noticed before. Klicman’s misleading conclusion about the stability of the text of the Postilla studentium can also now be fully set aside, along with Nejedlý’s assertion that Waldhauser taught his Germanspeaking listeners to sing in Czech. We should also question other claims that have been made about Waldhauser based on a handful of copies of the same Easter sermon. These include Karl Richter’s conclusions that ‘the national distinction had no significance’ for Waldhauser, that he endeavoured to increase lay p­ articipation in the divine office, and that he championed vernacular religious songs against the objections of church authorities.60 Before making any new conclusions, however, the variants should be allowed to speak for themselves. For the purpose of analysis, the passage can be divided into two parts: (1) the list of languages and song titles; and (2) the enigmatic conclusion about multiple languages in Prague. My survey now includes forty-one manuscripts. Most I have seen myself, while several more have been described in print by others. The list admittedly remains incomplete. Judging from the descriptions in manuscript catalogues, I  estimate that seventeen additional copies likely contain the same passage; another seventeen, catalogued more perfunctorily, may also contain it. (Several other manuscripts known in the nineteenth or twentieth century have since been lost or destroyed.) Therefore the list of variants below likely represents approximately two-thirds of the surviving copies – more than enough, I submit, to justify the conclusions I will offer. 60 

Richter, ‘Konrad Waldhauser’, p. 173.

34

David C. Mengel

A comparison of the languages and song titles mentioned suggests first of all that many copyists seem to have taken to heart Waldhauser’s invitation to adapt individual sermons. Dated 1378, the National Museum manuscript quoted at the opening of this essay (no. 18) contains one of the most extensive versions, which of course does not necessarily justify Mužík’s assumption that it was Waldhauser’s original form.61 It mentions singing in all three languages and includes the initial words of the two corresponding vernacular Easter songs. By contrast, the earliest (1372) dated manuscript that I have seen, now in Klosterneuburg, differs substantially from most of the others: it uses the future tense ‘cantabimus’ rather than ‘cantamus’ and also includes more of both the German and Czech song texts than other copies (6). Vnde Theotunici et Bohemice cantate sicud nos cantabimus latine, ‘Crist ist erstanden von des todes panden’, etc. Item bohemice ‘buech sweochmochueczii w stal’. Quia plures lingwas in Praga nescimus.62

Other examples show various permutations. The majority of manuscripts refer to singing in all three languages – German, Czech, and Latin – but several omit one of the three. Many copyists leave out the Czech song title, ‘Buoh všemohúcí’ (nos 3, 14, 19, 20, 27, 30, 33, 35–41); others omit ‘Christ ist erstanden’ (nos 2, 8, 10, 15, 16, 24, and 28); three include only the title of the Latin song ‘Christus surrexit’ (nos 7, 9, and 17). At least one scribe may have had trouble copying the German vernacular words (no. 22); some certainly struggled with the Czech words (nos 1, 11, and 23). No manuscript includes all six elements – namely, the names of the three languages plus all three song titles. One includes both the first and second lines of the German and Latin songs (no. 31); another simply names the Latin song along with instructions to sing ‘in [your] mother tongue’ (no. 17). A Wrocław manuscript names ‘Christ is erstanden’ before adding ‘and in Czech, according to their language, and so forth in other languages’ (no. 38). One specifies that the singing should be ‘with great voice and devout heart’ (no. 20). These variants evidently include both intentional adaptations and scribal errors. The same can be said for the second part of the passage, in which the name of Prague appears as ‘plaga’ rather than ‘Praga’ in two cases (nos 1 and 21).63 A few other manuscripts replace ‘Prague’ in the last line with

Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, p. 15. Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, Codex Claustroneoburgensis 442, fol.  103vb; for this alternative line, ‘von den todes banden’, see Lipphardt, ‘“Christ ist erstanden”’, p. 101. 63  The copyist of no. 11 seems to have written ‘raga’ but the text was later corrected to ‘Praga’. 61  62 

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

35

the name of another city, such as ‘Crumlaw’ (no. 22) (Český Krumlov) or ‘Kunštat’, (no. 25) or with ‘among Bohemians’ (no. 16) or ‘among Germans’ (nos 3 and 19). The great majority, however, identify Prague as the place in question. This leads us back to the meaning of the phrase. Most often the words of the passage are the same or very similar to ‘quia plures lingwas in Praga nescimus’ (e.g., nos 6 and 8). What does it mean, and why is the phrase there? It evidently functions as an explanation, even a gloss, to the preceding passage. Did Waldhauser feel the need to justify this striking passage to the university students reading his sermon, knowing that many of them would later need to decide whether to mimic this practice in their own parishes? Or might it even be a later addition, a copyist’s attempt to explain what seemed perplexing in his exemplar? Some copies, including the fourteenth-century manuscript (no. 17) that refers to singing in one’s ‘mother tongue’ rather than in Czech or German, omit the explanatory phrase entirely. Nevertheless, nearly all manuscripts do contain it; it seems best to assume that it was original or at least very early in the textual transmission. Do the manuscript variants themselves reveal what the phrase means? Nearly all contain the multivalent word ‘lingua’, the interpretation of which is key to understanding the meaning. In medieval Latin the same word could mean tongue, language, and even nation.64 For Czech readers, that association between tongue – ‘jazyk’ in Czech – and nation seems to have become even stronger in the early fifteenth century, when many of the manuscripts of the Postilla studentium were copied.65 Yet surely here ‘lingua’ refers primarily to ‘language’, not ‘nation’, not least because one of the linguae is the Latin of the clerics. That brings us to ‘nescimus’, which might at first seem a scribe’s unfortunate misreading. But nearly every manuscript agrees. If correct, how then does this ‘quia’ phrase explain why Waldhauser offers instructions to sing in Czech, German, and Latin? ‘Because in Prague we are ignorant of multiple languages’? Surely, it does not mean that. Despite the relative paucity of other evidence, we can be sure that Prague residents heard more than one language every day. Does it instead mean that most were monolingual, and only able to sing in either German or Czech? Is that what this tantalizing text is telling us, that in Prague ‘we are not multilingual’? This solution is tempting, not least because it would allow this text to speak directly to a broader question that historians want to answer: was Czech-German Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus, ed. by Niermeyer. e.g., Šmahel, ‘The Idea of the “Nation”’, trans. by Samsour, pp. 191–92; Seltzer, ‘Framing Faith, Forging a Nation’, p. 263.

64  65 

36

David C. Mengel

b­ ilingualism the rule or the exception in Charles  IV’s Prague? With this reading, this model sermon might be seen to indicate a Prague population divided by linguistic identity. Tempting, yes; but not convincing. The passage also seems to have stymied some medieval readers. This may include the author of a Czech adaptation of twenty-two sermons from the Postilla studentium, including the sermon for Easter. His Czech version renders the phrase in this way: ‘because we do not have multiple languages in Prague, we sing Buóh všemohúcí’, as if asserting that Czech was the city’s only vernacular language.66 The phrase can be understood similarly in Latin copies that mention singing only in either German or Czech. That might suggest that in the original text, the phrase explains that the locals sing in a single language because they only have one vernacular language. Yet for Prague in the fourteenth century, that meaning would clearly be false. Another Latin version (7) seems to take this lack of linguistic knowledge in Prague as reason to dispense with audible singing entirely. ‘Since we do not know many languages in Prague’, it offers, ‘let us direct our minds to God and sing silently to ourselves’ (plus corde quam ore). Yet none of these outlying variants has a strong claim to being the original version. Instead they together testify that the phrase may have confused even some of its first readers. One other version unfortunately falls into the same category. A manuscript from Vorau on first glance seems to solve the problem with the change of a single vowel: ‘quia plures lingwas in Praga noscimus’. This reading fits very well into the passage, explaining the trilingual singing by claiming that ‘we have learned’, ‘we are acquainted with’, or perhaps even that ‘we speak’ multiple languages in Prague. Rather than asserting unintelligibility, ‘noscimus’ allows the text to assert linguistic diversity. Sadly, no other text has the same reading. And text editors would remind us to heed the principle, lectio difficilior potior. However counter-intuitive, we should probably assume that ‘noscimus’ was simply another confused scribe’s attempt to deal with this difficult passage. ‘Nescimus’ it is. The manuscript survey therefore provides us a good understanding of the range of textual variants as well as confirmation that its meaning confounded some copyists. It does not, however, provide a complete answer to the first question this essay posed: what does the passage mean? For that, a closer look at text of the sermon’s protheme is necessary.

Staročeské zpracování Postily studentů svaté university pražské Konráda Waldhausera, ed. by Šimek, p. 3.

66 

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

37

The Sermon Text No comprehensive study of Conrad Waldhauser’s Postilla studentium has ever been published. František Loskot came the closest in the fifteenpage overview of the sermon cycle near the end of his 1909 book, which remains the only book-length biography of Waldhauser. Loskot even briefly mentions passages drawn from the cycle’s Easter sermon. He also offers some generalizations about Waldhauser’s use of sources. This was extensive. At times, Loskot notes, the sermons read like little more than a chain of quotations from the Bible and other authorities. Cited sources included fathers of the Church such as Augustine and Gregory as well as ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Seneca.67 A very substantial portion of the sermons, then, is derivative. This character can be seen quite clearly in František Šimek’s 1947 edition of the Czech adaptation of the Postilla studentium sermons, which survives in a single manuscript. As Šimek rightly insisted, it is important not to treat the Czech text as a simple translation of Waldhauser’s longer Latin original. Clues from the text identify its anonymous author as a Czechspeaking secular priest writing in Prague shortly after 1378.68 Nevertheless, the two texts share many characteristics. Most of the sources identified in Šimek’s edition are also in Waldhauser’s Latin sermons. Especially prominent is the preacher’s heavy but entirely unacknowledged dependence on Thomas Aquinas’s Catena aurea, a popular medieval text that arranges brief passages from patristic and other commentaries according to Bible verse. Rather than drawing quotations of Augustine directly from the late antique author’s original works, for example, the sermons often reproduced them from the Catena aurea. Some of the Czech-language sermons, Šimek notes, do little more than weave together authorities selected from Aquinas’s collection. The Czech version of the Easter sermon is a good example of this.69 The same, I have confirmed, is true of the main body of the longer Latin version of the same sermon. That does not seem to be the case, however, for the protheme of the Latin sermon for Easter, which concludes with the passage about Easter songs. Its text and sources deserve a careful reading, for they provide context critical for understanding the meaning of this concluding passage. (For the following quotations, I will refer especially to two manuscripts now available Loskot, Konrad Waldhauser, pp. 94–109. Staročeské zpracování Postily, ed. by Šimek, pp. VII–VIII. 69  Staročeské zpracování Postily, ed. by Šimek, p. XII, pp. 3–10. 67  68 

38

David C. Mengel

in digitized form through the ‘Manuscriptorium’ project).70 The protheme begins in the standard way, with the day’s Gospel pericope: ‘“Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James and Salome”, as is written in Mark, Chapter 16’. Then immediately it introduces the protheme’s dominant motif, echoing the words of Psalm 118, ‘today – above all other days – is the day that the Lord has made, just as our mother Church sings, in which we should exult with great spiritual joy’.71 Easter’s unique status within the Christian calendar calls for special observances, the protheme repeatedly affirms. Rejoicing is in order, including through song. ‘Since, just as the church sings, heaven and earth should rejoice at the resurrection of Christ, so therefore at this time [the Church] demonstrates its joy spiritually by repeating, “Alleluia”. Therefore we ought to rejoice in the Lord today’.72 Repeatedly the sermon alludes to specific elements of the Easter celebration. These include the day’s liturgy. Waldhauser refers, for example, to ‘today’s introit’ and the ‘today’s procession’.73 Regularly he explains what makes particular liturgical elements appropriate for this feast day. In one place he connects the singing of a particular Easter sequence to heaven’s joy on Easter day. That joy, he explains, was manifested through the shining of the sun – a detail mentioned in the day’s gospel reading from Mark – after it had been covered in shadow since the crucifixion. ‘For this reason today the church sings “lucet clarius hodie sol et luna morte christi turbida”’.74 Here Waldhauser presumes that the clerical readers of this model sermon will recognize this Latin verse about the shining sun from the Easter sequence, ‘Post haec mira miracula’.75 Waldhauser also describes Easter observances outside of the liturgy. For example, he asserts that on Easter, the most solemn of all solemn occasions (solempnitas solempnitatum), people should not eat anything that has not been blessed by a priest, ‘so on this day things to be eaten are brought to the church

[accessed on 1 April 2015]; Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11; Prague, NM, MS XII E 3. 71  Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145ra; Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 119vb. 72  Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145va; Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 120rb. 73  Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145ra–b; Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 120ra. 74  Ibid. 75  Waldhauser, ‘Cantiones Vissegradenses’, ed. by Dreves, p. 166: ‘Post haec mira miracula | taliaque facta  | crucifigi non despexit  | sponte sua bona,  | mortem devastando  | Et vitam parando.  | Lucet clarius sol luna  | morte jam turbida  | tellus, volucres nunc plaudent  | Christo resurgenti  | Quae tremula ejus  | Morte sunt casura  | Ergo die nunc jam isto  | Omnes concinamus, | Quo nobis viam resurgens | Patefecit Jesus. [Tropus] Astra, sol, luna jucundentur, | Et cuncti laetentur | Chori spiritales | Deo decantantes’ (emphasis added). 70 

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

39

and blessed’.76 In some regions, he later adds, ‘wives strike their husbands on the second day after Easter, whereas on the third day husbands strike their wives’. In this way each partner reminds the other not to demand the marriage debt ‘for at least three days before and three or five or seven days afterwards’.77 Waldhauser also reaches back into history to illustrate Easter’s significance. Gregory the Great, he recounts, organized a procession in Rome ‘after Easter’ in which a miraculous image of the Blessed Virgin painted by Saint Luke himself was borne around the city to dispel an outbreak of the plague.78 Waldhauser employs these examples to illustrate the unique character of Easter and the celebrations that mark it. The faithful abstain from eating unblessed food, they avoid intercourse, and in some cases the saints perform miracles. Neither this theme nor these particular examples are unique to Waldhauser. Many authors before and after Waldhauser – including Jan Hus – explicated the liturgy in their sermons or other writings.79 Among the best known of such works was the thirteenth-century Rationale divinorum officiorum of William Durand the Elder of Mende, of which multiple fourteenth-century manuscripts survive in Prague libraries.80 Waldhauser seems to have known Durand’s famous commentary well. Indeed, the Rationale divinorum officiorum was evidently the source for Waldhauser’s stories of the miraculous Roman procession, the blessing of Easter food, and the married couples’ memorable violence described above. Other passages in common suggest that Waldhauser borrowed heavily from Durand’s famous thirteenth-­ century liturgical commentary. Periodically throughout the protheme, he echoes verbatim its interpretations of scripture and the liturgy as well as its descriptions of these evocative practices.81 Waldhauser does not follow the earlier commentary’s structure or order, however, but rather mines it for relevant nuggets. He never cites the French bishop or his commentary by name, just as he borrows elsewhere from the Catena aurea without mentioning ­Aquinas. This failure to cite more recent medieval sources, and especially

Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145rb; Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 120ra–b. Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145rb–va; Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 120rb. 78  Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145vb; Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 120va. 79  Marin, ‘Les usages de la liturgie dans la prédication de Jean Hus’, pp. 45–75. 80  Marin, ‘Les usages de la liturgie dans la prédication de Jean Hus’, p. 51; on commentaries see Guillelmi Duranti Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, ed. by Anselme Davril and Timothy M. Thibodeau, on the liturgy see Franz, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter. 81  Guillelmi Duranti Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, ii, ed. by Anselme Davril and Timothy M. Thibodeau, p. 442, p. 444, p. 445, p. 447, pp. 456–57, p. 458, p. 461, pp. 462–63. Book VI. 86–89. 76  77 

40

David C. Mengel

those that collect previous authorities, is typical of late medieval authors. It also, of course, raises the possibility that Waldhauser knew the content of Durand’s commentary through an intermediary source. Moreover, there are likely other uncited sources still to be identified. For the present purposes, however, a closer look at Waldhauser’s use of material from the Rationale divinorum officiorum informs a better understanding of the Prague preacher’s own contributions to the sermon, an important step towards interpreting the protheme’s conclusion. Waldhauser undoubtedly contributed some of his own material to the protheme. Durand, for example, had written that ‘in some places’ people have their food blessed on Easter; Waldhauser omitted this qualifier – perhaps because he expected his readers in Prague to know and participate in this practice themselves.82 To Durand’s account of husbands and wives, he adds colorful details that suggest his personal familiarity with the custom: the couples strike one another in the morning, in bed, with switches – or with their hands or fist. Waldhauser further explains that on account of these beatings, people refer in German to this practice as ‘Smekostern’.83 Waldhauser also joins to this a similar example which he identifies as coming from his own experience: ‘And in some lands it is the custom to throw youth who fall asleep at morning matins into the water; I saw this done in Erfurt’.84 Elsewhere in the protheme Waldhauser repeats the same pattern. To Durand’s account of the miraculous icon of the Virgin in Rome, Waldhauser adds his own experience of the same painting. Explaining that on Easter heaven and earth both pass from deep mourning at the crucifixion to great rejoicing at the resurrection, he recounts that: There is a certain image of the Blessed Virgin in Rome at Saint Sixtus, which Saint Luke is said to have painted – and I saw it. On Good Friday it is said to grow pale from the morning to the ninth hour and then to become black, like the face of the dead, until the day of resurrection. But on this day it is drenched with rose colour, as if rejoicing in the resurrection of the Son.85 82  Guillelmi Duranti Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, ii, ed. by Anselme Davril and Timothy M. Thibodeau, p. 444; Book VI. 86. Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145rb; Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 120ra–b. 83  Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145rb–va; cf. Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 120rb: ‘smechk hostu’; cf. Guillelmi Duranti Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, ii, ed. by Anselme Davril and Timothy M. Thibodeau, p. 445; Book VI. 86. 84  Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145rb; Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 120rb. 85  Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145vb; Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 120va; cf. Guillelmi Duranti Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, ii, ed. by Anselme Davril and Timothy M. Thibodeau, pp. 462–63, Book VI. 89.

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

41

Conrad Waldhauser, who visited Rome for the jubilee year in 1350,86 added this story to Durand’s description of the procession of the portrait painted by Saint Luke. Some readers of his sermon likely knew about the portrait, the Madonna of San Sisto. It was among Christendom’s most famous icons, one of three in Rome then believed to have been painted by Saint Luke. Waldhauser might have learned of this painting even before his pilgrimage from one of the versions of the Mirabilia Urbis Romae, which uses the same verb, ‘palescit’, to describe the icon’s colour change.87 The fame of the Madonna preserved by the Dominican nuns at San Sisto had led to the creation of many medieval copies, including the one that the Franciscans of the nearby Aracoeli church in Rome claimed to be the original.88 As Waldhauser quite possibly knew, another copy arrived at Prague Cathedral during the reign of Charles  IV, perhaps carried back after the emperor’s 1355 coronation in Rome. There it became the model for at least two additional paintings that survive – and later a target of Matthias of Janov’s critique of the misuse of holy images.89 In contrast, Waldhauser’s description lacks even a hint of disapproval, despite (like Durand) reporting what ‘is said’ about the icon’s origin rather than directly asserting that Saint Luke painted it. Nor does Waldhauser claim to have witnessed the miraculous transformation personally, only to have seen the painting. On the other hand, he betrays no scepticism of its veracity. Instead he offers the Madonna’s reputed colour change as yet another sign of Easter’s unique character. These examples illustrate Waldhauser’s method and message in the sermon protheme. Drawing from Durand and adding his own related personal experiences, Waldhauser reinforces a central message about Easter: on earth and in heaven, the angels, saints, and people from Conrad Waldhauser, ‘Apologia’, ed. by Höfler, p. 36; Loskot, Konrad Waldhauser, pp. 32–33. Mirabilia Romae, ed.  by Parthey and Kiepert, pp.  56–58; for a discussion and English translation of this and other sources, see Belting, Likeness and Presence, p. 313, pp. 320–23, pp. 537–39; on the complicated history of the Mirabilia, see Nine Robijntje Miedema, Die ‘Mirabilia Romae’, p.  108; the passage about this Madonna icon does not appear in the version edited from a Prague manuscript by Höfler under the title Hec sent Mirabilia Rome quomodo gloriose constructa erat in his Geschichte der Stadt Rom, pp. 35–52, and studied by Češková, ‘Mirabilia urbis Romae a Mirabilia Rome z rukopisu XIV H 33 Národní knihovny v Praze’, pp. 233–40. 88  On the confusion and rivalry between the icons, see Belting, Likeness and Presence, pp. 320–32. 89  Belting, Likeness and Presence, p. 323; Karel IV., císař z Boží milosti, ed. by Fajt and others, pp. 157–58; Prague: The Crown of Bohemia 1347–1437, ed. by Fajt and Boehm, p. 158. See also Matthias of Janov, Matthiae de Janov dicti Magistri Parisiensis Regularum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, ed. by Nechutová, pp. 108–09; for an English translation of this passage from a manuscript copy, see Belting, Likeness and Presence, pp. 539–41. 86  87 

42

David C. Mengel

many lands celebrate this most joyful day of the Christian calendar with special observations. This brings us back to the protheme’s conclusion. Like the anecdotes from Erfurt and Rome, the passage about Easter songs in Prague seems to originate with Waldhauser himself. Durand’s Rationale divinorum officiorum contains no direct parallel. Similarly, Waldhauser again couples his own experience of Easter to the testimony of others. Shortly after describing the San Sisto Madonna, he concludes the protheme with a direct address to his audience: Thus, I promise you that if you will journey along with me today to the font of the history of the Lord’s resurrection […] to the sepulchre of the Lord in Jerusalem, you will be able to accomplish this by thinking devoutly of ‘there’ […] I will lead you to the place where […] we shall hear the happiest songs of joy in the Lord’s resurrection. On the other hand, ‘it would be most disgraceful’, as Gregory the Great says about today’s gospel, ‘if the tongue [lingwa] of flesh were to leave unvoiced the praises that are obligatory on that day on which the author of flesh rose from the dead’.90

Lest human tongues remain silent, that is, this imaginative journey should be accompanied by songs of praise to God, the creator of every tongue. The quotation from Gregory the Great comes from his Easter homily, part of his influential collection of gospel homilies. This was an obvious source of inspiration for any preacher writing a sermon on the same gospel passage.91 Following immediately in the protheme is the passage cited at the start of this essay, in which Waldhauser quotes from Philippians that ‘every tongue (lingwa) should confess’ Christ’s place with God the Father and then exhorts his audience to sing in Czech, German, and Latin.

Prague, NKČR, MS I D 11, fol. 145vb–ra: ‘vnde ego promitto uobis quod si deuote hodie mecum ad fontem hystorie dominice resurrectionis spaciatum iueritis scilicet peregrinando et transeundo mecum in Iherusalem ad sepulchrum domini per mare omnis amaritudinis et omnis tribulacionis nostre quod benefacere potestis deuote ibi cogitando, quia sicut Augustinus magis ibi “ibi est anima ubi amat, quam ubi animat,” ego ducam uos ubi pulcherrimos dominos celica ueste uestitos et de terra longinqua dignos hospites et pulchras dominas et castas similiter inveniemus et letissima carmina de gaudio dominice resurrectionis audiemus. “Indignum,” autem “valde est,” ut dicit Gregorius in ewangelio hodierna, “ut ea die laudes debitas taceat lingwa carnis qua caro resurrexit auctoris,” quia enim sicut christo dicit ad Phil. 2 “humiliavit se usque ad morte crucis, deus autem exaltauit ut omnis lingwa confiteatur quia dom inis ihesus christus est in gloria patris. Vnde deotunice et boemice cantate sicut et nos cantamus Latine Crist yst erstanden bohemice swuczi mechuczi quia plures lingwas in Praga nescimus”’; cf. Prague, NM, MS XII E 3, fol. 120va–b. 91  Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Evangelia, ed. by Étaix, p. 174 (Book II. 21). 90 

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

43

After that comes the final, enigmatic phrase: ‘quia plures lingwas nescimus Prage’, which repeats the word lingua for the third time in consecutive phrases. In modern English, it seems natural to translate the first two instances of the word as ‘tongue’ but the third as ‘language’: ‘the tongue of flesh’ (Gregory), ‘let every tongue confess’ (Paul), ‘many languages’. But Paul’s letter to the Philippians also makes sense when the word is rendered as ‘language’: ‘let every language confess’. Then it echoes the passage about Pentecost in the Acts of the Apostles, which recounts that each person from ‘every nation’ (ex omni natione) heard people speaking ‘in his own language’ (sua lingua).92 Interpreted in that way, the protheme’s concluding assertion finally becomes clear. So we can translate the passage as follows: It would be most disgraceful […] if the tongue [lingwa] of flesh were to leave unvoiced the praises that are obligatory on that day on which the author of the flesh rose from the dead’. For just as the letter to the Philippians, chapter two, says about Christ […] God […] exalted him so that every language [lingwa] should confess that Jesus Christ the Lord is in Father’s glory. For that reason, sing in German and in Czech just as we sing in Latin, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, and in Czech ‘Buoh všemohúcí’, for we do not know more languages [lingwas] in Prague.93

Understood in this way, both the passage from Philippians and the singing enjoined by Conrad Waldhauser foreshadow Pentecost. Let us sing in all of the languages, the preacher exhorts, or at least as many languages as our community knows. In Prague during the reign of Charles  IV, that means Czech, German, and the Latin of the clerics – ‘for we do not know any additional languages in Prague’. Conclusion Considered in context, the meaning of the protheme’s conclusion now seems painfully obvious.94 (I take some solace in the fact that at least some medieval readers also struggled to interpret the text correctly.) This essay’s first

Acts of the Apostles 2. 5–6, Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. by Weber and others, p. 1699: ‘erant autem in Hierusalem habitantes Iudaei viri religiosi ex omni natione quae sub caelo sunt, facta autem hac voce convenit multitudo et mente confusa est quoniam audiebat unusquisque lingua sua illos loquentes’. 93  The text offers a new translation of the same Latin passage quoted in note 90. 94  Ryba offered the same interpretation that ‘only two [vernacular] languages are known in Prague’, cf. Ryba, ‘Dalši rukopis Waldhauserovy Postily’, p. 10. 92 

44

David C. Mengel

question about the passage’s meaning now has a clear answer. We can also offer answers to the remaining questions, although less definitive ones. The entire protheme does reveal more about Conrad Waldhauser’s writing than previously known. In at least this model sermon, he intersperses citations from authorities with passages drawn without attribution from Durand’s commentary on the liturgy. To these he adds specific references to the Easter liturgy as well as to his personal accounts of Easter celebrations in Erfurt, Rome, and Prague. We should remain more cautious with conclusions about Waldhauser’s own practice or the local practice in Prague parishes. To have been understandable, the original form of Waldhauser’s model sermon must have included at least one of the song titles; given the language in which Waldhauser preached, ‘Christ ist erstanden’ was almost certainly identified. The original passage probably also included the Czech title, but I suspect that the Latin may have been added by a few later copyists.95 Whichever titles were included, the meaning of the passage confirms that Waldhauser’s original form mentioned singing in German, Czech, and Latin. The context demands it. Multilingual singing – not vernacular singing in a single language – was the proper response to the apostle’s call for ‘every language’ to rejoice in the resurrection of Christ. Similarly, the majority of manuscripts mentions all three languages. We can therefore be confident that Waldhauser was familiar with all three versions of the Easter song. Furthermore, we can posit that they were well known to his audience; Waldhauser expected a brief reference to each song to be sufficient for Prague university students to understand his meaning. Moreover, the manuscripts confirm that one or both vernacular versions were recognized by nearly everyone who copied and adapted the passage in the subsequent decades. Did Waldhauser also introduce the practice of singing one or both vernacular versions in church after the sermon, as Nejedlý claimed?96 This passage by no means provides evidence for this claim. What about Mužík’s conclusions, that Waldhauser’s sermon provides the best evidence that the Czech and German songs shared a single tune and that both versions were sung along with the sermon (after the protheme?) rather than as a part of the Easter liturgy?97 Or Mužík’s further speculation that the three versions Ryba notes the impossibility of determining whether Waldhauser or a later copyist introduced the Czech song’s title, ibid. 96  See above, note 33. 97  Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, pp. 29–30. 95 

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

45

might have been sung simultaneously, given the different number of stanzas? We should remember that Mužík’s conclusions and speculations all follow Nejedlý’s assumption that the protheme contains instructions meant to be carried out by sermon listeners at or near that moment: sing now, or perhaps after the entire sermon, in Czech and German while we priests sing in Latin. The imperative verb cantate in most of the manuscripts is certainly consistent with this assumption. Yet the nature of the text itself leaves ample room for doubt. As a written model sermon addressed to future preachers, the conclusion of the protheme did not necessarily reflect what Waldhauser himself ever spoke. The context adds further reason to doubt. Throughout the protheme Waldhauser offers examples to reinforce his central message that the celebration of Easter should be manifested in special forms of rejoicing. Singing the vernacular Easter songs certainly belongs among those, as do the observances he describes witnessing in Erfurt and Rome as well as other elements from the Easter liturgy, including the introit and the procession. The exhortation to multilingual singing itself represents Waldhauser’s clever response to the quotations from Gregory the Great and Paul’s letter to the Philippians: they tell us to rejoice in every language at Christ’s resurrection, and in Prague we should indeed celebrate Easter by singing in the three different languages known here. Accordingly, Waldhauser’s model sermon provides strong evidence that the Czech, German, and Latin version were sung in Prague on Easter – just as it does for the tradition of Schmeckostern, details of which Waldhauser added to Durand’s description. But were the vernacular Easter songs sung after the sermon, or even between the protheme and the sermon’s main body? Perhaps. The passage does not exclude this possibility, but neither is it sufficient to justify the claim. Nor does the protheme’s conclusion allow a positive answer to the final question. Waldhauser evidently was not making any statement about the extent of bilingualism in Prague. ‘Quia plures lingwas in Praga nescimus’ instead refers back to the biblical text and provides a simple explanation for the preacher’s exhortation. Since in Prague we cannot literally sing in every language, we should sing in the three we know. Conrad Waldhauser attested to the limited number of vernacular languages spoken in Prague, but offers no further comment on the interplay between Czech and German. Yet taken together with other sources, including Waldhauser’s own ­Apologia against the friars, the passage does allow some characterization of the multingual nature of Prague’s religious culture during the reign of Charles  IV. Both German and Czech were spoken, sung, and heard

46

David C. Mengel

t­ hroughout the city, including in the practice of parish religion. Lay people heard sermons and made confession in both languages. This contributed to the glory of the emperor’s capital, as on Easter when local tongues praised the risen Lord in Czech, German, and Latin. Yet it also could become a source of confusion and even tension. Misunderstood preachers and deafeared confessors gave rise to lay frustration. As lay interest in participating in these and other elements of religious devotion grew, it was perhaps inevitable that language increasingly occasioned division between neighbors of different mother tongues. For Conrad Waldhauser, however, and for other Central European preachers who later voiced words inspired by copies of his model sermons, multiple vernacular languages afforded lay people the chance to praise God as He deserved – in as many tongues as they knew.

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

47

List of Manuscript Variants98 1

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, MS theol. fol. 88 (R 526), fol. 135v

2

Brno, Státní Vědecká Knihovna, Mk 44, fol. 111r

3

Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. 579 (35/51 f.), fol. 213v

4

Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. 597 (35/69 f.), fol. 141v Kadaň, Františkanský klášter, MS H 8 [olim Prague, Strahovská Knihovna, MS A 274/S], fol. 95v Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, Codex Claustroneoburgensis 442, fol. 139r

5

6

unde theuthunice et bohemice cantate sicud nos cantamus latine Crist ist derstanden Item bohemice Wuoßphe mohuo quia plures lingwas in plaga nescimus Unde theutonice et Bohemice cantate sicud nos cantamus latine Boh wsyemohuczy. Item quia plures lingwas in Praga nescimus. vnde devtunice cantate sicut nos latinice cantamus Christ ist erstanden quia plures ligwas in teutunico nescimus. Vnde Thetunice cantate sicut nos cantamus Christ ist etc. Sequitur sermo […] gloria dei patris […] sicud nos can[…] wsemohuczy99 vnde Theotunici et Bohemice cantate sicud nos cantabimus latine Crist ist erstanden von des todes panden etc. Item bohemice buech sweochmochueczii w stal. quia plures lingwas in Praga nescimus

Unless otherwise noted, these are my own transcriptions. Most of this folio has been ripped out of the manuscript, leaving visible only the last few words of the right column; for an image, see Ryba, ‘Další rukopis Waldhauserovy Postily’, p. 9.

98  99 

48

David C. Mengel

7

Lambach, Bibliothek des Benediktinerstifts, Codex Lambacensis chartaceus 191, fol. 103vb

8

Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, MS I 41, fol. 3r

9

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 3091, no fol.

10 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 8851, fol. 2v 11 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 12289, fol. 138r

12 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14214, fol. 192v

vnde theotunice et bohemice cantate sicus nos cantamus christus surrexit. Item quia plures ligwas in Praga nescimus Sed tote cordis intencione dirigamus mentes nostras ad deum ut sic cantemus plus corde quam ore et sic valeamus consequi gaudium eternum ubi cum sanctis angelis continemus p[erpetuo?] ut fiat etc. vnde theuthonica et boemice cantate sicud nos cantamus latine Bohwsemohuczi quia plures ligwas in praga nescimus unde thetunice et bohemice cantate sicut nos cantamus latine Christus surrrexit quia plures ligwas in praga nescimus vnde teutonice et bohemice cantate sicud nos cantamus latine Buoh Wssye mohucy Item quia plures lingwas in praga nescimus etc. Vnde theutunice et bohemice cantate sicut nos cantamus latine Crist ist erstanden. Item bohemice Buch swe machuczi uia plures lingwas in praga nescimus Vnde theutonice et bohemice cantate Bohemice vero bů vschemohuczi Sicut nos cantamus latine Crist ist erstanden Item quia plures lingwas in Praga nescimus

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus

13 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 14225, fol. 184v

14 Olomouc, [Státní Vědecká Knihovna, MK II 125?]100 15 Prague, Archiv hlavního města Prahy, 5979, fol. 128r

49

Vnde teutunice et bohemice cantate sicut nos cantauimus latine Crist ist drstanden Item Bohemice Buoh swemohuczi Quia plures lingwas in praga nescimus Unde theutonice et bohemice cantate, sicut nos cantamus latine: Christ ist erstanden Vnde theutunice et bohemice cantate sicud nos cantamus latine boh swe mohuczi quia plures lingwas in praga nescimus etc. Ideo cantate boemice sicut nos latine cantamus Buoh wssye mohuczy quia pluras lingwas in boemiis nescimus Vnde in materna ligwa cantate Cristus surrexit mala nostra etc.

16 Prague, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly, MS E 10, fol. 161r 17 Prague, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly, MS E 19, fol. 124r 18 Prague, Knihovna Národního Unde theutunice et bohemice cantate muzea, MS XII E 3, fol. 120v sicut et nos cantamus latine Kryst yst erstanden. Item Bohemycz boh wzemohuczy quia plures lingwas nescimus Prage 19 Prague, Knihovna Národního ideo cantate theutunice sicut nos latine muzea, MS XV D 3, fol. 113r cantauimus: crist isten standr quia plures linguas in tentunicis nescimus 20 Prague, Knihovna Národního unde: theuthunice cantate sicud nos muzea, MS XVI D 1, fol. 164r cantamus latine alta voce et corde deuote dicentes Crist ist enstanden, et cetera.

In his discussion of the Czech adaptation of Waldhauser’s sermon (Olomouc, Státní Vědecká Knihovna, MS  II 135), Foltynovský offers this reading from an unidentified Latin manuscript, possibly MS II 125, the only manuscript of this sermon cycle in the same library. See Foltynovský, ‘Sbírka českých kázání v rukopise studijní knihovny olomoucké’, p. 395, and cf. Boháček and Čáda, Beschreibung der mittelalterlichen Handschriften der wissenschaftlichen Staatsbibliothek von Olmütz, pp. 467–68; Mužík, ‘Christ ist erstanden’, p. 16, no. 30.

100 

50

David C. Mengel

21 Prague, Knihovna Národního unde teutonice et bohemice cantate muzea, MS XVIII A 40, sicud nos cantamus latine: Cryst yst r fol. 126 derstanden, Item bohemice wůhphe quia plures lingwas in plaga nescimus 22 Prague, Národní Knihovna unde theutunice et bohemice cantate České Republiky, MS I B 33, uos sicut cantauimus latine: Cryst vstr stander. Item bohemic Buoh fol. 120v wsemohuczy quia plures lingwas in Crumlaw nescimus. 23 Prague, Národní Knihovna unde deotunice et boemice cantate sicut et nos cantamus latine Crist České Republiky, MS I D ist derstanden bohemice swuczi 11, fols 145v–46r mechuczi, quia plures lingwas in Praga nescimus. 24 Prague, Národní Knihovna vnde bohemice et et [sic] theotunice cantate sicud nos cantamus latine: České Republiky, MS V B Buoh wssemohucii Item quia plures 18, fol. 170v ligwas in praga nescimus. 25 Prague, Národní Knihovna vnde theutunice cantate sicut nos České Republiky, MS VII D cantamus latine Crist ist derstanden Item quia plures ligwas in Chunstat 18, fol. 141r nescimus cantate Bohemicum Buoh Wssemohuczy etc. 26 Prague, Národní Knihovna unde theutonice et bohemice cantate České Republiky, Cod. Osek sicut nos cantamus latine. Item plures lingwas in Praga nescimus. 27, fol. 117r vnde tewtunice cantate sicud nos 27 Sankt Florian, cantamus latine Crist ist erstanden Stiftsbibliothek, Codex similiter. San-Florianensis XI, 334, fol. 141r Vnde theutunice et bohemice cantate 28 Schlägl, Prämonstratenser sicud nos cantamus latine buoh – Stiftsbibliothek, Codex wsyemohuczy Item quia plures linguas Plagensis 39 (452 a. 111), v in Praga nescimus fol. 1

Plures Lingwas in Praga Nescimus 1

29 Vorau, Stiftsbibliothek, Codex Voraviensis 25 (CCXL), fol. 144r 30 Warsaw, Biblioteka Narodowa, Rps BN BOZ 56, fol. 348v 31 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex Vindobonensis Palatinus 3691, fol. 159r

32 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex Vindobonensis Palatinus 3692, fol. 148v

33 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex Vindobonensis Palatinus 14453*, fol. 149v 34 Vienna, Schottenkloster, Codex ScotensisVindobonensis 367 (367), fol. 142v 35 Vienna, Schottenkloster, Codex ScotensisVindobonensis 390 (391), fol. 99r 36 Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Cod. I F 481, fol. 179v

vnde theutunice et bohemice cantate sicut nos cantamus latine Crist ist erstanden Item quia plures lingwas in Praga noscimus Vnde teutunice cantate sicud nos latine cantamus Crist ist erstanden quia plures lingwas in teuthunicis nescimus Vnde theutonice et bohemice cantantes sicut sicut [sic] nos cantamus Cristus surrexit mala nostra texit etc. vel sic theutonice Crist ist irstanden won der marter etc. Item quia plures ligwas in Praga nescimus etc. Vnde theutunice et bohemice cantantes sicut nos cantauimus Cristus surrexit m. etc. Vel sic theutunice Crist ist erstanden von der marter alle etc. Item quia plures lingwas in praga nescimus. Igitur Aue maria unde tewtunice et bohemice, cantate, sicut nos cantamus latine crist ist der standen Item quia plures lingwas in Praga nescimus etc.101 Vnde theutonice et bohemice cantate sicud nos cantamus latine christus surrexit Christ ist erstandn Vnde theutunice et bohemice cantate sicud nos cantamus latine kryst der ist Quia plures linguas in Praga nescimus Unde theutunice contate sicut nos latine cantamus Christ ist erstanden quia plures linguas in thetunicis nescimus102

  ‘Crist ist irstanden’ is added in red ink at the end of this line.  Bylina, Wpływy Konrada Waldhausena, p. 31, no. 105.

101 102

51

52

David C. Mengel

37 Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Cod. I F 482, fol. 133v 38 Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Cod. I F 483, fol. 105v 39 Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Cod. I F 484, fol. 127r 40 Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Cod. I F 544, fol. 114r 41 Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Cod. M 1169

103  104 

Vnde theutunice et behemice cantate sicud nos cantamus latine Crist ist entstanden. Item quia plures lingwas in praga nescimus. Vnde theutonice et bohemice cantate sicud nos cantauimus latine, Crist ist vrstanden, Item bohemice secundum ligwam eorum, etc. de aliis ligwis Vnde teutunice et boemice sicud hodie nos cantamus latine Christus est boh wszemohuczii. Item boemice quia plures lingwas in Praga nescimus -nice cantate sicud nos can- […] irstanden. Item quia p- ligwas […] -ga nescimus103 [includes ‘Christ ist erstanden’ but not ‘Buoh všemohúcí’]104

This manuscript suffers from significant water damage and is partly illegible. Described in Bylina, Wpływy Konrada Waldhausena, p. 99.

TRANSLATING POLITICAL THEOLOGY INTO VERNACULAR: RÉÉCRITURE OF JOHN WYCLIF’S OEUVRE IN LATE MEDIEVAL BOHEMIA* Martin Dekarli

Introduction

I

n 1924, when the Wyclif Society closed down its publishing activities after almost four decades, it left behind a legacy of more than thirty published volumes of works written by the late medieval philosopher and theologian John Wyclif (c.  1330–84). Unfortunately, the majority of its published volumes fail to meet contemporary expectations.1 Due to the interpretative paradigm of the Austrian historian Johann Loserth – spiritus agens of this editorial enterprise and author of an influential monograph on the ideological dependency of Jan Hus on John Wyclif – many editions published by the Wyclif Society suffer from an a priori lack of respect, not only regarding the Bohemian Reformation as such, but also in relation to the manuscripts of Czech provenance.2 Another problem is that the editors included some spurious texts into these editions. The most glaring error of this type concerns the philosophical treatise De universalibus, whose true author is Stanislaus of Znojmo (d. 1414), a prominent Czech Master of the University of Prague and a great promotor of John Wyclif ’s works in late medieval Bohemia.3 Despite all of these problems, the editions published by

*  I would like to thank Pavlína Rychterová for her very important comments to the early draft of this text, David R. Holeton and Phillip N. Haberkern for improving my English. 1  The individual volumes contain a number of errors and other defects, often caused by hasty or wrong collations of the manuscripts and a generally careless treatment of the material. 2  Loserth, Hus und Wiclif; Loserth, Wiclif and Hus, trans. by Evans. 3  Stanislaus of Znojmo, Tractatus de universalibus (maior), ed. by Dziewicki, pp. 1–151; for determination of Stanislaus’s authorship cf. Sedlák, Studie a texty k životopisu Husovu, p. 119, and in more detail Thomson, ‘Some Latin Works Erroneously Ascribed to Wyclif ’, pp. 383–84. Pursuing a New Order, Volume II: Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian R ­ eformation, ed. by Pavlína Rychterová with the collaboration of Julian Ecker TMT 17.2 (Turnhout, Brepols 2019), pp. 53–89 ©  DOI 10.1484/M.TMT-EB.5.116598

FHG

54

Martin Dekarli

the Wyclif Society – except for some contemporary initiatives – remain and will remain our main basis for research for the foreseeable future. When the Wyclif Society’s activities came to an end, editorial activity on Wyclif ’s writings essentially ceased. Scholarship on the manuscript transmission of John Wyclif ’s works, however, was taken further and traced by Samuel  H. Thomson likewise other scholars. Thomson’s disciple, Allen duPont Breck, published the editio princeps of the treatise On the Trinity (De Trinitate) in the early 1960s. He identified two dominant manuscript traditions – English and continental.4 In the early 1980s, duPont Breck’s hypothesis was extended to the whole corpus wyclifianum by Williell  R. Thomson in his catalogue of Wyclif ’s works. Thompson was influenced by duPont Breck’s hypothesis on the diversity of the continental manuscript transmission of Wyclif ’s works; both of them attributed several manuscripts of Bohemian origin preserved in Poland and Germany to these countries.5 The editio princeps of Wyclif ’s significant philosophical treatise De universalibus, published by Ivan J. Müller in the middle of the 1980s, represents a turning point in modern Wycliffite studies.6 His detailed analysis of the twenty-three extant manuscripts of the work showed that De universalibus was disseminated in two strands only – English and Czech. The six extant English manuscripts may be dated to the period 1380–1415, and they offer almost identical texts in comparison with the divergent transmission in Bohemia. The texts extant in seventeen manuscripts of Bohemian origin frequently contain Czech comments or other marginal notes that can be dated to between 1397 and 1449.7 Müller generalized his conclusions on the two reception strands of De universalibus to the whole cycle Summa de ente, otherwise known as Summa intellectualium (including works as De universalibus, De ente in communi, De ente primo in communi, Purgans errores circam veritates in communi, Purgans errores circam universalia in communi,

John Wyclif, Tractatus de Trinitate, ed. by Breck, pp. XVIII–XIX. The alleged diversity of the continental manuscript tradition could be best illustrated by the example of Wyclif ’s treatise De universalibus published in 1985, which will be discussed later in this essay. According to Thomson’s listing, this tract originated in the English and continental manuscript tradition (further divided into three branches – Czech, German, and Polish). Cf. Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf, p. 21. 6  John Wyclif, Tractatus De universalibus, ed.  by Müller. For the importance of Müller’s edition for the modern Wycliffite studies, see Campi, ‘Yet Another “Lost” Chapter of Wyclif ’s Summa de ente’, p. 354 (with other references). 7  John Wyclif, Tractatus De universalibus, ed. by Müller, pp. LXXXIII–LXXXIX. 4  5 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

55

De tempore, De ente predicamentali, De intelleccione Dei, De sciencia Dei, De volucione Dei, De Trinitate, De potencia productiva dei ad extra). Summa insolubilium, another important Wyclif treatise edited during the late 1980s, is preserved in only English and Czech manuscripts as well: Three are of Bohemian origin, and the other three are English, all dated to the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.8 New editions and material stimulated further attempts to determine in more detail the reception of Wyclif ’s œuvre. Some scholars have analysed the transmission of texts and ideas between Oxford, Prague, and Vienna in depth, while others have examined the mutual interactions between the English and Bohemian intellectual milieu of the time.9 Anne Hudson showed that the treatises belonging to Summa theologiae (texts such as De mandatis divinis or otherwise known as Decalogus, De statu innocencie, De civili dominio, De veritate sacre scripture, De ecclesia, De officio regis, De potestate pape, De simonia, De apostasia, De blasfemia) are preserved only in English and Bohemian manuscripts.10 Hudson’s research enables us to determine the typology of the Bohemian manuscript tradition of John Wyclif ’s works. The aim of the following typology is to provide an instrument to help contextualize the vernacular translation of John Wyclif ’s works into the history of his oeuvre’s reception in late medieval Bohemia. Up to the present time, the Czech medieval translations have not been regarded as a constituent part of the source material for research on the Bohemian reception of Wyclif ’s heritage. The Bohemian manuscript tradition of John Wyclif ’s works can be divided into six groups according to formal and content-related criteria. This typology does not take into consideration the use of Wyclif ’s works in original texts composed by the Bohemian masters. The sources discussed in here are regarded as a first stratum of the réécriture, or to use medieval ­terminology

John Wyclif, Summa insolubilium, ed. by Spade and Wilson, pp. IX–XXIII. Here we may note some attempts made during 1980s, such as Walsh, ‘Vom Wegestreit zur Häresie’, pp.  25–47 and Keen, ‘The Influence of Wyclif ’, pp.  127–45, likewise Walsh, ‘Wyclif ’s Legacy in Central Europe in the Late Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries’, pp.  397–417 and Herold, ‘Wyclifs Polemik gegen Ockhams Auffassung der platonischen Ideen und ihr Nachklang in der Tschechischen Hussitischen Philosophie’, pp. 185–215, or Hudson, The Premature Reformation, pp. 60–119 and Holeton, ‘Wyclif ’s Bohemian Fate’, pp. 209–22, and two studies from the 1990s, cf. Catto, ‘Wyclif and Wycliffism in Oxford, 1356–1430’, and Walsh, ‘Lollardisch-hussitische Reformbestrebungen in Umkreis und Gefolgschaft der Luxemburgerin Anna, Königin von England (1382–1394)’, pp. 77–108. 10  Hudson’s essays are accessible in Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, together with two current summaries cf. Hudson, ‘From Oxford to Bohemia’ and Hudson, ‘Opera omnia’, pp. 49–70.  8   9 

56

Martin Dekarli

ruminatio (a concept focusing on the reader not on the text read), of Wyclif in Bohemia. Assuming that the ruminatio preceded any original text production made by Wyclif ’s Czech readers, we may regard the individual works of Jan Hus and his circle as a result of ruminatio on Wyclif ’s works, evidenced by sources treated below, although the assumed chronological subsequence is not evident in the sources available. The Czech Manuscript Tradition of John Wyclif ’s Works: A Typology Individual Works The first category of Wyclif ’s works includes Latin codices written in late medieval Bohemia. These texts belong to the collections Summa de ente and Summa theologiae; some of them we know only from manuscripts written in Bohemia (such as De civili dominio, De ecclesia, De officio regis, De potestate pape, and De eucharistia). A number of other important texts are preserved apart from these two major collections of tracts. The legacy of the Czech manuscript tradition was outlined in a list of sources related to the Prague debates on the real existence of universals (universalia realia) by František Šmahel; Williell R. Thomson also listed them in his extensive catalogue of John Wyclif ’s works, and recent additions were made by Anne Hudson.11 Introductory Summaries Introductory chapter summaries for the study of the John Wyclif ’s works represent another group of extant texts. They are known from manuscripts of both English and Bohemian origin. For the cycle Summa de ente, these summaries are extant only for the treatises De universalibus and De tempore. They are preserved for six of the ten treatises within the collection Summa theologiae: De mandatis divinis (Decalogus), De civili dominio, De veritate sacre scripture, De officio regis, De potestate pape, and De simonia. The summaries were analysed by Anne Hudson.12 Based on an in-depth examination of the codices from English and Bohemian manuscript traditions (summaries to De universalibus and De tempore), Hudson concluded that this instrument had clear English origin. Nevertheless, we cannot exactly determine when it was composed or whether

Šmahel, Verzeichnis der Quellen zum Prager Universalienstreit 1348–1500, pp.  10–17, Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf, pp.  311–17, and Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, pp. 1–16 (‘Appendix II: Supplement to Manuscript Listings’). 12  Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, pp. 324–28. 11 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

57

it was compiled by Wyclif himself or by one of his assistants or pupils during revisions to the individual texts after Wyclif ’s forced retirement to the parish of Lutterworth in 1382. Along with summaries for these collections, some introductory chapter summaries for the tracts De ecclesia and De officio regis from the cycle Summa theologiae preserved in one of the codices of Bohemian origin, are transmitted individually.13 They were compiled or copied in the territory of the Kingdom of Bohemia during the late middle ages and were recorded in the manuscript separately from the individual treatises.14 The purpose of these summaries can be reconstructed with the help of the recent edition of the synopsis of all fifteen chapters of the treatise De universalibus.15 The author’s aim was to provide readers with the contents of Wyclif ’s expositions in brief so as to record each individual step of the author’s argumentative strategy. These introductory summaries served as guidance for easier orientation in the text.16 Indices Indices to individual treatises represent a third group of the Bohemian manuscript tradition of John Wyclif ’s works. It seems that this instrument was invented by Wyclif ’s eager adherents in late medieval Bohemia. They are extant in various forms in codices of Bohemian origin. Indices are preserved for some of the philosophical treatises comprising Summa de ente

John Wyclif, Tractatus de ecclesia, Prague, NKČR, MS  X D 11, fols  1ra–130rb and John Wyclif, Argumentum operis De ecclesia, Prague, NKČR, MS X D 11, fols 212ra–14vb (with the section Sentencia Tractatus de sancta matre ecclesia in compendio sic habetur, see Prague, NKČR, MS X D 11, fol. 212ra). 14  For a general overview of all the chapter summaries of some of Wyclif ’s treatises with extant manuscripts see Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, p. 342. 15  John Wyclif, Tractatus De universalibus, ed. by Müller, pp. 1–14. 16  For the understanding as well as significance of these preface summaries as an instructive tool for the reader’s further study or reading the best introduction is probably the conspectus to the third chapter of De universalibus. In a few lines we can find the comprehensive contents summary comprising thirteen pages of the modern edition. According to the summary, the author of the text first introduces how he understands universals (modus quo intelligenda sunt universalia), further how universals are treated by some philosophers known from the tradition, and further the author emphasises Wyclif ’s key argument – ignorance and aversion to universals is the cause of all the sins of the church (ignorantia et inaffectio universalium sunt causa totius peccati Ecclesiae). Then he proposes a scheme for three types of universals (tres maneries universalium), which a number of old and new masters conceived as four causes (quattuor causas). In conclusion, the author attaches an exposition of the reason for the existence of universals (ratio existentiam universalium). John Wyclif, Tractatus De universalibus, ed. by Müller, p. 2/35–42, and pp. 71–84. 13 

58

Martin Dekarli

(De ideis, De tempore, De universalibus, De materia et forma, De Trinitate); other indices are extant for the cycle Summa theologiae (except De statu innocencie). Besides these, we also have indices to some of Wyclif ’s major late works (Dialogus, Trialogus, or Opus evangelicum), as well as to several series of sermons. Hudson provided a detailed analysis of this tool, as well as its manuscript transmission.17 Indices to individual treatises were also made, as well as specific indices for Wyclif ’s biblical quotations. These usually have the form of columns of entries referring directly to the specific page on which the text of the quoted lemma is to be found. The index to De ecclesia is preserved in this form in the manuscript Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1294, fols 208a–10b.18 Such indices were initially keyed to one copy of the work. Later variants indicate, however, that they were developed over several decades with the purpose to make them transferable from one manuscript to another.19 The goal of the whole enterprise was to develop a reliable instrument that would be universally applicable to all copies of an individual text. Considering the range of the preserved indices, these were doubtless collective works. The models for this kind of indices were, as Anne Hudson has pointed out, biblical indices.20 The most sophisticated and most popular indices referred to individual chapters numbered in Arabic or Roman numerals and divided them into sections marked by alphabetic characters; most often they were written in page margins. These markings made it easy to find a passage referred to in an index. We do not know when exactly the indices began to be used in Bohemia. Hus’s autograph of four philosophical treatises belonging to Summa de ente (De tempore, De ideis, De materia et forma, and De universalibus), compiled sometime between 1397 and 1398, contains a very basic index of the first type.21 The most sophisticated indices of the second type can be found in the manuscript Prague, NKČR, MS X E 11, fols 1ra–359ra. This manuscript contains transferable indices to De veritate sacre scripture, Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, pp. 328–41. John Wyclif, Registrum super librum De ecclesia, see Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1294, fols 208a–10b, and John Wyclif, Tractatus de ecclesia, ed. by Loserth, pp. 589–96. 19  For a listing and typology of all the extant Bohemian indexes to Wyclif ’s works see Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, pp. 343–44. 20  Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, pp. 330–31 and p. 340. 21  Stockholm, Kungliga Biblioteket, Codex Holmiensis A 164, fols 134v–35v; for more details of Hus’s early indexes see Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, p. 328. 17  18 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

59

De ecclesia, De officio regis, De potestate pape, De simonia, De apostasia, De blasphemia, Trialogus, De tempore, De materia et forma (two), De dominio divino, De mandatis, and to De civili dominio I–III.22 These indices were composed between October 1432 and September 1433. The author of some of them was Peter Payne (1380–1456), but only the index to De veritate sacre scripture and to De materia et forma can be convincingly attributed to him.23 From autumn 1414 Payne dwelt in Bohemia; between 1432 and 1434 he lived in Prague, in the Benedictine Emmaus monastery. Perhaps he completed the work on this particular manuscript there, with the assistance of three or more associates.24 Payne probably based his work on older models; some indices in his collection seem to draw upon the indices compiled by Hus and known from his Latin or Czech works.25 The most sophisticated indices provided the reader not only with keywords but with detailed lemmas which alone were able to mediate the course of argumentation formulated in the respective tract. For the research on John Wyclif ’s heritage they provide precious source of information especially concerning works transmitted only in fragments or lost. Sometimes it is possible, on the basis of a preserved index, to reconstruct the original form of a Wyclif text that circulated in Bohemia, but is lost today. The detailed entry concerning the concept of ‘idea’ from the index to Wyclif ’s treatise De ideis extant in the MS X E 11 may illustrate this:26

Registra operum Johannis Wyclif, ex magna parte Petri Payne, Prague, NKČR, MS X E 11, fols 1ra–359ra. 23  Registrum De veritate sacre scripture, Prague, NKČR, MS  X E 11, fols  1ra–30va, and Registrum De materia et forma, Prague, NKČR, MS X E 11, fols 167va–72vb. 24  For Payne’s biography see Šmahel, ‘Magister Peter Payne’, pp. 241–60, currently Campi, ‘Una difesa del determinismo dell’ultimo Wyclif attribuita a Peter Payne’, pp. 829–71, esp. pp. 831–32, and Lahey, ‘Peter Payne Explains Everything That Happens’, pp. 129–43, esp. pp. 129–31. 25  Jan Hus, Výklady, ed. by Daňhelka, pp. 31–60. Hus’s original index is part of the index to the modern edition of the treatise On the Church, cf. Jan Hus, Tractatus de ecclesia, ed. by Thomson, p. XXXII and pp. 246–51, in expanded form in Czech critical translation Jan Hus, O církvi, ed. by Molnár and Dobiáš, pp. 224–32. For Hus’s indexes in brief Rychterová, ‘The Vernacular Theology of Jan Hus’, pp. 184–85, p. 187, pp. 198–99, and Šmahel, ‘The National Idea, Secular Power and Social Issues in the Political Theology of Jan Hus’, pp. 214–53. 26  Registrum De ideis, cf. Prague, NKČR, MS X E 11, fol. 176rb–va. The transcription of the entire index to the treatise De ideis is part of the appendix to the editio princeps of this tract prepared by Ivan J. Müller. I would like to thank him for the permission to publish this part in my text. 22 

60

Martin Dekarli

Ydea quid et racio pro ydea

1ab

Pro ydeis racio archa artificis

1e, 2b

Ydea semini assimulatur

1ff

Pro ydea racio et auctoritas

1gl

Sine ydea non est sapiens

1gh

Pro ydeis auctoritates

2ko

Pro ydeis exemplum quadruplex et auctoritas Dionisii

1m

Ydee a deo differunt

1ko

Contra ydeas arguitur

2a

Pro ydeis, que debent presciri

2c

De ydeis loquendo scandalum circa proximos vitandum

2c, 3k

Contra ydeas argumenta

2d

Solvitur

1h

Ydee an multe

2d

Ydearum distinccio a deo et ab invicem

2ff

Contra ydeas

3a

Solvitur

b

De ydeis equivocat Aristoteles et Plato

3b

Pro ydeis racio et vitacio ipsarum

3b

Contra ydeas pro Aristoteles arguitur

3c

Ydea est deus et non distinguitur ab eo essencialiter

3c

Pro ydeis auctoritas

3d

Lincolniensis contra ydeas

4ll

Ydea quid et opiniones diverse de ea

4a

Ydea an nomen distrahens

4bc

Ydea a quo cognoscitur et distinguitur a deo et racio pro ea

4d

Ydee quid et in quo puncto

4ff

Ydea secundum Egidium quid et declaracio eius

4g

Ydea quomodo forma et quare et an absolutum et in quo

4gh

Ydea quomodo necessaria et causa

4hi

Ydeas que res habent

5aff

Ydeam quelibet res et suppositum cuiuslibet speciei habet

5d

Ydee producuntur ab intra deo

4i

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

61

These entries brought extensive alphabetical lists of precise and very detailed lemmas to the treatise’s potential readers. From among the fifteen known copies of De ideis, none corresponds to the extant index. As can be seen from the quoted entries, the lemma ‘idea’ provides a detailed overview of the most important arguments in the whole treatise, i.e. the reasons for the existence of ideas, the difference between ideas and God, the way in which an idea could be a form or a cause, the manner of existence of created things as ideas, the relationship between ideas of created things with species and genera, and the manner of God’s creation of ideas. Within the indices, it is likewise easy to find quotations from authorities for or against concrete positions or concepts. The entries quoted above, for example, refer to the concept of ideas as enumerated by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (beside Plato, Aristotle, Robert Grosseteste, and Giles of Rome, which are more common). Comments in Margins Marginalia in Czech and/or in Latin focusing on as well as reflecting upon the contemporaneous debate on Wyclif in Bohemia represent the fourth group within the Bohemian manuscript tradition of John Wyclif ’s works. They are preserved in a number of manuscripts with copies of Wyclif ’s treatises. The greatest attention has been dedicated to Hus’s Czech marginal notes in the manuscript Stockholm, Kungliga Biblioteket, Codex Holmiensis A 164. Here Hus is commenting on four of Wyclif ’s philosophical treatises – De tempore, De ideis, De materia et forma, De universalibus – copied in the manuscript by himself.27 According to Šmahel, the marginalia in the MS A 164 are of an emotional nature and they express the enthusiasm that Hus felt reading Wyclif ’s texts, which were unknown to him before.28 However, Hus’s marginal notes have been so far explored only from the standpoint of Czech literary history or philology as evidence supporting various hypotheses on Hus’s character. Stockholm, Kungliga Biblioteket, Codex Holmiensis A 164, fols 1r–134r. They were examined in detail during nineteenth century, for example, by Béda Dudík and Hermann Lindström, and at the end of the 1950s by František Ryšánek, detailed analysis from 1980s was provided by Jiří Daňhelka and relevant material on De universalibus was again reviewed and edited by Ivan Müller. For a summary of the research on Hus’s marginal notes in the nineteenth century, see John Wyclif, Miscellanea philosophica, i, ed. by Dziewicki, pp. XLVII–LXIII, for some expositions of the marginal notes see Ryšánek, ‘Kritické a exegetické příspěvky k českým spisům M. Jana Husi’, p.  217, most completely in Daňhelka, ‘Das Zeugnis des Stockholmer Autographs von Hus’, pp. 225–33 and John Wyclif, Tractatus De universalibus, ed. by Müller, pp. LVII–LVIII. 28  Šmahel, Jan Hus, pp. 40–41. 27 

62

Martin Dekarli

Unfortunately, the relevant passages in the individual treatises thus c­ommented on by Hus were not taken into consideration. Some of his remarks clearly gloss particular statements of Wyclif. For instance, Hus’s marginal note Za zlaty stogy sczos slyssal (‘that what you have heard is worth a gulden’)29 concerns the final part of the third chapter of De universalibus, where Wyclif sums up his views on universals. In this passage Wyclif claims that the universal is a truth formally shared to many. The human species is, according to him, a truth or form, and owing to membership in the human species every human is formally a human. Further, according to Wyclif this form is known by sage men as common humanity. At the end of this passage, Wyclif focuses on nominalist masters who follow William Ockham, John Buridan, or others. They ‘seduce others falsely’ with their attempts to define universals, but ignore their essence and inquire only after names or concepts.30 In his marginal remark, Hus is undoubtedly commenting on Wyclif ’s invective against nominalist masters. That means his commentary is not an expression of an emotion of delight learning the till then unknown but a polemical remark. Most likely, Jan Hus participated in the debates on the real existence of universals that had been held from early 1390s at the University of Prague. In the MS A 164 there is extant a copy of the Replicatio de universalibus, likewise compiled by Jan Hus, which concerns the explication of universalia in essendo. It is a record of an academic debate held between Jan Hus and his master (most likely Stanislaus of Znojmo). It presents the arguments for and against universals from the standpoint of the realist and nominalist traditions.31 Beyond any doubt Hus knew by heart the arguments of Prague nominalist masters against universals deriving from nominalist handbooks produced at the University of Paris during the late fourteenth century.32 These handbooks were the target of John Wyclif ’s criticism in the previously-noted passage from the De universalibus. Hus therefore commented on the relevant passage in Wyclif ’s text primarily because its argumentation was worthy of notice and could be easily used during debates with his rivals belonging of the Prague nominalist schola communis. In sum, an analysis of Hus’s marginal comments on Wyclif show that they must be John Wyclif, Tractatus De universalibus, ed. by Müller, p. 84/315. John Wyclif, Tractatus De universalibus, ed. by Müller, p. 84/309–15. 31  Replicacio de universalibus, cf.  John Wyclif, Miscellanea philosophica, i, ed.  by Dziewicki, pp. 129–61. 32  For the influence of the nominalist tradition at the University of Prague in the fourteenth century cf. Dekarli, ‘Henry Totting of Oyta and the Prague Nominalist “Schola Communis” between 1366 and 1409’, pp. 55–72. 29  30 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

63

interpreted in the context of the specific theological and political debates in Prague and as such they may provide important insights into them. Commentaries Commentaries on Wyclif ’s texts constitute the fifth group within the Bohemian manuscript tradition of John Wyclif ’s works. For now, only two types of these are known. Rather brief explanatory marginal notes represent the first type. This type is preserved in the manuscript Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 4523 under the modern title Expositio (glossa) marginalis tractatus M. Iohannis Wyclif De ideis.33 The text in the margins was composed between the end of 1412 and the beginning of 1413.34 The codex contains marginal notes of different lengths and covers all five chapters of the treatise De ideis. In the margins, the anonymous Czech author draws attention to important passages of the text, in particular to the formal composition and argumentative structure of the whole treatise. He also provides detailed expositions of several passages that were more difficult and complex than others. The marginal notes in this manuscript include (a) specific notes regarding the significance of a concrete passage in the text e.g. providing Wyclif ’s definition of ideas, or articulating the differentiation of creation from creator and similar specifications; (b) longer explanations, or summaries of introductory or concluding passages to the individual chapters; (c) extensive comments on particular passages and (d) relatively short marginal glosses tracking quotations from authorities or the Bible. This particular commentary in margine was thoroughly read and studied at Prague University during the first decades of the fifteenth century. The character of some of the comments suggests that the manuscript was frequently used at the Prague Faculty of Liberal Arts. It very probably served as a basis for teaching and further discussions, together with some other known texts of the same discipline (metaphysics), such as Stanislaus’s treatise De universalibus (maior). The second type of the commentary has the form of an exposition. This form was used at the University of Prague in the first decade of its existence to comment on Aristotle’s works. Such commentaries were, for instance, compiled by Master Ienko Wenceslaus of Prague on Aristotle’s Politics in the 1380s.35 A similar commentary was composed that closely followed Wyclif ’s treatise De 33  Anonymous, Expositio (glossa) marginalis tractatus M.  Iohannis Wyclif De ideis, Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 4523, fols 133r–56r. 34  Cf.  John Wyclif, Tractatus De universalibus, ed.  by Müller, pp.  LXIX–LXX, on this commentary see Herold, Pražská univerzita a Wyclif, p. 143 and pp. 222–23. 35  For short information about the commentary see Herold, ‘Commentarium Magistri Johannis Wenceslai de Praga super octo libros Politicorum Aristotelis’, pp. 53–77.

64

Martin Dekarli

universalibus and represents a text exposition of the problem (expositio textualis problematum). Today the commentary is ascribed to the Czech Master Štěpán of Palecz (d. 1422), a member of the group of Czech Realists.36 According to Ivan Müller, the exposition was composed sometime between 1394 and 1395, i.e. in the same period in which Stanislaus of Znojmo compiled De universalibus (maior).37 Müller has succeeded in determining the direct model for Palecz’s commentary. It was a manuscript from 1397 of Bohemian provenience containing a fragment of Wyclif ’s treatise De universalibus with only nine chapters (in comparison with the fifteen chapters in the full version of the tract).38 According to Müller, Palecz’s commentary and the fragment of the Latin text are witnesses of the oldest Czech manuscript tradition of De universalibus starting after 1385.39 Palecz’s commentary is an extensive work of almost 230 pages in the modern edition; Palecz used Wyclif ’s treatise as a basis for developing his own philosophical concepts concerning universals or the supposition theory.40 Vernacular Translations Unique Czech medieval translations of Wyclif ’s texts represent the sixth and last known group of the Bohemian manuscript tradition of John Wyclif ’s works. Their analysis represents the second part of this study. Although they were explicitly discussed at the council of Constance (see below), the medieval Czech translations of Wyclif ’s works have not been the subject of detailed contextual scholarly inquiry. The reasons for this are not quite clear. Most probably historians considered the texts written in Czech as a ‘natural’ domain of the literary and linguistic studies as well as inferior sources because Commentarius in I–IX capitula tractatus De universalibus Iohannis Wyclif Stephano de Palecz ascriptus, ed. by Müller. For the presumable authorship of Palecz see Šmahel, ‘“Circa universalia sunt dubitationes pauce I–III”’, pp. 987–97, esp. pp. 988–91. 37  Commentarius, ed. by Müller, pp. 53–54 and pp. 56–58. 38  John Wyclif, Tractatus de universalibus, Prague, NKČR, MS III G 10, fols 70r–104v, for the description of the manuscript see John Wyclif, Tractatus de universalibus, ed. by Müller, pp.  LV–LVII, text fragment extant in the Prague codex ends about three pages from the beginning of the ninth chapter in the modern edition ( John Wyclif, Tractatus de universalibus, ed. by Müller, p. 185/52). 39  Commentarius, ed. by Müller, pp. 51–54 and pp. 68–69. Current conclusions concerning beginnings of John Wyclif ’s influence at Prague University during the late fourteenth century was provided by Schabel, Brinzei, and Maga, ‘A Golden Age of Theology at Prague’, pp. 19– 40. 40  For some doctrinal differences of the Palecz commentary from the original Latin model of De universalibus, concerning e.g. the theory of propositional realism cf. Cesalli, ‘Propositio in re’, pp. 591–603, esp. p. 595 and p. 599. 36 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

65

derived from the Latin models regarded as primary and therefore relevant sources. The literary historians were interested only in basic problems – dating, provenance of manuscripts, authorship – and usually treated very schematically the relationship of the Czech texts to their Latin models. Recently it has become clear that translations allow us to reconstruct (so far as it is possible) another way of réécriture of Wyclif ’s works, especially how the readers worked with them, how they ‘chewed’ and ‘digested’ them. The Czech Vernacular Translations of John Wyclif ’s Works The twenty-four articles of the Council of Constance, perhaps from the beginning of 1418, appealed to the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Bohemia to reject the Hussite heresy. In one of the articles, the council fathers demanded that the people, under threat of excommunication, deliver all treatises composed by John Wyclif and translated into medieval Czech by Jan Hus or Jakoubek of Stříbro (and likewise those authors’ works inclining to heresy) to the legates of the Catholic Church.41 A bull issued by Pope Martin V on 22 February 1418 went further ordering an extensive search for all works compiled by Wyclif, Hus, Jerome of Prague, and their disciples or adherents, and the delivery of the books to the inquisition for burning. Vernacular translations were mentioned explicitly.42 A great number of codices were destroyed as a consequence of this order, probably including Jan Hus’s Czech translation of John Wyclif ’s Trialogus, about which we know from a text composed in 1417 by the prior of the Carthusian monastery Štěpán of Dolany (d.  1420).43 Further, there are direct traces of several other Czech translations of some of John Wyclif ’s treatises in vernacular texts written by the lay theologian Petr Chelčický (d. after 1434). His texts

Viginti quatuor Articuli Constantiesis Concilii contra Hussitas & Bohemos, in Hermann von der Hardt, Magnum Oecumenicum Constantiense Concilium, iv, col. 1516: ‘14 Ut tractatus Johannis Wicleph, translati in vulgare per Johannem Huss & Jacobellum, atque alii per ipsos in vulgari editi, in quibus errores suos posuerunt, omnes & singuli reponantur ad manus legati vel ordinarii, sub poena excommunicationis’. 42  Martini Papae Bulla contra Wiclefi & Hussi sectatores in universo Christiano orbe, in Hermann von der Hardt, Magnum Oecumenicum Constantiense Concilium, iv, col. 1527. 43  Stephanus Dolanensis, Liber epistolaris ad hussitas, in Thesaurus Anecdotorum Novissimus seu Veterum Monumentorum, iv, ed.  by Pez, col.  527: ‘Ipse tamen teneri publice praedicavit, & transcriptum Wikleff Trialogum maledictionis olim Marchioni Judoco […] aliis autem laicis mulieribus translatum Bohemice pro magno munere transmisit.’ 41 

66

Martin Dekarli

indicate that between 1400 and 1450 in Hussite Bohemia at least three Czech translations of John Wyclif ’s treatises were available. Chelčický himself evidently had only a limited knowledge of Latin and was using the translations.44 Several quotations from the works of the ‘Master Contrarian’, as Chelčický calls Wyclif in some of his writings, serve as indirect evidence of the existence of Czech versions of these works. The earliest reference in Chelčický’s work to Wyclif comes from the 1420s and concerns the translation of the Dialogus (known also as Speculum ecclesie militantis) compiled, according to Chelčický, by Jakoubek of Stříbro (d. 1429): ‘četl sem písmo přeložené mistra Jakuba z knih Wyklefových, ješto sú “O nadání kněžském”’45 (‘I have read the writings “On the clerical donation” translated by Master Jakoubek’). Chelčický then precisely recapitulates the content of the first seven chapters of the treatise, i.e. the Speech of Truth containing Wyclif ’s criticism of ecclesiastical donations. Further, Chelčický precisely quotes, in his Replika proti Rokycanovi (The Reply to Rokycana), compiled between 1433 and 1434, several passages from the Czech translation of John Wyclif ’s tract De civili dominio. In Řeč o základu zákonů lidských (Speech on the Foundation of Human Law) composed somewhat later, Chelčický has used the same translation.46 When he was working on his most important work, Síť víry (The Net of Faith), written between 1440 and 1443, Chelčický apparently had at his disposal a vernacular translation of the Trialogus, perhaps in a version translated by Jan Hus, and the Dialogus.47 Chelčický obtained these Czech translations of Wyclif ’s treatises thanks to 44  For a juxtaposition of Petr’s Řeč o základu zákonů lidských and, in particular, his Síť víry and Wyclif ’s treatises De civili dominio, Dialogus, Trialogus see Krofta, ‘Kněz Jan Protiva z Nové Vsi a Chelčického “mistr Protiva”’, pp.  215–19, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. XXVII–XXIX. As for Petr’s knowledge of Latin, e.g. testimony from the second decade of the fifteenth century (which may not be absolutely decisive for the later period of his literary activity), Replika proti Mikuláši Biskupcovi, in Petr Chelčický, Drobné spisy, ed. by Petrů, p. 191/2024–25: ‘Ač já malé nebo lehké svědecstvie mohu o latině vydati’. 45  O trojiem lidu řeč, o duchovních a o světských, in Petr Chelčický, Drobné spisy, ed. by Petrů, p. 116/409–10, and ibid., Replika proti Mikuláši Biskupcovi, p. 190/2000–01: ‘A že sem tak zpraven od Čechóv věrných o těch jeho kniehách’. 46  For the reference to Master Contrarian (and Wyclif ) see Replika proti Rokycanovi, in Petr Chelčický, Spisy z Pařížského sborníku, ed. by Boubín, pp. 58–59, p. 63, p. 65, and Řeč o základu zákonů lidských, in Petr Chelčický, Dva traktáty, ed. by Smetánka, pp. 121–25. A summary of whom Chelčický is quoting was provided by Jaroslav Boubín, cf. Petr Chelčický, Siet viery, ed. by Boubín, pp. 31–32. 47  For the parts adopted from both vernacular translations in the current edition see Petr Chelčický, Siet viery, ed.  by Boubín, pp.  94–95, pp.  110–11, pp.  120–22, p.  157, p.  243, pp. 260–61, and pp. 324–25.

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

67

his contacts with the Prague intellectual milieu of that time, although he disagreed with some of the reformist theologians.48 Czech vernacular translations of John Wyclif ’s De civili dominio and Trialogus have not survived. The only Czech medieval translation extant today is a fragment of the translation of Wyclif ’s Dialogus. Pursuing a New Order: Translation as a Political Act When and why did the reformist group led by Jan Hus and later by Jakoubek of Stříbro decide to translate Wyclif ’s works De civili dominio, Trialogus, and Dialogus into medieval Czech? The main incentive was evidently a debate between the Prague reformist masters and Archbishop Zbyňek of Házmburk that came to a head in 1410. The archbishop ordered on 16 July 1410 the burning of the codices of all of Wyclif ’s condemned treatises. Between 27 July and 6 August 1410 Hus and his followers publicly defended the condemned books (including De Trinitate, De mandatis divinis, De probatione propositionum, De ideis, De universalibus, and De materia et forma). They have deliberately chosen books representing diverse scientific disciplines and omitted texts of high political relevance the defence of which would have been too risky. The dispute launched feverish activities by scribes and probably also translators, and a number of new copies of Wyclif ’s writings were imported to Bohemia at this time.49 An academic protest organized in response to the archbishop’s intervention also led to a very successful public campaign by the university reform circle against Wyclif ’s opponents, conducted with some ingenuity by arousing mobs to break riots and fistfights, and distributing satirical pamphlets likewise mocking songs. From the second half of 1410 we register a steep increase in the influence of the Czech reformist masters led by Jan Hus on the Czech-speaking, ­publicly active lay groups in Prague. Hus’s group pursued an elaborate For more details of the relationship between Chelčický and the leading Czech reformist theologians in the first third of the fifteenth century see Boubín, ‘Petr Chelčický a mistři pražské university’, pp. 241–55. 49  For the order to burn Wyclif ’s codices cf.  Documenta mag. Joannis Hus, ed.  by Palacký, pp. 378–85. For more details of the period reformist media campaign see esp. Pavel Soukup, Jan Hus, pp. 104–16. Further we know about some shipment and a package of manuscripts by John Wyclif sent from England in Hus’s letter to Richard Wych written after 15 March 1411, see Jan Hus, Sto listů, ed. by Ryba, pp. 43: ‘Milostivý Bůh buď Vaší odplatou, že jste nám potřebným opatřil s tak značnými námahami rukopisy.’ (M. Jana Husi Korespondence a dokumenty, ed. by Novotný, p. 85: ‘Deus graciosus sit merces vestra, quod tantis laboribus exemplaria nobis egentibus ministratis.’). 48 

68

Martin Dekarli

p­ ropaganda strategy. It included an intensive preaching mission in the Kingdom of Bohemia, the articulation of a legitimizing narrative using three model predecessors (Conrad Waldhauser, Milíč of Kroměříž, and Matthias of Janov) and, finally, Czech translations and adaptations of selected texts by Wyclif (Hus made extensive use of Wyclif ’s works in his Czech written Expositions of Faith).50 Wyclif ’s late treatises De civili dominio (1374/6), Dialogus (1379), and Trialogus (1382/3) contain the core of his political theology, i.e. his concept of secular and ecclesiastical governance or lordship (dominium), and his view on the Church and organization of the society. Wyclif further provided in these tracts subtle analysis of events of that time and crucial expositions on the Church’s claim and right to material possessions, alms, and donations. Nineteen propositions from the treatise De civili dominio were condemned in the year 1377 by Pope Gregory XI on behalf of the English Benedictine Adam Easton.51 The list was revised and expanded at the Black Friars synod 1382. In 1403 the Prague nominalists added further articles. One of these propositions refers explicitly to Dialogus and Trialogus as dangerous works. Both treatises later headed the list issued by the archbishop of Prague of condemned books, and some of the works on the list were publicly burned in July 1410.52 The full text of the treatise De civili dominio (one of the works in the cycle Summa theologiae) extant in manuscripts of Czech origin only. The influence of it is evident in Hus’s programmatic treatise On the Church and in some of his later works, in particular in the questio On the Sufficiency of Christ’s Law.53 Dialogus and Trialogus were known to the Prague reformists by the year 1401 at the latest. Manuscripts with both texts were brought from Oxford to Prague by Jerome of Prague (d. 1416), as he says in his testimony in the records of the

For this issue see also Rychterová, ‘Die Verbrennung von Johannes Hus als europäisches Ereignis’, pp.  362–63 and pp.  369–70, and in more detail Rychterová, ‘The Vernacular Theology of Jan Hus’, pp. 170–213. 51  Harvey, ‘Adam Easton and the Condemnation of John Wyclif, 1377’, pp. 321–34. 52  Documenta mag. Joannis Hus, p.  330 (thesis 35 with explicit reference to Trialogus and Dialogus) and p. 380 (list of treatises condemned to be burned, with Dialogus and Trialogus in first and second place, De civili dominio on the last but one). 53  For the manuscript tradition of De civili dominio see Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf, pp. 48–55 and supplements by Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, pp. 3–4 (‘Appendix II: Supplement to Manuscript Listings’). For further influence of this treatise on Jan Hus, cf.  Jan Hus, Tractatus de ecclesia, ed.  by Thomson, p.  241, and O církvi, ed.  by Molnár and Dobiáš, p.  307, and De sufficiencia legis Cristi, in Jan Hus, Constantiensia, ed. by Krmíčková and others, p. 335. 50 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

69

Council of Constance.54 These copies have not, however, survived, and the oldest currently known Czech manuscripts of Trialogus and Dialogus can be dated to 1410.55 Trialogus was used very much in university debates by Jerome of Prague and, in some of his theoretical works, by Jan Hus.56 At present there is no consensus on the authorship and the making of the Czech medieval translation of Trialogus. Some scholars consider Jan Hus the sole author, referring to the account by Štěpán of Dolany, and they date the translation to the year 1403. Another hypothesis considers Jerome of Prague co-author and dates the translation to the years 1403–07.57 The Latin model of the Czech translation of Dialogus is preserved in nineteen manuscripts of Czech origin, which were copied between 1410 and c. 1440. Only four of them contain the full work as known today.58 An abridged and modified version of the Dialogus was composed around 1410. It is transmitted in two copies under the title De triplici ecclesia and in both cases it is accompanied by other Wycliffite texts.59 The text includes the first seven chapters of the Dialogus, but only the first two in their entirety. It

Jerome speaks about his enterprise explicitly in testimony known in the acts of the Council of Constance, see Hermann von der Hardt, Magnum Oecumenicum Constantiense Concilium, iv, cols 634–35 and col. 651. 55  Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf, pp. 79–83, pp. 268–70, and, with only minor changes by Anne Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, p.  5 and p.  13 (‘Appendix II: Supplement to Manuscript Listings’), see also John Wyclif, Trialogus, ed. by Lahey, pp. 21–23 and pp. 27–32. 56  All passages in Jerome’s questions are registered in the index: see Jerome of Prague, Quaestiones, Polemica, Epistulae, ed. by Šmahel and Silagi, p. 305. For some references in Jan Hus see e.g. Jan Hus, Tractatus de ecclesia, ed. by Thomson, p. 241, and O církvi, ed. by Molnár and Dobiáš, p. 307. 57  For historiography concerning the translation of Trialogus see Flajšhans, Literární činnost Mistra Jana Husi, p. 61, Workman, John Wyclif, i, p. 18, Bartoš, Literární činnost M. J. Husi, p. 123, and Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů k literární činnost M. Jana Husa a M. Jeronýma Pražského, p. 184. For some current interpretations see Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf, p. 81, note 6, and Walsh, ‘Wyclif ’s Legacy in Central Europe in the Late Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries’, p. 410, or van Dussen, From England to Bohemia, pp. 76–77, and John Wyclif, Trialogus, ed. by Lahey, p. 22. 58  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, p. 85/28–29, listing of extant manuscripts in Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf, pp.  268–69, and Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, p. 13. 59  For Pseudo-John Wyclif, De triplici ecclesia, see Thomson, ‘Some Latin Works Erroneously Ascribed to Wyclif ’, pp. 387–91; the copies are Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1337, fols 166ra–68va, and Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1387, fols 109ra–10va. Some information is supplied by Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf, p. 269. As for the Vienna manuscripts see Schwarzenberg, ‘Bücher der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek aus dem Prager Karolinum’, p.  97, and 54 

70

Martin Dekarli

contains all main arguments with a long opening speech delivered by Truth, where she enumerates the division of the Church into three parts: Priests, secular lords or rulers, and common people. Each of the three parts has to be obedient to God’s Law (lex dei). A compilation from the five subsequent chapters follows, supplied with long biblical quotations – from Numbers 18. 20–24; Deuteronomy 18. 1–2; Ezekiel 44. 28–31; Mark 10. 42–45; I Peter 2. 21. These particular verses provide the main basis for arguments denying priests’ rights to property, alms, or donations, and stressing Jesus Christ’s poverty during his earthly sojourn. The short, anonymous treatise ends without a formal conclusion. Everything indicates that the work was written by a University Master who was a member of Hus’s circle. The concluding chapter of De triplici ecclesia on the illegitimacy of the Church property was reworked by Jakoubek in his Tractatus responsivus.60 John Wyclif ’s Dialogus and its Czech Translation: A Comparison The only extant Czech translation of the Dialogus is credited by scholars to Jakoubek of Stříbro. It is preserved in two incomplete copies: Prague, Knihovna Národního muzea, MS III B 11, written in the fifteenth century, and Prague, Královská kanonie premonstrátů na Strahově, inv. no.  470/ zl., fols 3r–6v (only small fragments are extant) in the 1450s.61 The text in MS III B 11 does not contain the translation of chapters 27 and 30–34 of the

Schwarzenberg, Katalog der kroatischen, polnischen und tschechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, pp. 217–18 and Theisen, ‘Bewegte Jahre’, pp. 88–94. 60  For basic information about the treatise see Thomson, ‘Some Latin Works Erroneously Ascribed to Wyclif ’, p.  387. For corresponding parts of Dialogus and De triplici ecclesia see John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, pp.  1/13–5/11, and Pseudo-John Wyclif, De triplici ecclesia, in Thomson, ‘Some Latin Works Erroneously Ascribed to Wyclif ’, pp. 387–89. As for the adopted closing part in Tractatus responsivus see Thomson, ‘Some Latin Works Erroneously Ascribed to Wyclif ’, pp. 390–91 and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Tractatus responsivus, ed.  by Thomson, pp.  30–53. Some quoted biblical verses also appears in other Wyclif ’s polemical treatises, e.g. John Wyclif, The Clergy May Not Hold Property, in The English Works of Wyclif, ed. by Matthew, p. 356, and in particular John Wyclif, Trialogus cum Supplemento Trialogi, ed. by Lechler, p. 291, p. 298, p. 410, p. 480. 61  Prague, Knihovna Národního muzea, MS III B 11, fols. 181–210 (for a description of the manuscript see Bartoš, Soupis rukopisů Národního musea v Praze, i, pp. 117–18, no. 571, and edition Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 1–62) and Prague, MS Královská kanonie premonstrátů na Strahově, inv. no. 470/zl., fols 3r–6v (description of the manuscript in Soupis rukopisů Strahovské knihovny Památníku národního písemnictví v Praze, v, ed. by Ryba, pp. 375–76, no. 3284, for an edition of fragments see Straka, ‘Nově objevené zlomky spisů Mistra Jana Husi v knihovně Strahovské’, pp. 54–66).

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

71

Latin model. The concluding chapter is lost as well, and four other chapters are extant only in fragments. The other manuscript contains fragments of chapters 1–6, 11–14, and 17–18. 65 we can select among the Based on an analysis of seven manuscripts,62 extant copies of the Latin model two closest to the translation: Prague, NKČR, MS  X C 23, fols  169ra–82vb, and Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1622, fols 133r–57v. In both manuscripts, several scribal errors can be found that are mirrored in the translation. Nevertheless, it is not possible to determine, 66 if either was the direct model for the translation.63 Since the editions of the extant copies were published, two basic hypotheses have emerged regarding the authorship and dating of the translation. Milan Svoboda, the editor of the text from the manuscript III B 11, dated the translation to the years 1410/11. He based his hypothesis on several references in the text to the conflict between Archbishop Zbyněk Zajíc of Házmburk and Wenceslas IV provoked by the archbishop’s decision to condemn the codices with Wyclif ’s treatises (as described above). The references in the writings of Petr Chelčický referring to Jakoubek as 67 Cyrill A. Straka, the author of the treatise support Svoboda’s hypothesis.64 editor of the Strahov fragments, called into question Jakoubek’s authorship following his own linguistic analysis. According to him, the translation was 68 Svoboda was followed by Jan Seda joint enterprise of Hus and Jakoubek.65 69 František Michálek lák, who dated the translation more narrowly to 1411.66 Bartoš suggested that the date of the translation has to be shifted to the year 70 71 Straka’s hypothesis found an influential supporter in Josef Pekař.68 1415.67

The analysis took into account the dating of the manuscripts, formal aspects of the codices, such as types or numbers of marginal notes, writing style, ink colours, illuminations and content of selected parts. 63  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum ecclesie Militantis, Prague, NKČR, MS  X C 23, fols  169ra–82vb, and John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum ecclesie Militantis, Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 1622, fols 133r–57v. 64  Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. XXIII–XXXVII, esp. pp. XXV–XXVI. 65  Straka, ‘Nově objevené zlomky spisů Mistra Jana Husi v knihovně Strahovské’, pp. 52–53. 66  Sedlák, ‘Husův pomocník v evangeliu’, pp. 314–15. 67  Bartoš, ‘M. Jakoubka ze Stříbra Překlad Viklefova Dialogu’, p. 424, Bartoš, Literární činnost M. Jakoubka ze Stříbra, pp. 66–67 (no. 103), or Bartoš, Husitská revoluce, i, p. 21. 68  Pekař, Žižka a jeho doba, i, p. 4. 62 

15

28

14

27

29

16

3

30

17

4

31

18

5

32

19

6

15

frag. 28

14

–

29

16

3

–

17

4

–

18

5

–

19

6

–

20

7

33

20

7

–

21

8

34

21

8

–

frag. 14

–

frag. 3

frag. 17

frag. 4 frag. 18

frag. 5 –

frag. 6 –

–

–

–

–

–

frag. 35.

22

9

35

22

9

70 

69 

John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 1–98. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 1–62. 71  Straka, ‘Nově objevené zlomky spisů Mistra Jana Husi v knihovně Strahovské’, pp. 54–66.

frag. 2

frag. 1

Prague, Královská kanonie premonstrátů na Strahově, inv. no. 470/zl., fols 3r–6v71

 

2

1

Prague, Knihovna národního muzea, MS III B 11, fols 181–21070

 

2

1

John Wyclif, Dialogus69

Comparison of the content of Wyclif ’s Dialogus and its Czech translation

Table 1

–

–

frag. 36.

23

10

36

23

10

–

frag. 11

–

24

11

Epilogus

24

11

frag. 12

25

12

25

12

frag. 13

frag. 26

13

26

13

72 Martin Dekarli

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

73

Current research considers the translation to be Jakoubek’s work written in 1411.72 As the textual witnesses prove, the translation can be characterized as a free adaptation or paraphrase, and not as a word-by-word or sense-by-sense translation. The translator intended to provide the reader with the substance of Wyclif ’s treatise in a simplified form concerning ecclesiastical and social concepts, as well as the obligations and mutual relations among the different social groups. Most important were expositions on the clergy’s claim to property and donations and the concept of the secular government (the king and the nobility) as an overseer of ecclesiastical property.73 As has been said, both extant copies lack the final chapters of the treatise (see Table 1) that explain the core of Wyclif ’s concept of Church reform. We may assume that these chapters were translated by Jakoubek because their content matches perfectly with his own opinions on that matter. Jakoubek has re-written Wyclif ’s text so that it would fit into the intellectual horizon, as well as in the horizon of experience, of his target readers.74 He expounded the concepts of the original text, omitting some passages or abridging them as needed. Further he itemized quotations from Scripture to which Wyclif refers in his text and which are of key importance for the arguments of the entire treatise. Further, he skipped some references, but ­elaborated others more in detail. The treatise is conceived in a dialogical form. The opening part presents the opponents: Truth, i.e. Christ according to John 14. 6, representing the author’s position, and Falsehood from John 8. 44, representing greedy monks, clerics, and popes. While the Latin text refers to both crucial verses, Jakoubek only mentions the second very probably considering the first quotation superfluous concerning his readers and changing therefore the self: For a summary of discussion held during the first half of the twentieth century see Borecký, Mistr Jakoubek ze Stříbra, p. 66, note 29; for the current standpoint see De Vooght, Jacobellus de Stříbro, p. 38. 73  For a brief extract from the chapters see De Vooght, Jacobellus de Stříbro, pp. 38–40 and Cardelle de Hartmann, Lateinische Dialoge 1200–1400, pp. 640–41. 74  For the comparative analysis we used the Latin text ( John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, pp.  1–98), and editions of two extant old Bohemian renditions: Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed.  by Svoboda, pp.  1–62 and Straka, ‘Nově objevené zlomky spisů Mistra Jana Husi v knihovně Strahovské’, pp. 54–66. 72 

74

Martin Dekarli

John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 1/9–11:

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of Wyclif ’s Dialogus, p. 1/10–12:75

Et quia veritas est Christus, ut patet Jo 14o, et diabolus ipsum mendacium, ut patet Jo 8o, racionabile videtur veritatem proponere et sermonem istum, mediante Christi gracia stabilire.

And because God’s truth is Christ and the Devil is a Lie, as it is written in the gospel of Saint John in the eight chapter. Therefore it is fitting to start this speech with God’s Truth and maintain it by God’s grace.

In the following seven chapters Wyclif draws radical ecclesiastical and political conclusions which Jakoubek accepts without major changes. Wyclif departs from the concept of the three estates which are united by divine grace.76 Jakoubek follows Wyclif ’s exposition on the obligations and ways of life that each estate has to maintain. The clergy are to follow Christ and the Apostles as closely as they can. They are to set the example for secular lords and common people and live spiritual lives, nor to rule by secular means, freed of all mundane interests leading a contemplative life. Secular lords are obliged to defend God’s Law bravely, serve the clergy and the common people and exercise secular power. The common people are obliged to serve the clergy and secular lords with manual work.77 Jakoubek omitted some parts of the first chapter. For example, he did not translate Wyclif ’s metaphorical comparison of God’s grace to sunlight: God’s grace operates from the highest part of the Church to the lowest, as sunbeams illuminate created things from the highest to the lowest.78 ­Jakoubek probably considered this simile redundant because he wanted to supply his readers with a set of vigorous arguments in serious political struggle not with rhetorical devices. For the same reason, he followed Wyclif ’s emphasis on several biblical passages stressing the clergy’s basic obligations towards God and society. Using references to God’s Law in Numbers 18. 20–24, Deuteronomy 18. 1–2, and Ezekiel 44. 28–31, as well as two references to the veritas prima in Mark 10. 42–45 and Matthew 8. 20, Wyclif denied the clergy’s claim to tithes, alms, legacies, and any church possession of property. The clergy Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 1/10–12: ‘A poňavadž ta božie pravda jest Kristus a ďábel jest lež, jako stojí psáno ve čtení svatého Jana v osmém rozdiele, Protož slušie pravdě boží počieti tuto řeč a ji boží milostí zachovati.’  76  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 2/3–3/13, p. 4/12–16, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 1/22–2/29, p. 3/14–18. 77  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 3/15–5/11 and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 2/31–3/36. 78  For this passage in the Latin original see John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, pp.  4/9–5/4, it is omitted in the Czech translation Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 3/28 ff. 75 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

75

has to strictly obey poverty, steer clear of worldly matters, and always prefer Scripture over mundane interests.79 Already the first chapter levels harsh criticism at the simoniacal practices of the contemporary clergy and the popes’ corrupt fiscal practices. The clergy and the popes evidently fail to obey the five above-mentioned postulates of God’s Law. According to Wyclif, the high clergy does not hesitate to use secular means or even arms to obtain property, profit, and yields from legacies or pensions. The Czech translation expands this critique and brings it up to date: John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 8/6–9:

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of Wyclif ’s Dialogus, p. 6/7–12:80

Et ideo non mirum necessitantur, dicti clerici arma crudelius macabeis arripere et pugnare.

And it is no wonder that the conceited clergy has to have noble garments and the arms of worldly nobles, fighting ferociously and defending the dominion they gained wickedly by [accepting] bloodshed more horrible than the Maccabees, who are called heroes, [did]. And those who are willing to help them with this are bestowed with many false indulgences about which they [the clergy] hallucinate as if in a dream. Because of earthly papal dominion one [pope] cursed another and one gave many indulgences to all those who helped him shed blood [in the war] against another [pope] who [did the same] against the first. And this still happens frequently now.

Et sic oficium prime partis et secunde ecclesie simpliciter est subversum.

And so the office of the first estate of the church, that is the clergy, is completely perverted.

John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, p. 6/5–13, p. 7/12– 17, p. 9/13–21, p. 11/5, pp. 17–12/2, p. 13/2–6, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 4/14–22, p. 5/19–26, p. 7/14–19, p. 9/12–19, p. 10/3–5. As for identification with the concept of first truth (veritas prima) with Christ in the older tradition of Bohemian Reformation (in particular in works of Matthias of Janov), cf. Dekarli, ‘“Regula generalis, principalis, prima veritas”’, pp. 30–43. 80  Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed.  by Svoboda, p.  6/7–12: ‘A také z toho nenie div, že to žákovstvo tak zpaněné musie jmieti oděnie panošské a braň svěckých pánóv, ukrutně bojujíce a brániece toho panstvie zle dobytého až nejednú do krveprolitie, ukrutnějie nežli Machabei, rekové řečení. A kteří jim chtie toho na pomoc býti, těm dávají mnoho křivých odpustkóv, o nichžto jak ti ve sně bájí. Jakožto pro panstvie papežské svěcké jeden kletbu jest vydával na druhého a jeden mnoho odpustkóv dával jest těm všem, ješto jsú mu pomocni byli na krveprolitie proti druhému, a druhý též zase proti němu. A ještěť se mnoho toho děje. A tak po hřiechu pravý úřad prvnie stránky cierkvi svaté, to jest stavu kněžského, jest úplně zpět převrácen.’ 79 

76

Martin Dekarli

In some cases Jakoubek supplied the model text with his own opinions, which are consistent with the viewpoints of his model and reflect the reform programme of Hus’s circle in Prague. Essentially, he asserts that the clergy are obliged to obey Christ’s Law:81 John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 12/4–9:

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of Wyclif ’s Dialogus, p. 9/22–26:81

Patet 2o quomodo Christus magister optimus distinxit inter has duas prioritates, scilicet mundanam et evangelicam, et ipsam primam a suis sacerdotibus separavit. Non est, inquit, ita in vobis. Et patet tercio […]

Secondly, we have in it, how Christ, the best Master, made a great distinction between the secular and spiritual dignity. He removed the secular dignity from his priests saying: It will not be among you that you rule as secular lords do. Third, we should know […]

Wyclif concludes on the basis of Mark 10. 42–45 and Matthew 8. 20 that, in addition to living in poverty, the clergy have an obligation to provide proper pastoral care. Jakoubek enlarges on the passage detailing the clergy’s unethical practices: John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 13/14–17:

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of Wyclif ’s Dialogus, p. 10/14–23:82

Ubi ergo major infidelitas quam prelatos et sacerdotes alios tam cece deserere sanctam fidem. Nec solum dotati presbiteri ipsam deserunt, sed exproprietarii imponentes Christo blaspheme quod ab ipso edocti sunt taliter mendicare.

Where is greater infidelity if not with such prelates and other priests [who] leave the faith and the command that was especially determined for them according to Scripture. And not only rich, worldly priests desert and transgress God’s enactment,

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 9/22–26: ‘Druhé z toho máme, kterak Kristus, ten mistr najlepší, položil jest veliký rozdiel mezi dóstojenstvím svěckým a duchovním. A to dóstojenstvie svěcké oddělil jest od svých kněží a řka: Nebudeť tak mezi vámi, točížto byšte tak panovali jako svěčští páni. Třetie máme věděti, […]’. 82  Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 10/14–23: ‘kdež jest tehdy většie nevěra, jediné takovým prelátóm a jiným kněžím tak slepě opustiti tu vieru a přikázanie, ješto zvláště na ně slušie podlé Čtenie svatého. A netoliko bohatí světští kněžie opusťujía přestupují to božie ustavenie, ale také i zákonníci, zvláštnost milujíce, ješto lakomě pod svým pokrytstvím chudinu lúpie, ve všem, což činie duchovnieho, na svój užitek obracují viece nežli k lidskému spasení a k boží chvále. A to činie všichni falešní zákonníci, žebráním sobě dobývajíce tělestné potřeby, přieliš o to pečujíc, lživé odpustky dávajíc, a daleko od Pána Boha tudy lid svodie. A pod tiem pokrytstvím připisují Pánu Jezu Kristu kacieřstvie, řkúce, by on s svými apoštoly to žebránie vedl, jako oni vedú, a že by jako od Krista tak se naučili žebrati. Ale že jest Kristus byl najchudší […].’ 81 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 13/14–17:

77

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of Wyclif ’s Dialogus, p. 10/14–23:82 but also monks, loving their special position, are greedy and rob the poor for the sake of God’s praise and human salvation in their hypocrisy. And the false monks do all this, they beg for their physical needs; they are interested only [in the physical needs] and [therefore] they distribute false indulgences and mislead the people far away from [the path] of God. And in their hypocrisy they ascribe their heresy to Christ himself saying that He and the Apostles lived begging as they do themselves and that they [false monks] learned to beg from Him.

Christus enim fuit homo pauperrimus, […]

But Christ was the poorest man […]

In the second part of the Dialogus, in chapters 8–13, Falsehood enters the debate. It challenges the opinions of Truth, stressing that Christ did not regard poverty as a permanent law and that the dignity of the priesthood requires worldly support in the form of donations and tithes. The clerical acceptance of donations is defended by Falsehood, who refers to the testimonies of many holy men and saints and recalls the authority of papal bulls and other Church directives. Truth (auctorial voice) calls into question the testimonies of these ‘holy men and saints’ about donations. A number of holy men and saints sinned, according to Truth, and many a church order was issued by sinful prelates desirous of worldly possessions. Faithful Christians are to draw inspiration from Christ’s life and utterances. They have to follow God’s commandments and must not believe any holy man or saint if he turns away from God’s Law as formulated in Scripture.83 Faithful Christians have to listen intently to preachers, priests, and church doctors, read books on the saints, and to weigh the deeds of popes and cardinals. Further they have to discern what true Faith is and what mere conjecture, in sermons and in other texts, such as pastoral letters and

John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, p.  20/1–12, p. 22/10–29, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 16/22– 35, p. 20/4–34.

83 

78

Martin Dekarli

papal bulls, as well as in the deeds of their pastors. Finally, they must discern if the deeds of their pastors are consistent with God’s Law or contravene it.84 Several passages from the chapters 8–13 were considerably expanded by Jakoubek. For example, Wyclif ’s reference to I Kings 18. 1–29, which describes the victory of the prophet Elijah over the prophets of Baal, inspired Jakoubek to an eschatological excursion which may be interpreted as a selfdefence of Hus’s circle. According to Jakoubek, there are many priests called upon by God in the church militant, but in their deeds they lean towards earthly delights. There is, however, a small number of chosen ones who walk the Lord’s path, observe apostolic poverty, and obey Christ’s commandments.85 In another passage Jakoubek drew particular attention to the depravity of the pope and the cardinals. He contrasted the procedure of the papal election with the biblical election of Apostles: John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 22/7–26:

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of ­Wyclif ’s Dialogus, pp. 19/41–20/34, and a fragment of the Strahov manuscript:86

Et causa potissima quam false finxerant in dampnando Christum fuit falsa imposicio heresis: Jo 19o scribitur ‘nos legem habemus et secundum legem debet mori.’ Sic enim possent hodie populi papam colere

And the most serious thing they [the Jews] did to themselves by falsely accusing and disgracing Christ was that he was accused of heresy falsely as it is written in the Gospel of St John, in the nineteenth chapter:

John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, p. 20/18–28, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 17/22–18/4. 85  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, p.  21/13–22, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 18/31–19/21. 86  Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed.  by Svoboda, pp.  19/41–20/34: ‘A najvětšie příčina, kterúž jsú sobě složili, křivě Krista odsuzujíc a potupujíc, bylo jest křivě počteno na něho kacieřstvie, jako stojí psáno ve Čtení svatého Jana v devátém na dstém rozdiele: Řekli jsú duchovní múdří, mocní, jakožto dobří a slovutní: “My zákon máme a podle zákona má umřieti.” Takéż i nynie móž býti, že by lidé ctili papeže, biskupy i jiné najvětšie preláty, jich se viece báli a jich viece poslúchali pro jich hrózy a neřádné kletby a jim viece věřili nežli Kristovi, na všem na tom, což jest proti Čtení a proti apostolóm i proti jich svatým životóm, a tak tudy je velebie nad Krista ve všem v tom, což oni ustavie, a Krista potupují s jeho ustavením. Též kdy bývá ta dva papeže volená, protivná sobě, tehdy rozdielní lidé oni onoho a oni onoho potvrzují, a každý lid volenie svého papeže má za pravého jakožto za vieru, avšak jedna strana druhú kacěřuje, a též ji zase druhá. A  to se je dálo již a mnoho zlého vyšlo z toho. Protoż která většie neviera, než když všeho toho potvrzujeme, což ti najvětší preláti ustanovie. Neb kardinálové mohú býti diáblovi údové a od diábla sobě mohú zvoliti hlavu proti Kristovi, aby 84 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 22/7–26:

79

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of ­Wyclif ’s Dialogus, pp. 19/41–20/34, and a fragment of the Strahov manuscript: The Wise, Spiritual and Powerful as well as the Good and Mighty [of the Jews] said: ‘We have the Law and according to this Law he has to die.’ So it also may now be that the people revere the pope,

tanquam Christum sic quod si quicquid diffinierit in causa terrena sive celesti illud defendant et sustineant tanquam legem. bishops and other highest prelates, more from being afraid of them, their threats and false curses and believing them more than Christ; [believing] all that is against Scripture, against the apostles, and against their holy lives. And so they [the people] praise them [the pope and prelates] above Christ in all that they [the pope and prelates] declare and so they [the people] disgrace Christ and His commandments. Et si duo pape ex seminacione sathane electi fuerint, populi diversi elecciones illas approbant tanquam fidem.

And thus there were these two popes elected who hated each other. Then some people confirm this pope, some that pope and each people holds its own elected pope for the true

měl moc kázati boží zákon a svá ustavenie velebiti, a ihned toho jistého voleného aby nazývali všichni otce najsvětějšieho, toho, ješto jest najmocnější proti Kristovu řádu. Ej, toho mieti za prvnieho, za pravého náměstka po Kristovi a to jako za vieru držeti, jest veliké kacieřstvie od diábla v cierkev svatú uvedeno. Ne taktě byl svatý Matúš volen za dvanádstého apostola, neb jiných jedenádcte apostolóv s jinými v ta doba svatými modlili jsú se pokorně ku Pánu Bohu, aby jim zjevil, koho je sobě zvolil z dvanádstého. Nechtěli se plésti v volenie, než Bohu to poruċili a prosili, aby jim jedné zjevil to Pán Buoh, koho je zvolil za dvanádstého. Ale tito nynie kardinálové v pokrytství bez Ducha svatého sami volé sobě jednoho Antikrista za hlavu, aby v světě najviec panoval, pokoru a chudobu Kristovu aby potupil i jeho následovanie, a tudy aby se zlost tiem hojnějie rozmnožila a cesta božie aby se zapletla. Protož dobré křesťanstvie bylo by každému křesťánku, aby netbal na ta neřádná volenie, buď to papežstvie, neb biskupstvie, neb farářstvie, neb kterékolivěk jiné prelátstvie, v kterýchž úřadech volení diábelsky viece svodie nežli navodie; těch neslušie poslúchati, ale slušie se jich varovati a vystřiehati jakožto falešných prorokóv. A tak jedno křesťan sjednaj se s zákonem božím a utvrď se v trpědlivosti pravé, […]’ and Straka, ‘Nově objevené zlomky spisů Mistra Jana Husi v knihovně Strahovské’, pp. 59–60.

80

Martin Dekarli

John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 22/7–26:

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of ­Wyclif ’s Dialogus, pp. 19/41–20/34, and a fragment of the Strahov manuscript:

Et ex tali scismate oriri possent inconveniencia infinita.

one as if it [the election] were the faith itself. And each party accuses the other of heresy. All this happened already and great evil came of it.

Que, rogo, major infidelitas quam approbare elecciones cardinalium quia ex nobis dubio sunt diaboli incarnati, quod si elegerint qualemcunque personam in papam,

What is greater infidelity than to confirm all that the highest prelates ordain. The cardinals may be members of antichrist and, being led by the devil, they may elect for themselves

tunc ipse est pater santissimus et immediatus Christi vicarius.

a head who will be against Christ, so that he [the head, i.e. the pope] gains the power to preach God’s Law and praise his own enactments. And this person who is elected has to be called most saintly Father, he, who is the most powerful against Christ’s order. To hold [such person] for the first vicar of Christ and to hold that as a matter of faith, is great devilish heresy introduced in the Holy Church. Saint Matthias was not chosen for the twelfth apostle in this way. Eleven other apostles prayed together modestly with other [people] to God in that time so He may reveal to them whom He had chosen as the twelfth one. They did not want to interfere with the election, they dedicated it to God and begged him only to reveal them whom He had elected as the twelfth one. And now the cardinals in their hypocrisy choose without the Holy Ghost one antichrist as their head, so that he rules in the world, insulting the modesty and poverty of Christ, insulting also his following [in the sense of imitatio], so that evil multiplies in abundance and the path of God is overgrown with rambling weeds. So good Christianity for the rightful Christian should be to ignore the false elections, papal, episcopal, parochial or concerning any other church office. In such offices the elected ones, elected by the devil, seduce more than lead [the people]. It is not proper to follow them [the falsely elected] but to avoid them like false prophets.

Hec autem heresis, loco sortis apostolorum qua eligerunt Mathiam per diabolum introducta,

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 22/7–26:

81

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of ­Wyclif ’s Dialogus, pp. 19/41–20/34, and a fragment of the Strahov manuscript:

potest esse zizania ad catholicos in fide discordandum. Medicina ergoforet catholicum tale elecciones cum non sint apostolice refutare, et operibus persone viantis credere, et omnino dubium vel non fidem tamquam fidem catholicam refutare. Et sic concordet fidelis cum lege domini, et armet se cum paciencia et caritate, […]

And the Christian unifies himself with the Law of God and firms himself up in true patience, […]

Against these objections Truth argues that the holy men, saints, and other churchmen (if they accept donations, alms, etc.) turn away from poverty and neglect God’s Law and the poverty prescribed therein. Christians have to listen to and follow only church representatives who walk in the footprints of Christ and whose deeds and orders are consistent with God’s Law and not with false chronicles or apocrypha.87 The clergy has to be freed of all worldly imperfection and in particular of secular rule, superfluous properties, and other malignant ulcers deforming the body of Church. It is to attain perfection in poverty since this was decided by Jesus Christ himself so that all faithful can follow his Grace and real virtue.88 Jakoubek modified some passages in this part of the treatise, for example, the passage in which Wyclif discusses Falsehood’s argument in favour of the existing Church hierarchy taking the biblical example of the Apostles Peter and Stephen, who disobeyed God more than once and yet became saints. Jakoubek says that the signs of true holiness exclude worldly possessions, ecclesiastical dignities, opulence, and a sinful life: in short, everything that the faithful know that the popes and other prelates besmirch themselves with. The defining attributes of holiness are the life in poverty and

John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, p.  30/7–16, p. 32/22–31, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 28/2–14, p. 30/1–18. 88  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, pp.  33/19–34/7, p. 35/8–17, p. 36/16–30, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp.  31/13–32/2, p.  33/7–18, pp.  34/32–35/10, and Straka, ‘Nově objevené zlomky spisů Mistra Jana Husi v knihovně Strahovské’, pp. 63–66. 87 

82

Martin Dekarli

s­ crupulous imitation of Christ.89 In another passage Wyclif briefly discusses the problematic nature of nobly-born clergy striving for personal profits and honours for themselves, relatives and friends. Jakoubek elaborated it into a lengthy exposition on dangerous and sinful simoniacal practices. According to him, simony is a particularly heinous sin and in direct opposition to God’s commandments. Jakoubek quotes the example of Judas and his betrayal of Christ and makes a reference to Romans 3. 8, where it is stated that nothing good can result from evil deeds.90 Jakoubek did not always identify with Wyclif, as we see, for example, in a long passage in chapter sixteen of the Latin original. Wyclif points out that popes, bishops, and abbots cannot be considered saints on the basis of appearances because the Devil is able to fool the faithful. Christians are under obligation to respect only deeds which are in harmony with God’s Law. Jakoubek replaced this passage with an exposition on the false signs of Antichrist. The henchmen of Antichrist effect the false signs among the clergy who enrich themselves at the expense of the people.91 The comparison of another passage in the Latin text and the Czech translation indicates that Jakoubek either worked with a Latin model text different from all those extant or that he misread the text (by reading imitatio as mutatio) and distorted the meaning of the Latin model.92 John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 34/11–17:

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of Wyclif ’s Dialogus, p. 32/8–10:92

Sed felix talis imitacio, cum ipocrite qui simulant sanctitatem sunt apostematamagis superflua et matri ecclesie magis nocent. Cum evidens sit multis racionibus quod

It would be a happy metamorphosis because in the hypocrisy that presents itself as being in great holiness is a real ulcer in the spiritual body of the holy Church and

John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, p.  30/7–16, p. 32/22–31, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 28/2–14, p. 30/1–18. 90  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, p.  35/21–29, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 33/20–34/11. 91  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 31/26–32/11, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 29/17–24. 92  Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 32/8–10: ‘Ale zčastná by to byla proměna, neb v pokrytství nenie, ješto se ukazuje, jakožto by u veliké svatosti bylo, jsú pravé hlízy zbytečné v tom duchovniem těle cierkve svaté a velmi škodlivé. Nebť je to vědomá věc v zákoně božiem, že ktož v pokrytství přijímá stav kněžský pro čest tohoto světa a pro dóstojenstvie světské aneb pro rozkoš těla, ten jakožto boží zrádce a svatokupec a kacieř v hlubokost se hřiechóv potopuje.’ 89 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

83

John Wyclif, Dialogus, p. 34/11–17:

Jakoubek of Stříbro, Translation of Wyclif ’s Dialogus, p. 32/8–10:92

capiens simulatorie statum cleri propter honorem mundanum, diginitatem secularem, vel corporis voluptatem, tanquam dei proditor symoniacus et hereticus in voraginem se involvit.

a very damaging one. Because it is a known issue in God’s Law that if somebody accepts the clerical office hypocritically because of worldly honours or because of the pleasure of the body, then he disgraces himself with the deepest sin like the betrayer of God and simoniac and heretic.

In chapters 19–25, Falsehood defends the creation of monastic orders within the Church, saying that monks’ prayers in convents and the alms that they receive are important for the entire Church and for the salvation of all the faithful. The monks, according to Falsehood, do not sell prayers for alms like some procurers or shady dealers and neither do they have the obligation to work and make a living with their hands because their dignity would suffer from this. The practice of alms-giving does not interfere with the Gospel or Christ’s Law and not even with the Commandments. It was legitimately introduced and recognized in the Church’s tradition. According to Falsehood, the clergy, and more particularly popes, cardinals, and bishops, have the right to rule with worldly possessions and to administer them for themselves and for the poor. If the high clergy including bishops, canons, and abbots, could not dispose of worldly possessions, the decline of all the clergy and destruction of the entire Church would be the consequence. Truth, by contrast, not surprisingly, holds the creation of the monastic orders within the Church to be a stupid restriction of Christ’s religion. Monastic vows are a sort of private religion and a separate law. Jesus Christ envisaged only three estates of the Church – clergy, secular lords, and common people – and did not establish any monastic order. He did not order the Apostles or Disciples to live in enclosed convents and to profess their faith in privacy, but exclusively and solely in public.93 Referring to Psalm 13. 14 and to the Gospels, Wyclif argues that Christ preached and worked miracles publicly and refused to build temples. Beneath the open sky the heavenly effect is received more freely; a sermon ascends more freely to the Lord’s hearing than may be the case in cloistered convents. All temples, basilicas, and convents were built on the basis of feigned and erroneous rules, solely

John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, p.  39/11–18, p. 41/20–27, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 38/2–8, p. 39/20–30.

93 

84

Martin Dekarli

as expressions of mundane interests. They were not made with the purpose of turning Christians’ attention to the heavenly home.94 In the Church, only and solely Christ’s commandments should be obeyed, as they possess a special authority and hold sway over all human precepts issued later. Furthermore, Christ’s commandments stand out with their facility as they divest people of all silly occupations and superfluities. Finally, they stand out for their consistency because the essence of Christ’s commandments is the Gospel, which lacks nothing and needs no further derogations or precepts.95 Wyclif then calls into question the effectiveness of the prayers of monks living in convents who often receive worldly goods from lay people for their prayers. None of the human beings journeying in this world and none of the monks knows to what degree God would accept the letters’ prayer, and therefore he cannot offer it for sale. If someone does this, he is a simoniac who should be excommunicated from Christ’s Church. God wants the effects of prayers to be unknown to people and does not want prayers to be traded. With a reference to Proverbs 23. 9 Wyclif infers that both the monastic and canonical orders with their simoniacal practices of selling prayers have departed from the Lord’s Law and, as a result, their prayers must necessarily fall flat.96 Likewise, Wyclif criticizes the pernicious clerical practices of seeking worldly rule and the earthly possessions, in particular those of the pope and the cardinals (the description concerns the period after the outbreak of the Western Schism 1378). The institution of the papacy should be abolished, including the cardinals because the bishop of souls, Lord Jesus Christ, can rule much better together with faithful Christians than the popes and their subordinate prelates. In the Church, poverty should be instituted as in the times of the Apostles. All Church prerogatives issued and instituted after the time of Christ and the Apostles, such as donations, indulgences, alms, monastic orders, and convents should be abolished because they contradict reason and Scripture and because they lay false claim to eternal beatitude and distort the truth. Priests must strive to preach and to work manually

John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, p.  42/16–26, pp.  42/30–43/12, cf.  Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed.  by Svoboda, pp. 40/25–41/3, p. 41/8–23. 95  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 40/27–41/10, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 38/33–10. 96  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, pp.  44/29–45/7, p. 46/11–18, p. 47/13–17, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 43/29–38, p. 45/4–23, p. 45/32–37. 94 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

85

a­ ccording to their capabilities as we read in Scripture about the Apostle Paul (Acts 18. 3; Acts 20. 34), who earned a living making tents.97 Jakoubek altered several passages of this diatribe. For example, a passage in which Wyclif examines the contradictions between the clergy’s words and deeds concerning worldly rule contains a simile about a physician and herbal medicine. Jakoubek replaced the simile with a criticism of the clergy neglecting God’s Law and its requirement of rigorous poverty.98 Elsewhere, with a reference to Luke 11. 33, Wyclif compares the light of a candle to the souls of the true faithful in grace. Their souls shine openly and illuminate the church militant. Jakoubek replaced this passage with the own exposition on Christ’s commands to obey God’s Law, to read the Bible regularly, and to preach.99 We meet here with Jakoubek’s tendency as a translator to teach the reader how to distinguish the true pastors from the false ones in everyday life. As earlier implied, Jakoubek expanded the model text considerably. In the passage dealing with prayers, the effects of which are concealed from the faithful, Jakoubek expanded the original four lines with a detailed explanation of how God’s Grace is bestowed.100 Jakoubek intensifies Wyclif ’s criticism of the papacy, its simoniacal practices and temporal power. He adds that the name ‘pope’ is not mentioned in God’s Law or in Scripture.101 He approves thoroughly of Wyclif ’s view of the benefits of manual work for the clergy. He adds that emptiness, pride, parsimony, and the interference of priests and monks in worldly matters troubles their conscience and harms the Church. Consequently, they cannot celebrate Holy Mass and perform other religious rituals appropriately.102 This conclusion made by Jakoubek John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, p.  49/13–25, p. 50/7–19, p. 51/12–13, pp. 51/24–52/5, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 47/29–48/12, pp. 48/29–49/5, p. 49/33–34, p. 50/9 and the following. 98  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Pollard, p.  38/9–28, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 37/3–15. 99  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 41/27–42/2, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 39/31–40/4. 100  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, p. 44/17–21 and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 42/34–43/12. Further see a similarly expanded passage on the effects of prayers John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, p. 46/15–18, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 45/12–24. 101  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, p. 49/16–18, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 47/31–32, p. 48/4–5. 102  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 51/24–52/9, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 50/9–18. 97 

86

Martin Dekarli

represents a r­adicalized re-formulation of Wyclif ’s political theology, one that Hus and his circle were developing at the given time in Prague. Of the final ten chapters of Wyclif ’s Dialogus, only two fragments have survived in Czech translation (see Table 1). The first contains a substantial part of chapters 28 and 29; the other contains a part of chapter 35 and a very short part of the final chapter, 36.103 If we compare the first fragment with the Latin original, we see that both texts accentuate equally an outright rejection of alms-giving practices. Alms-giving is a stupid blasphemy and the clergy sins gravely by accumulating great possessions from alms.104 In the translation we do not find a relatively long part of chapter twentyeight, in which Wyclif discusses at length the legitimacy of alms-giving. Jakoubek replaced it with his own exposition: alms should not be paid to anyone by anyone, although the practice is established in church tradition. It is transgression of the commands of Christ and does not help the faithful to gain salvation.105 In his criticism of clerical possessions accumulated from alms, Wyclif concentrates on two main aspects of sin, i.e. quantity and quality. Jakoubek did not include Wyclif ’s extensive Old Testament and New Testament examples in his translation, and he completely omitted the second aspect of sin: quality. He replaced the examples with an enumeration of the clergy’s specific deficiencies, notably their enrichment at the expense of the poor and lack of virtue, faith, and charity.106 As can be seen, the majority of Jakoubek’s additions are focused on the same topics, among which the robbery of the poor, unlawfulness of the papacy, pride and sinful life of the clergy, and the damaging effects of worldly possessions on the priestly dignity occupy prominent places. Stressing this again and again, it seems that Jakoubek wanted to ensure that these central issues in reformed political theology sunk deep roots in the minds of his readers. In the other fragment, only the main structure of Wyclif ’s original argument is extant. The Church has three estates (priests, secular lords, and common people), and each one is obliged to obey God’s Law. But, the Devil has

John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 58/17–63/6, pp.  82/14–84/15, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed.  by Svoboda, pp. 54/28–58/16, pp. 59/4–61/2. 104  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, p. 58/20–27, p. 62/21–22, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 54/32–55/4, p. 58/6–7. 105  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 59/10–60/3, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 55/20–56/9. 106  John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 62/28–63/5, cf. Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, p. 58/9–16. 103 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

87

seduced the clergy with worldly power and turned them away from evangelical poverty so that they ignore Christ’s humility and commands. They neglect preaching the Scripture and the tasks assigned to them by Jesus for the redemption of believers. The worldly rule and riches of the clergy contradict apostolic poverty and Christ’s demands. Both Wyclif and Jakoubek therefore require that the clergy be divested of worldly goods and rule so that the Church ceases to betray Christ’s commands.107 Conclusion The réécriture of Wyclif ’s work in Bohemia as it is reflected in the extant manuscripts can be divided into six types. The first type comprises copies of individual texts of Wyclif, the second introductory summaries of the contents of subchapters in Wyclif ’s works, and the third indices to individual tracts. The fourth group includes Czech and Latin marginalia in copies of Wyclif ’s works intended for Czech readers, the fifth covers comments on Wyclif ’s texts, and finally, the sixth contains Czech translations of some of his late works on political theology. Until about 1443 there were as many as three Czech translations of Wyclif ’s polemical works in Bohemia: of De civili dominio (not extant), Trialogus (not extant) and Dialogus (preserved in two later fragmentary copies). We know of the existence of the Czech translation of the tractate De civili dominio thanks to the lay theologian Petr Chelčický, who quotes directly from this translation in his Replika proti Rokycanovi (The Reply to Rokycana, 1430s). Thanks to an account of Štěpán of Dolany we have evidence of the existence of a Czech medieval translation of Wyclif ’s Trialogus, which is considered to have been provided by Jan Hus around the year 1403 or by him and Jerome of Prague sometime between 1403 and 1407. A Czech translation of Wyclif ’s Dialogus is extant in two Prague codices from the fifteenth century; it was made some time in 1411 and its author was the Czech reformist theologian Jakoubek of Stříbro. It is an adaptation of the Latin model. The translator’s intention was to present Wyclif ’s political theology to the lay public who spoke and read Czech. The most important influence of John Wyclif ’s political theology in late medieval Bohemia was associated with the reception of two of his

John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed. by Pollard, pp. 82/14–84/15, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu, ed. by Svoboda, pp. 59/4–61/2.

107 

88

Martin Dekarli

late polemical works, De ecclesia and De dominio divino. Neither De ecclesia nor De dominio divino were available in Bohemia until at least the first half of 1407.108 Both texts played an important role in the debate on papal ­indulgences that provoked public riots in the middle of June 1412. They find their echo as well in Hus’s most important ecclesiastical-polemical works (De ecclesia, Contra Stanislaum de Znoyma, Contra Stephanum Palecz, Contra octo ­doctores) c­ omposed between 1413 and 1414.109 We may regard the vernacular translations of important polemical works compiled by Wyclif as proof that Hus and his followers had decided to approach their lay followers with the crucial texts that they themselves depended on even in the first decade of the fifteenth century. That means the laity had some access to the base on which the leaders of the reform movement formulated their most important theological, ecclesiastical, and political positions in the first phase of the reform movement’s development. It is possible that the main target readers were mainly priests with little or no proficiency in Latin, but the character of the only extant translation indicates that lay readers were its intended audience. The question remains, however, what role John Wyclif as the author played in the translation, as he was the highest authority and paradigm among Prague reformers. Jakoubek never refers to Wyclif in the translation; he reworked his original text considerably, editing and omitting everything that was less useful for his target readers. He also used only the passages where the key arguments concerning Wyclif ’s political theology were formulated. That means that the character of Wyclif ’s authority – Doctor Evangelicus as he was called by Prague reformists – in the Bohemian Reformation has to be re-defined. Wyclif ’s texts represented only the raw material out of which the Bohemians’ On the beginnings of the influence of Wyclif ’s polemical tracts (especially De ecclesia) on Jan Hus and the Czech reformation was a controversial work by Johann Loserth (see note 1); the debate on these issues also continued during the twentieth century. For the Czech manuscripts De ecclesia and De civili dominio see Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf, pp. 48–55, pp. 58–60 (here is a brief summary of the importance of the tract De ecclesia for Jan Hus and Bohemian Reformation as well as the review of historiography in the twentieth century), additions in Hudson, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, pp.  3–4 (‘Appendix  II: Supplement to Manuscripts Listings’). For the Lollard contacts maintained by Faulfiš and Kněhnice, especially van Dussen, From England to Bohemia, p. 61, pp. 70–72, pp. 80–83 and Hudson, ‘Opera omnia’, p. 52. 109  For the indulgences affair in summer 1412 see Doležalová and others, ‘The Reception and Criticism of Indulgences in the Late Medieval Czech Lands’, pp.  101–46, esp. pp. 127–37, for the debate on the Reform Programme and Hus’s polemical works in brief Soukup, Jan Hus, pp. 159–74. 108 

Réécriture Of John Wyclif’s Oeuvre in Late Medieval Bohemia

89

urgent message concerning the reform of the church was formulated. It was, of course, very important material, crucial for achieving the goal of reform, but no more than that. This is evidenced by the different types of Wyclif ’s réécriture in Prague – various kinds of commentaries, indices, summaries, and catalogues. Wyclif ’s work was used as a reservoir of arguments, how it was used depended fully on concrete circumstances. Maybe this is the reason why it is sometimes so difficult to differentiate between Wyclif ’s original contribution and the original ideas of Prague reformers in the relevant preserved sources. The Prague reformers interiorized John Wyclif ’s intellectual heritage in a creative way that was shaped by the events of their own time and place.

THE PUNCTA OF JAN HUS: THE LATIN TRANSMISSION OF VERNACULAR PREACHING Pavel Soukup

T

he Puncta are a surprisingly understudied source, given the attention Jan Hus and his preaching have attracted in general. In the few scholarly accounts devoted to Hus’s earliest sermon collection, the Puncta are considered to be atypical, different from his later homiletic works. A more thorough examination of this collection promises to deepen the knowledge of Hus’s literary output and could allow Jan Hus the preacher to emerge in a new, even unusual light. Unfortunately, the collection remains unedited. The seven surviving codices, comprising more than 1000 manuscript folios in total, differ not only in their individual readings, but also in the number and sequence of sermons. Another difficulty results from the nature of the source. Although we can presume that the sermons had a connection to live preaching at some point in the course of their production and transmission, the preserved texts are quite distant from the vernacular oral event – not least because they are written in Latin. As soon as we dismiss the notion that the Puncta were verbatim transcripts of live preaching – a case that never occurs in medieval sources – we are left struggling to uncover the vernacular homiletic instruction hidden under multiple layers of literate involvement. The sermons in the Puncta employ typical features that facilitate the laity’s acceptance of their message: distinctiones, exempla, and figurae. These features are rare in Hus’s later sermon collections. This raises the question whether – and if so, why – Hus rejected these elements later as inappropriate for religious instruction. Jan Hus stood at the juncture of two cultures, Latin/ academic and Czech/popular. The transmission of reform teaching from the university centre, where it originated, to the people outside who contributed decisively to the emergence, survival, and success of the movement was a pivotal part of Hus’s activity and took two main forms. One was the proper translation of texts, on which Hus especially concentrated in the last years of his career when he authored extensive vernacular writings. The other was Pursuing a New Order, Volume II: Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian Reformation, ed. by Pavlína Rychterová with the collaboration of Julian Ecker TMT 17.2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 91–126 © DOI 10.1484/M.TMT-EB.5.116599

FHG

92

Pavel Soukup

popular preaching, which he pursued from the beginning of his priesthood.1 Although the majority of what we have as witnesses to this preaching activity is in Latin, the popular preaching naturally took place in Czech. Thus, Jan Hus’s Latin postils,2 including the Puncta, are witnesses to the same processes which operated in vernacular works, namely the adaptation of theological discourse for a non-academic audience. It is often difficult to establish the exact purpose and intended audience of surviving texts when a cultural and linguistic translation took place before they were recorded.3 The distance between written witnesses and live preaching can never be bridged entirely. Research into the reportationes (notes put down by listeners) has shown what processes operated when the spoken word was captured by someone in the audience.4 The reportatores were able to note down in Latin a speech given in the vernacular. They proceeded selectively but often made up for the passages they missed by sharing notes with other listeners or borrowing preaching materials from the speaker. We can observe the shifts and changes better in those rare cases when we have both the preacher’s version and the account of the reportator.5 The reportationes reveal themselves as such through broken sentences, macaronic passages, and generally less elaborate stylistic features than what appears in full-text sermons. On the other hand, they can contain bits that the preacher did not find necessary to record in his draft, such as repeated headings or entire ­exempla (which are usually only indicated by a keyword or title in the preacher’s text). A reportatio could also capture passages that the preacher spoke spontaneously in the pulpit. However, many traces of orality, such as authoritative first-person statements, apostrophes to the audience, and references to the liturgical or other circumstances of the preaching event, can be misleading. In many cases, they are omitted in a text edited by the preacher himself.6

Most recently, see Rychterová, ‘The Vernacular Theology of Jan Hus’. The term ‘postil’ is used in Hussite scholarship (including this paper) synonymously with ‘sermon collection’. 3  See the discussion of bilingual sermons in Kämmerer, Codeswitching in Predigten des 15. Jahrhunderts, pp. 97–115. 4  See Rusconi, ‘Reportatio’; Bataillon, ‘Sermons rédigés, sermons reportés’; Bériou, ‘La reportation des sermons parisiens’. 5  For the late Middle Ages, the library of the Vadstena Abbey offers interesting material. See Hallberg, Acho Iohannis scribens, praedicans, auditus; Hallberg, ‘Reportaciones Vadsteneses’, pp.  101–14. For an overview, see Andersson and Borgehammar, ‘The Preaching of the Birgittine Friars’. 6  Mertens, ‘Relic or Strategy’, pp. 298–300. 1  2 

The Puncta of Jan Hus

93

Generally speaking, a homiletical text could have originated before live delivery (en amont), or after (en aval), or with no connection to oral performance at all.7 The sermons fixed in writing in advance of delivery typically take the form of a draft, notes, or schemes. Yet a number of written pieces could serve as ­‘preachable texts’ even if they were not composed primarily with the intention of being preached.8 Just as a preacher’s notes on loose leaves, to accompany him to the pulpit, only exceptionally survive, the reportationes are rarely found in their raw version as written down during the performance. The sermons recorded after the performance were subject to editorial processing before they were copied in codices. The preacher himself may or may not have been involved in this process. In any case, he also could rework his live sermon into an edited version (sermon rédigé) and ‘publish’ it.9 He could also write and publish a sermon without a previous oral delivery, intending it for reading only, or as a model for composing live sermons. Of course, any written sermon could become a model. It is often supposed that less gifted preachers just read sermons of other preachers.10 Yet even in this last case the re-oralization was not a simple task of reading aloud – at the very least, the preacher working with model sermons in Latin had to transform them into a vernacular live speech. The problem of linguistic and cultural translation remains present as long as we suppose that Latin texts were used for instruction in the people’s mother tongue. In Central Europe, reportationes in the vernacular are very rare;11 I am not aware of any in Old Czech. The reconstruction of vernacular instruction largely relies on Latin postils. Could vernacular sermon collections help in this respect? In Romance languages, two basic types of sermon collections have been distinguished. The collections de tempore, which mix vernacular sermons with Latin paratexts, had a double audience: they were composed for the use of priests with the final goal of being transformed into preaching for the laity. In the thirteenth century, a different type of vernacular collection emerged: sermons intended for pious reading by laymen and laywomen. In the late Middle Ages, model sermons in the vernacular are uncommon. What we find in most cases are literary sermons written by the authors without expectation of an oral delivery (Lesepredigten). If these sermons have ‘predicatory features’, these are just a fiction of orality.12 As recent scholarship points out, ‘conceptual orality’ or vocalité is Zink, La prédication, pp. 24–47, pp. 204–09. Mertens, ‘Relic or Strategy’, p. 295. 9  Bériou, ‘Les sermons latins après 1200’, pp. 405–10. 10  De Reu, ‘Divers chemins pour étudier un sermon’, p. 335. 11  Rusconi, ‘Reportatio’, p. 12; Schiewer, ‘Spuren von Mündlichkeit’, p. 67. 12  Schiewer, ‘Spuren von Mündlichkeit’, pp. 65–69; Zink, ‘Les destinateurs’, pp. 59–74. 7  8 

94

Pavel Soukup

a constitutive feature of homiletical works. The potential performance is thus inscribed in the sermon texts, whether the sermon originated in c­ onnection with an oral event or was a purely literary creation.13 This potential for reoralization often found its fulfilment in glosses and other notes by later users.14 In the absence of a colophon that would indicate where and by whom the text was preached, we must abandon any search for the preaching event. This is the case with the Puncta, which do not contain any explicit reference to oral delivery. Nor does the postil give an impression that it was based on reportationes. Linguistic inconsistencies, stylistic breaks, and lack of grammatical structure in some parts of the Puncta do not seem to result from taking down an oral discourse but are rather characteristics of a ‘raw material’ collection with a low level of literary elaboration. Even if the oral delivery of the sermons by Jan Hus is not immediately reflected in the text, we need not give up the attempt to explain why the Puncta look as they do. This study will ask about the place of the Puncta in the production and transmission process. Questions of purpose, dating, use, and manipulation of the collection will be addressed. In all these research areas, the examination of the surviving manuscripts is a necessary starting point for any treatment of the Puncta. The Manuscripts Seven complete manuscripts and two fragments of the Puncta are known to me. J = Jena, Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, MS El. f. 4915 Paper, 27.5 × 20 cm, 173 fols, first half of the fifteenth century (watermarks 1423–25) Provenance: Cistercian house in Grünhain (in the Grünhain catalogue, ‘Sermones Alani’) Contents: fols 1r–25v fols 25v–50v fols 50v–57r fols 61r–175v

Sermones de mortuis, some by Iohannes de Sancto Geminiano Sermones de tempore et de sanctis (with Czech, Latin and German glosses; a glossary and theological notes inserted) Four unconnected sermons Jan Hus, Puncta

Wetzel and Flückiger, ‘Einleitung’, pp. 14–16. Schiewer, ‘Spuren von Mündlichkeit’, pp. 70–76. 15  Tönnies, Die mittelalterlichen lateinischen Handschriften, pp. 130–33, which fails to note Hus’s authorship of the final item in the MS. 13  14 

The Puncta of Jan Hus

95

K = Prague, Archiv Pražského hradu, Knihovna Metropolitní kapituly, MS O 1016 Paper, 27.5 × 15 cm, 224 fols, first half of the fifteenth century Provenance: unknown Contents: fols 1r–6r fols 6r–12r fols 12r–13v fols 14r–20r fols 20r–50v fols 51r–61r fols 62r–215v fols 215v–21v fols 222r–29v

Notae de oboedientia et de clavibus ecclesiae Homiliae Remigii Jan Hus, De excommunicatione Expositions of the Pater noster, Ave Maria, and Credo [the same as in N and O] Various extracts mostly from Jan Hus’s Super  IV Sententiarum [partly also found in N] Stephen of Kolín, Lectura super Isaiam I–III Jan Hus, Puncta Sermones varii Jan Hus, Sermo de dedicatione; Sermo Ait Dominus servo; Sermo Vos estis sal

M = Prague, KNM, MS XVI E 1417 Paper, 20 × 15 cm, 176 + 2 fols, second third of the fifteenth century Provenance: Priest Briccius, sixteenth century; later in the collection of Prague archbishop Václav Leopold Chlumčanský of Přestavlky (d. 1830) Contents: fols 1r–76v fols 74v–84r fols 85r–150v fols 151r–65r fols 165v–76v

Jan Hus, Puncta (de tempore) Sermones varii Jan Hus, Puncta (de sanctis) Jakoubek of Stříbro, Treatise Quod non solum sacerdotes Excerpta et sermones varii

N = Prague, NKČR, MS IV F 2518 Paper, 21.5 × 15 cm, 209 + 2 fols, second quarter of the fifteenth century Provenance: Priest Iohannes of Pacov, fifteenth century, later the Clementinum Library in Prague Contents:

Patera and Podlaha, Soupis rukopisů knihovny Metropolitní kapitoly pražské, ii, pp. 466–68. Bartoš, Soupis rukopisů Národního musea v Praze, ii, p. 359; fuller description at [updated on 20 September 2010, accessed on 13 December 2012]. I count the two leaves partly torn out as 35 and 36. 18  Truhlář, Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum Latinorum qui in C.  R. Bibliotheca publica atque Universitatis Pragensis asservantur, i, pp.  289–90; fuller description at [updated 20 September 2010, accessed on 13 December 2012]. 16  17 

96

Pavel Soukup

fols 1r–143r fols 143v–49v fols 149v–53v fols 154r–65v fols 166r–86v fols 187r–209r fol. 209v

Jan Hus, Puncta Expositions of the Pater noster, Ave Maria and Credo [the same as in K and O] Extracts from Jan Hus’s Super IV Sententiarum [also found in K] Questiones by Martin Kunssonis and Peter of Benešov Jan Hus, Treatises from Constance Documents from the trial of Hus fragment of Jan Hus, O šesti bludiech

O = Olomouc, Vědecká knihovna, MS M I 28819 Paper, 23 × 15 cm, 224 fols, first half of the fifteenth century (before 1414?) Provenance: Carthusians in Královo Pole near Brno Contents: fols 1r–4r fols 5r–210v fols 210v–18r fols 219r–23r

Auctoritates Jan Hus, Puncta Expositions of the Pater noster, Ave Maria, and Credo [the same as in K and N] Legend of Corpus Christi

P = Plzeň, Studijní a vědecká knihovna Plzeňského kraje, MS 134 22520 Paper, 21.5 × 15 cm, 194 + 2 fols, fifteenth century Provenance: unknown; later Admont, Benediktinerstift, 607; collection of Otokar Kruliš-Randa (d. 1958), 8 H 4 Contents: fols 1r–78r fols 79r–163v fols 165r–84v fols 186r–90r fols 190v–94v

Jan Hus, Puncta (de tempore) Jan Hus, Puncta (de sanctis) Sermones varii pseudo-Isidorus Hispalensis, De modo et norma vivendi Legend of St Elizabeth

W = Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 431021 Paper, 22 × 16.5 cm, 129 fols, 1414 Boháček and Čáda, Beschreibung der mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Wissenschaftlichen Staatsbibliothek von Olmütz, i, pp. 208–09. 20  Linda, Soupis rukopisů Studijní a vědecké knihovny Plzeňského kraje, iii, pp. 197–99. The Puncta are catalogued as an anonymous sermon collection. 21  Schwarzenberg, Katalog der kroatischen, polnischen und tschechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, pp. 101–03. 19 

The Puncta of Jan Hus

97

Provenance: Utraquist priest Václav Rosa (d. 1560; owned the codex from 1517); later Ambras Castle, A 53 Contents: fols 1r–127v fols 128r–29v

Jan Hus, Puncta Two sermons

Fragments X = Prague, NKČR, MS X H 1322 Paper, 22 × 15.5 cm, 208 + 3 fols, first third of the fifteenth century Provenance: unknown (old shelf-mark E 12o); later the Clementinum Library in Prague Contents: Jan Hus, Sermones adventuales de Punctis, Collectis et Leccionario fols 1r–31v bipartito fols 31v–39r Jan Hus, Sermones tres de Assumptione fols 40r–51v Expositio capituli primi epistolae ad Hebreos fols 52r–73v Jakoubek of Stříbro, Sermo super Liber generacionis (de Nativitate beatae Mariae)23 fols 74r–75v Sermo de Nativitate beatae Mariae fols 76r–83r Tractatus de peccato (excerpt from Hugh of Strasbourg, Compendium theologicae veritatis III. 3–14)24 fols 83r–107r Bonaventure, Soliloquium fols 107r–14r Pseudo-Bernardus Claraevallensis, Tractatus de passione Domini secundum septem horas canonicas fols 114r–19v Hugo de Sancto Victore, Soliloquium de arra animae fols 119r–24v Hugo de Sancto Victore, De modo orandi fols 124v–41v Pseudo-Hugo de Sancto Victore, De interiori domo (De claustro animae) fols 141v–52r Pseudo-Anselmus Cantuariensis, Liber de mensuratione crucis fols 152r–57r Excerpta theologica

Truhlář, Catalogus, ii, pp.  111–12; fuller description at [updated on 20 September 2010, accessed on 13 December 2012]. 23  See Bartoš, Literární činnost M. J. Husi, p. 45, no. 55; Spunar, Repertorium, I, pp. 237–38, no. 642. 24  Albertus Magnus, Opera omnia, ed. by Borgnet, XXXV, pp. 91–105. 22 

98

Pavel Soukup

fols 157r–62r fols 162v–64v fols 164v–80r fol 180r–v fols 181r–84v fols 184v–85v fols 185v–203v

Sermones varii Jan Hus, Sermones de sancto Adalberto et de sanctis Philippo et Jacobo Sermones varii Jan Hus, Sermo de beata virgine Maria Excerpta theologica John Wyclif, Tractatus de religionibus vanis monachorum Jan Hus, Sermones de oboediencia

Y = Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 428325 Paper, 21 × 16.5 cm, 450 fols, fifteenth and sixteenth century (1532) Provenance: Utraquist priest Václav Rosa (d. c. 1560) Contents: Václav Rosa, Sermons fols 1r–215v Jan Hus, Puncta (part) fols 216r–26v Václav Rosa, Sermons fols 227r–450v

Summary of Previous Research The Puncta (in W) were first mentioned in Denis’s catalogue of the Viennese court library from 1793.26 In 1902, Václav Flajšhans discovered a second copy (K) and compared it briefly to W.27 In 1915, Jan Sedlák used the Puncta, ‘Hus’s development as seen in his postils’.28 That same year, František  M. Bartoš was able to bring a further manuscript (M) to light. He also recognized that the Olomouc codex (O), which in a remark on the pastedown attributes the ‘dicta de tempore et de sanctis per circulum anni’ to Matthias of Janov (d. 1393), in fact contains Jan Hus’s Puncta.29 Despite the objections of Václav Novotný in 1919,30 Hus’s authorship of the Puncta was widely accepted. In 1943, František M. Bartoš published ‘On the Beginnings of Hus as a Writer’,

Schwarzenberg, Katalog der kroatischen, polnischen und tschechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, pp. 80–82. 26  Denis, Codices manuscripti theologici, i/2, cols 1729–31. 27  Flajšhans, ‘Paběrky z rukopisů kapitulních’, p. 310; Flajšhans, ‘K literární činnosti M. Jana Husa’; Jan Hus, Sermones de sanctis, ed. by Flajšhans, p. VI. 28  Sedlák, ‘Husův vývoj dle jeho postil’, pp. 395–99. See also Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, pp. 83–88. 29  Bartoš, ‘Nové Husovy postily’, p. 377. Vlastimil Kybal earlier voiced doubts about Janov’s authorship of the sermons in manuscript O. Nevertheless, Augustin Neumann viewed them as Matthias’s work as late as 1922. Kybal, M. Matěj z Janova, pp. 40–41; Neumann, ‘Výbor z předhusitských postil’, pp. 71–75. 30  Novotný, M. Jan Hus, i/i, p. 91; i/ii, p. 325. 25 

The Puncta of Jan Hus

99

which surveyed all manuscripts hitherto known, identified N, and added one more manuscript (P).31 In 1948, Bartoš discovered a fragment containing the beginning of the Puncta in a codex at Vienna (Y); ten years later, Anežka Vidmanová found a few sermons from the Puncta (X).32 The six complete manuscripts were listed in the respective entries in Bartoš’s catalogue of Hus’s writings from 1948 and in his and Pavel Spunar’s repertory of 1965.33 Since Bartoš, the Puncta have been occasionally mentioned in works on early Hussite preaching.34 In her summary account of Hus’s preaching ‘Hus als Prediger’ (1975), Anežka Vidmanová argued that the Puncta do not reflect Hus’s actual preaching.35 Vidmanová’s edition of Hus’s Leccionarium bipartitum and a preparatory study from 1986 concluded that Hus (in accord with his practice of re-using his own works) took several sermons from the Puncta and incorporated them into his Leccionarium, a de tempore postil from c. 1406/7.36 The present knowledge of the Puncta is thus largely represented by the articles of Sedlák and Bartoš. Among other things, Sedlák focused on the sources of the sermons. He noticed quotations from ancient authors and, unable to identify those sources that are not indicated by authors’ names, he only remarked that the numerous distinctiones are not taken from Wyclif. He did, however, identify a quotation from the Oxford doctor that Hus later used in his Czech Postil.37 A striking feature of the Puncta noted by Sedlák was the abundant use of exempla and fables, often developing animal motifs. As for the contents, he pointed out some moralizing passages and ­distinguished those in which reformist critique began to manifest itself and those in which Hus had not yet reached his future radicalism.38

Bartoš, ‘Ze spisovatelských počátků Husových’, pp. 34–38. Bartoš, ‘Domnělá kázání Husova pronesená na Krakovci’, p. 107; Schmidtová, ‘[Review of ] F. M. Bartoš’, p. 290. 33  Bartoš, Literární činnost M. J. Husi, pp. 30–31, no. 2; Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis, p. 138, no. 87. 34  Most recently, see Marek, Jakoubek ze Stříbra a počátky utrakvistického kazatelství, p. 80; Soukup, Jan Hus, pp.  35–36; Soukup, ‘Jan Hus as a Preacher’, p.  114; Rychterová, ‘The Vernacular Theology of Jan Hus’, p. 176. 35  Vidmanová, ‘Hus als Prediger’, p. 66. 36  Vidmanová, ‘K textové tradici letní části Husova Leccionaria bipartita’, p. 152; Jan Hus, Hus Leccionarium bipartitum, ed.  by Vidmanová-Schmidtová, pp.  6–13. The presence of Leccionarum sermons was noted already by Flajšhans, ‘K literární činnosti M.  Jana Husa’, p. 593. 37  The Wyclif quotation was first noted by Flajšhans, Mistr Jan řečený Hus z Husince, p. 336. 38  Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, pp. 84–88 and Sedlák, ‘Husův vývoj dle jeho postil’, pp. 395–99. 31  32 

100 Pavel Soukup

F. M. Bartoš was the first to discriminate between two redactions of the Puncta – one per circulum anni and another separated out, with sermons on saints recorded apart from those de tempore. He noted how close M and P were and the textual proximity of K and O.  He further assumed a connection between N and O based on the fact that they share other works. Bartoš believed that the redaction per circulum anni as preserved in KNO was original and prior to W (dated 1414), where the order of sermons was corrupted. He also attempted a dating of the postil. Based on the liturgical calendar, he dated the winter part of the Puncta to 1400/1, and the summer part to 1403.39 Bartoš was the only historian to consult all manuscripts known at the time. Jan Sedlák had only W at his disposal, and Anežka Vidmanová worked with O only. Bartoš himself based his dating solely on N. I was able to identify a seventh complete manuscript of the Puncta ( J), which necessitates a revisiting of previous scholarly understandings. Since the extant manuscripts differ in the number and order of sermons, any statement concerning their mutual relations and dating can only be based on consultation of all of them. The Editorial Hand in the Puncta: Distinguishing Manuscript Versions Establishing the number of sermons contained in the Puncta is not simple. Some sermon incipits, but not all, are highlighted with headings, rubrics, or initials, or, at least, as distinct paragraphs. Sometimes new sermons are not marked at all. No manuscript has proper headings for every sermon. It seems that the scribes were not fully aware where some sermons began and ended. The fact that some sermons are shortened makes identification based on explicits difficult. In total, I count 187 sermons belonging to the Puncta. Some of them appear just in a single codex. Furthermore, every manuscript omits a number of sermons contained in more than one other manuscript. The number of sermons in individual codices is as follows: J: 146, K: 159, M: 138, N: 150, O: 152, P: 138, W: 132. Ellipses in individual 39 

Bartoš, ‘Ze spisovatelských počátků Husových’, pp. 34–38.

The Puncta of Jan Hus 101

manuscripts and correspondences between them allow us to draw some conclusions concerning the Entstehungsgeschichte of the manuscript versions and redactions. The most visible difference is between the per circulum anni redaction (manuscripts JKNOW) and the twofold series as found in MP. A closer look at the presence or absence of individual sermons reveals, however, that there are more variations and that the re-arrangement into a separate temporale and sanctorale series is a relatively late intervention. The largest and most puzzling omission occurs around Easter. The table below shows the distribution of sermons in individual manuscripts (not the actual sequence in each codex). It seems that the supposed archetype which Hus put into circulation did not contain a complete Easter cycle. I reckon that in the original set, there were only a few sermons following the one for the Annunciation: Scitis, quia post biduum for Palm Sunday, Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum for Resurrection, both included in JMPW,40 and possibly also Cum appropinquasset […] Miles strenuus, found in J only. Sermons for most of Easter and for the first and second as well as fourth and fifth Sundays after Easter were missing in the hypothetical original. Copyists (or compilers) apparently perceived a need for filling in the gaps. Three Palm Sunday sermons (Cum appropinquasset  […] Nota transitum; Fratres, hoc enim sentite; Recordare paupertatis) and the sermon In cena Domini on Probet autem, all of which are found in MP only, are of uncertain origin. Because the Maundy Thursday sermon comes between two sets of Palm Sunday sermons, I tend to see them as later inserts. The Resurrection speech on Cum rex glorie is an independent, self-contained sermon by Hus, inserted into the Puncta manuscripts WMP as well as to the Leccionarium bipartitum.41 All of the sermons mentioned so far are missing in manuscripts KNO. In their exemplar, this gap was filled with sermons taken from one of Hus’s later collections, the Leccionarium bipartitum (marked ‘LB’ in the table).

The manuscript M is damaged where Scitis, quia post biduum would be expected, but I assume that it did not break its conformity with P right here. 41  Bartoš, Literární činnost M. J. Husi, pp. 41–42, no. 13/15; Vidmanová, ‘Husova tzv. Postilla De tempore’, pp. 14–15; see also Dragoun, Soupis, p. 21; Prague, NKČR, MS III A 6, fol. 65ra–va. 40 

Theme + Incipit

Cum appropinquasset Iesus Nota transitum Iesu, videlicet unde venit et quo ivit

Fratres, hoc enim sentite in vobis Exodi 28: Fecit Moises labrum eneum cum basi sua

Probet autem seipsum homo Pueri dilecti, epistolam hodiernam scribit b. Paulus

Missus est Gabriel angelus a Deo In presenti ewangelio plene enarratur, quomodo Deus

Cum appropinquasset Iesus Miles strenuus non fugit locum belli

Scitis, quia post biduum Pascha fiet Id est post duos dies: locutus est feria tercia

Recordare paupertatis mee Cogitanti mihi de hiis, que sunt

Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum, aleluia Canitur in presentis festi officio. Incipit precentor

Cum rex glorie Cristus In isto cantu ecclesie ostenditur primo Cristi potestas

Maria Magdalena et Maria Jacobi Quamvis multe mulieres sequte sunt Iesum

Hec dies, quam fecit Dominus Omnia tempora tempus suum habent

Feast

In palmis

In palmis

In cena Domini

Annunciacio

In palmis

In palmis

In palmis

Resurrectionis

Resurrectionis

In die Pasche

In die Pasche

●

●

 

●

 

●

●

●

 

 

 

J

     

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

●

 

 

 

N

●

 

 

 

K

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

●

 

 

 

O

 

 

●

●

 

●

 

●

 

 

 

 

 

●

●

●

/

 

●

●

●

●

 

 

●

●

●

●

 

●

●

●

●

W M P

 

 

IS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

102 Pavel Soukup

Theme + Incipit

Fratres, expurgate vetus fermentum Apostolus docet cunctos fideles

Maria Magdalena et Maria Jacobi et Salome In presenti ewangelio Cristi principaliter manifestatur

Duo ex discipulis ibant ipsa die in castellum Ewangelica tota hystoria actus duorum discipulorum

Hec dies, quam fecit Dominus Quia scribitur Ecclesiastes IIIo: Tempus flendi

Cum esset sero die una sabbatorum Ewangelium loquitur de Iesu et discipulis eius

Karissimi, omne quod natum est ex Deo Iohannes Apostolus in presenti epistola probat

Cum sero factum esset In ewangelio presenti ostenditur discipulorum

Ego sum pastor bonus In presenti vita nullus debet se laudare

Ego sum vitis vera et pater meus agricola est In hoc ewangelio Salvator noster loquitur de se

Cristus passus est pro nobis In epistola sequenti de nostri regis et pastoris agitur

In illo tempore […] Ego sum pastor bonus Tria in ewangelio ostenduntur: primo officium

Feast

In die Pasche

In die Pasche

f. 2 post Pascha

f. 2 post Pascha

D. 1 post Pascha

D. 1 post Pascha

D. 1 post Pascha

D. 2 post Pascha

D. 2 post Pascha

D. 2 post Pascha

D. 2 post Pascha

 

 

●

●

 

 

●

●

●

 

 

J

   

   

 

 

●

●

●

 

 

●

●

●

●

 

 

●

●

●

N

●

●

K

●

●

 

 

●

●

 

 

 

●

●

O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W M P

LB

LB

 

 

LB

LB

 

 

 

LB

LB

 

The Puncta of Jan Hus 103

Theme + Incipit

Modicum et non videbitis me Iesus in presenti ewangelio tria brevibus verbis

Carissimi, obsecro vos tamquam advenas Docet beatus Petrus, quod cristiani non solum

Vado ad eum, qui me misit Paterfamilias volens recedere consolatur suos

Non turbetur cor vestrum neque formidet Quia Dominus predixerat discipulis

Non turbetur cor vestrum neque formidet Turbacio prima anime. Propheta: Turbantur gentes

Stabunt iusti in magna constancia Iusti stabunt, id est assistent Deo

Iubilate Deo omnis terra, alleluia Canitur presentis dominice in officio

Karissimi, obsecro vos tamquam advenas In ista epistola hortatur omnes cristianos

In illo tempore […] Modicum et iam non videbitis me Dicitur proverbialiter: Dulcia non meminit

Feast

D. 3 post Pascha

D. 3 post Pascha

D. 4 post Pascha

Phil. et Iacobi

Phil. et Iacobi

Phil. et Iacobi

D. 3 post Pascha

D. 3 post Pascha

D. 3 post Pascha

 

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

J

   

   

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

 

 

●

 

N

 

K

●

●

●

●

●

 

 

 

 

O

 

●

●

●

●

 

 

 

 

 

●

●

●

●

 

 

 

 

 

●

●

●

●

 

 

 

 

W M P

LB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104 Pavel Soukup

Theme + Incipit

Karissimi, omne datum optimum Ut naturalis racio, memoria et voluntas

In illo tempore […] Vado ed eum, qui misit me Salvator noster, dux salvandi exercitus

Karissimi, estote factores verbi Factores verbi et non rei

In illo tempore […] Amen […] Si quid pecieritis Tria tanguntur in hoc ewangelio

Feast

D. 4 post Pascha

D. 4 post Pascha

D. 5 post Pascha

D. 5 post Pascha

 

 

 

 

J

●

●

●

●

K

●

●

●

●

N

●

●

●

●

O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W M P

LB

LB

LB

LB

 

The Puncta of Jan Hus 105

106 Pavel Soukup

The KNO group adopted Leccionarium sermons for Easter Sunday and five subsequent Sundays. Codex J dealt with the gap on its own. It features sermons of uncertain origin for Easter Sunday and Monday, the first to fourth Sundays after Easter, and the feast of St Phillip and St James. Some of these items (namely the third Sunday and St Phillip and St James) double up sermons common to all manuscripts and thus presumably original, which would indicate that the doublets are later additions. One of these sermons is actually found in another manuscript: the Easter Sunday gospel sermon Maria Magdalena et Maria Iacobi […] Quamvis multe mulieres has been included among various sermons in a codex containing fragments of the Quadragesimale Admontense.42 It is possible to imagine the borrowing in either direction, but I tend to see these sermons as inserts to the Puncta rather than original components.43 I further assume that sermons for the third, ninth and twenty-second to twenty-fifth Sundays after Trinity were missing in the original set. In KNO, they were again supplemented from the Leccionarium bipartitum. Moreover, these manuscripts have a Leccionarium text for the seventh Sunday where the remaining four codices have a different sermon. Significant omissions can be traced with the fourth Sunday after Epiphany where the sermon slipped out of JKNO, and the fifth Sunday after Trinity where the text is missing in WMP. This clearly divides the manuscripts into two groups. Further omissions concern single manuscripts. Codex W lacks the third and fourth Advent Sundays; N lacks sermons for St Thomas; J a number of sermons for St Nicholas, John the Evangelist, and the sixth and twentieth Sundays after Trinity. Manuscripts J and K were individually supplemented at the end of the postil with a series of sermons. I conclude from the foregoing that the presence and sequence of sermons in the extant manuscripts do not so much mirror Hus’s preaching practice as express the users’ needs and efforts. Moreover, the sermons common to the Puncta and the Leccionarium bipartitum did not originate in the earlier Prague, NKČR, MS XX B 9, fols 30r–31r; cf. J, fols 100r–01r (containing approximately half of the sermon). Further links between this manuscript and the Puncta are discussed below. 43  The sermons Maria Magdalena  […] Quamvis multe and Ego sum pastor bonus  […] In presenti vita contained in J only use Jacobus de Voragine as a source. See J, fols 100r–02r and fols 106v–07v; Jacobus de Voragine, Sermones quadragesimales, ed. by Somascho, fols 208r–10v; Jacobus de Voragine, Sermones dominicales per totum annum, ed. by Somascho, fols 152r–54v. They do so in a way similar to some other sermons contained in all manuscripts. What this means for the authenticity of these two sermons, I cannot say. 42 

The Puncta of Jan Hus 107

collection and enter the Leccionarium as re-used material;44 on the contrary, they were composed for the Leccionarium and inserted into just three of the Puncta manuscripts. Not only are they different in style from the rest of the Puncta sermons; they also appear in places where the remaining manuscripts feature a gap, thus revealing themselves as late editorial additions.45 Close examination of the sermons united in individual manuscripts allows some conclusions concerning the process of creation of the extant versions. The original set which Jan Hus supposedly handed out featured significant gaps, especially around Easter as well as at the end of the church year. The two afore-mentioned Sunday sermons (the fourth after Epiphany and fifth after Trinity) must have been lost at an early stage, thus dividing the manuscripts into groups WMP and JKNO. Into the first group’s exemplar, Cum rex glorie was inserted. Through the omission of two Advent Sunday sermons, the version came into being as found in W. Through the addition of sermons on Palm Sunday and Maundy Thursday, the exemplar of MP originated. This version was re-arranged and divided into two cycles, de tempore and de sanctis, and gave birth to two extant manuscripts.46 In the JKNO group, individual omissions and significant additions soon isolated manuscript J. The exemplar of the remaining codices (KNO) lost the few original Easter sermons and that for the seventh Sunday after Trinity, but was significantly supplemented from the Leccionarium bipartitum. Through the addition of some sermons at the end of the collection, codex K was created. The omission of sermons on St Thomas distinguished N from O. So claimed by Vidmanová, ‘K textové tradici letní části Husova Leccionaria bipartita’, p. 152, and Jan Hus, Leccionarium bipartitum, ed. by Vidmanová-Schmidtová, p. 6. 45  So too W also contains two Leccionarium sermons: Nupcie facte sunt for the first Sunday after the Octave of Epiphany (fols  128r–29r; cf.  Jan Hus, Leccionarium bipartitum, ed.  by Vidmanová-Schmidtová, pp.  242–45) and Ego enim accepi for Corpus Christi (fragment, fol. 129v; cf. Prague, NKČR, MS III A 6, fols 95rb–96ra), added at the end of the manuscript, just after the explicit of the Puncta. 46  In the process of separating the temporal and sanctoral cycles, some anomalies occurred. To name only the more significant of them: Sermons for St Andrew were not moved to the second part but remained among the Advent sermons, yet the second Advent Sunday was moved after St Andrew (same sequence in Y, probably akin to MP). In P, the St Andrew sermons appear again at the end of the collection. The sermons for the Invention of the Cross were moved to just after the Exaltation of the Cross in MP. The problematic sermon Venite ad me omnes, which in JMW is on St Mathias, is labelled as St James in KNOP and moved after the seventh Sunday after Trinity; in P, however, the beginning of it appears also on St Mathias’s day. 44 

108 Pavel Soukup

The Beginnings of Hus’s Preaching and the Dating of the Puncta Jan Hus’s authorship of the Puncta is well attested by his own reference. In his 1412 sermon collection, the Postilla adumbrata, Hus included the following: ‘Quomodo lepra similatur aliis peccatis, scripsi in ewangelio Luce XVII de decem leprosis anno Domini forte 1402 in libro albe cutis’ (‘I wrote on how leprosy is similar to other sins in the gospel of Luke 17 about the ten lepers in about 1402, in the book bound in white leather’). F.  M. Bartoš found the passage Hus was referring to in the Puncta sermon on the fourteenth Sunday after Trinity, where Hus makes a parallel between different sins and leprosy.47 Yet this is not Hus’s only reference to his early sermons. On two occasions he mentioned the texts from the first year of his preaching. In his answers to witnesses against him, Hus said that those possessing the sermons from the first year of his preaching could verify that he had adduced Augustine on the validity of the sacrament regardless of the moral state of the celebrant.48 Later in Constance, in one of his short treatises written in prison, Hus reiterated this defence, adding to the quotation from Augustine another from Gregory the Great, and noting that it occurred: ‘patet in libello in sermone De corpore Cristi, quem scripsi primo anno mee predicacionis, qui fuit, ut estimo, annus Domini MCCCCIus’ (‘it is found in a booklet, in the sermon on Corpus Christi that I wrote in the first year of my preaching, which was, I reckon, the year of the Lord 1401’).49 Bartoš found these two quotations in a Corpus Christi sermon Ego enim accepi which he edited and attributed to Hus.50 So far, everything seems to be clear. We have two authorial references to a collection from his first year of preaching, c. 1401. Further, we have a reference to the ‘liber albe cutis’, which can be identified as the Puncta and which Hus dated to c. 1402. This seems to conform to the widely accepted chronology, according to which Jan Hus was ordained in 1400, and thus the first liturgical year of his preaching was 1400/1. There are, however, two major obstacles to the straightforward identification of the references Magistri Iohannis Hus Postilla adumbrata, ed. by Ryba, p. 82; Bartoš, ‘Ze spisovatelských počátků Husových’, p. 36. The sermon is found in J, fol. 143r–v; K, fols 172r–73v; M, fols 61v–63r; N, fols  105v–06v (not 108 as indicated in Bartoš); O, fols  157r–59r; P, fols  65v–67r; W, fols 98r–99v. 48  Magistri Iohannis Hus Constantiensia, ed.  by Krmíčková and others, p.  214: ‘possunt comperire illi, qui habent sermones meos de primo anno predicacionis mee’. 49  Magistri Iohannis Hus Constantiensia, ed. by Krmíčková and others, pp. 192–93. 50  Bartoš, ‘Studie k Husovi a jeho době’, quotes at pp. 286–87. 47 

The Puncta of Jan Hus 109

with existing manuscripts. First, the codex from which Bartoš edited the Corpus Christi sermon – the so-called Sermones de primo anno – contains a heterogeneous collection of highly questionable authenticity (except for the Corpus Christi sermon). As Václav Novotný noticed, one sermon even advocates communion under both kinds and thus cannot be earlier than 1414.51 The manuscript in question, codex III H 22 of the National Museum in Prague, must be given more attention before conclusive statements can be made. But both Novotný and Bartoš voiced doubts concerning Hus’s authorship of the collection as whole. Second, placing the Sermones de primo anno to 1400/1 appears impossible because it is precisely when the Puncta supposedly ­originated. In an attempt to resolve the problem of chronology, F. M. Bartoš came up with a complex model of the Puncta’s origin. He suggested that the first part of the Sermones de primo anno survived within the Puncta. The rest of the work was lost, with the one exception of the Corpus Christi sermon. This latter was too long to be included in the Puncta, but was included in the collection in MS III H 22 by its anonymous compiler, Hus’s colleague or pupil. According to Bartoš, the Puncta comprised sermons from three years of Hus’s preaching. The first (winter) part was composed of sermons from the year 1400/1. In the summer of 1401, Hus interrupted his work due to the lords’ rebellion against the king and due to the Meißen invasion to Bohemia. He did not resume until August 1403, when the situation in the country had calmed down.52 Bartoš based his view on the following observations: the winter part of the Puncta from Advent to the end of Lent corresponds with the calendar for 1400/1. The sixth Sunday in Lent is missing, thus signalling a break in the collection. The summer part from the eighth Sunday after Trinity to the end of the postil follows the calendar of 1403. The middle part between these two groups of sermons does not correspond to any possible calendar because a period of six weeks from 3 May (Invention of the Cross) to 15 June (St Vitus) was condensed to as little as three weeks of the temporale, from Ascension through Pentecost to Trinity.53 This dating, however, needs correction. Bartoš developed his theory from manuscript N only. Yet five of the

Novotný, M. Jan Hus, i/i, p. 91. Bartoš, ‘Ze spisovatelských počátků Husových’, p. 38; Bartoš, ‘[Review of ] Sedlák, M. Jan Hus’, pp. 162–63. See also Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis, no. 86, pp. 137–38; Vidmanová, ‘Hus als Prediger’, p. 65. 53  Bartoš, ‘Ze spisovatelských počátků Husových’, pp. 36–38.

51 

52 

110 Pavel Soukup

seven extant manuscripts are postils per circulum anni and thus suitable for liturgical dating. In the KNO group, the sequence of Sundays and feast days around Ascension really is corrupted. As we have seen (and as Bartoš did not), the missing sermons for five Sundays after Easter were supplemented with sermons from the Leccionarium bipartitum. During this process, the original two sermons for the third Sunday after Easter which appear in all extant manuscripts were moved and inserted right before the Leccionarium’s third Sunday, so that KNO have three, not two sermons for this day. This is, I suppose, how the impossible sequence which Bartoš noted came into being.54 Of all the Sundays after Easter, manuscript W contains only the third. This comes after St Phillip and St James. The Invention of the Cross is moved to just after the Exaltation of the Cross. Manuscript J has sermons on the third and fourth Sundays and St Phillip and St James which are not found in any other manuscript and may come from an unknown source. These sermons are, however, inserted wrongly before the original St Phillip and St James, the Invention and the third Sunday. KNO D. 1 post Pascha D. 2 post Pascha D. 3 post Pascha D. 3 post Pascha D. 4 post Pascha D. 5 post Pascha Philippi et Iacobi Invencio Crucis Ascensio D. infra oct. Ascensionis Spiritus sancti f. 2a post Penthecosten f. 3a post Pentecosten Trinitatis Viti

J

W

D. 3 post Pascha Philippi et Iacobi D. 4 post Pascha Philippi et Iacobi Invencio Crucis D. 3 post Pascha Ascensio D. infra oct. Ascensionis Spiritus sancti f. 2a post Penthecosten f. 3a post Pentecosten Trinitatis Viti

Philippi et Iacobi D. 3 post Pascha Ascensio D. infra oct. Ascensionis Spiritus sancti f. 2a post Penthecosten f. 3a post Pentecosten Viti Trinitatis

Similarly, Bartoš’s observation that the number of Sundays after Trinity corresponds perfectly to the year 1403 proves false. All the sermons from the twenty-second Sunday after Trinity until the end of the collection are taken from the Leccionarium and appear in KNO only. Also, the sixth Sunday in Lent noted by Bartoš is omitted in KNO only.

54 

The Puncta of Jan Hus 111

The dating must clearly be based on those sermons shared by the most manuscripts and thus considered authentic, not on those inserted from another collection (which are printed in italics in the above table). Apparently, it is JW which record the original sequence with the third Sunday after Easter coming only after the feasts of St Phillip and St James and the Invention of the Cross. Following the Tuesday after Pentecost, in JKNO come Trinity and St Vitus, whereas W has St Vitus before the Trinity. Thus, we are looking for years in which the third Sunday after Easter came later than 3 May, and Trinity (manuscripts JKNO) or the Tuesday after Pentecost (manuscript W) was before 15 June. The first condition is fulfilled with calendars 22–29; the second with calendars 23–30 for JKNO and calendars 31–35 for W.55 This renders the sequence of sermons as read in W impossible. The range of calendars which come into question for the spring part of the Puncta is 23–29. We can further refine this range by looking at the position of saints’ days relative to Sundays in summer and autumn. Between St John the Baptist (24 June) and All Saints (1 November), there are eleven saints’ days suitable for dating.56 From these, the feast of St Lawrence is uncertain because the sermon for the ninth Sunday is missing in all manuscripts. Manuscript W has two deviations from the sequence in other manuscripts. If we leave W aside because its order is obviously corrupted, the remaining ten feast days give a common intersection of calendars 25–29. Interesting clues are offered by the winter part of the Puncta. Surprisingly, the February feasts of the Purification and St Mathias do not conform to the same range of calendars as the sermons from spring to autumn. The

The numbers correspond to a sequence of calendars from the year when Easter was on 22 March (= calendar 1) to the year with Easter on 25 April (= calendar 35). I also include in the intervals those years when the given feast days overlap (e.g. the saint’s day was on Sunday). 56  St John Baptist (24 June) comes between the first and second Sundays; St Margaret (13 July) between the fourth and fifth Sundays; St  Mary Magdalene (22 July) between the fifth and sixth Sundays; St  Lawrence (10 August) after the eighth Sunday in JKNO and between the seventh and eighth Sundays in W; St Bartholomew (24 August) between the tenth and eleventh Sundays in JKNO and before the tenth Sunday in W; Nativity of Mary (8 September) between the twelfth and thirteenth Sundays; Exaltation of the Cross (14 September) and St Ludmila (16 September) between the thirteenth and fourteenth Sundays; St Matthew (21 September) between the fourteenth and fifteenth Sundays; St Wenceslas (28 September) and St  Michael (29 September) between the fifteenth and sixteenth Sundays; St  Simon and St  Judas (28 October) between the nineteenth and twentieth Sundays; All Saints (1 November) between the twentieth and twenty-first Sundays. 55 

112 Pavel Soukup

position of the two February feast days points to calendars 11–16.57 On the other hand, it is Advent which dovetails with the summer and autumn part. The position of three saints’ feasts in Advent58 gives a wide range of fifteen possible calendars. This range includes calendars 27–28 (and 29 if we count those instances where saints’ feasts and Sundays overlap), thus shrinking the range suggested by the spring, summer and autumn part of the postil. In the first half of the fifteenth century, the calendars 27–28 (29) indicate the years 1400, (1405), (1416), 1435, and 1446. The calendars 11–16 correspond to years 1401, 1412, 1423, 1428, 1431, 1439, 1442, and 1450. The earliest years of both these ranges clearly point to the period that we are considering. We can summarize as follows: the Advent part of the Puncta corresponds to the liturgical cycle of the year 1400. The part from New Year to the end of Lent corresponds to the year 1401. After that, we have little certainty until Trinity, yet the feasts of St  Phillip and St  James and the Invention of the Cross (both in early May) point again to 1400. The part from the feast of the Holy Trinity to the end of the postil also corresponds to the calendar of 1400. This dating is supported by the following consideration: in the supposed original of the Puncta, sermons for the third and ninth Sundays after Trinity were missing (there are no sermons for these days in any manuscript, except those taken from the Leccionarium in KNO). A hypothesis can be raised that it was because the Sundays in question overlapped with other major feasts that Hus decided to preach on the pericope of those feasts rather than on the Sunday pericope. Indeed, the third Sunday was on 4 July in 1400 and thus on the feast of St Prokop, patron saint of Bohemia, and the ninth Sunday overlapped with the Assumption, i.e. 15 August 1400. In my view, the only possible way to explain why the postil jumps from 1401 back to 1400 in the middle is to assume that Hus did not start writing the Puncta during Advent as was usual with homiletical works. He began compiling materials for preaching possibly in Easter 1400, certainly no later than around Trinity the same year. This fits perfectly into Hus’s biography: it is widely accepted that he was ordained deacon on 3 April 1400, and the most probable date of his ordination as priest is 12 June.59 In 1400, Easter was on 18 April and Trinity on 13 June. I assume that Hus began collecting In all manuscripts except W, Purification (2 February) comes between Septuagesima and Sexagesima, and St Mathias (25 February) between the first and second Sunday in Lent. 58  St Andrew (30 November) in the first week of Advent, St Nicholas (6 December) in the second week and St Thomas (21 December) after the fourth Advent Sunday. 59  Bartoš, ‘Husovo kněžství’; Doležalová, Svěcenci pražské diecéze, p. 184. 57 

The Puncta of Jan Hus 113

and recording materials for sermons at the time of his ordination, even if he would not preach all of them from the pulpit. He did not have access to a regular preaching venue before 1402, but is attested to have served as a guest preacher in Prague parish churches (explicitly at St Michael’s).60 In one of his letters from exile, Hus said that he had preached in Prague for more than twelve years. He left Prague probably in late November 1412, so he must have begun preaching immediately or very soon after his ordination.61 He compiled sermon schemes and distinctiones and stored them in the order of the liturgical calendar. He continued regardless of the beginning of a new church year in Advent 1400 and went on systematically until the end of Lent 1401. Before Hus allowed the Puncta to circulate, he reordered the material so that the collection started with Advent as usual. Several sermons for feast days around Easter (which originally belonged to the beginning of the collection) were either lost or not written at all. After the rearrangement of the Puncta, and early in the transmission process, a few sermons at the end of the collection were lost (there were 23 Sundays after Trinity in 1400 but the Puncta contains only 21). The Puncta thus emerge as Hus’s first homiletical cycle. He began writing it as soon as he was ordained and thus allowed access to the pulpit. It is awkward, however, that he referred twice to the sermon Ego enim accepi as being from the first year of his preaching, while in the Puncta there are other, much shorter sermons for Corpus Christi. I believe that the clue to the solution is in the word libellus (‘booklet’) with which Hus described the sermon Ego enim accepi. This does not seem to be a reference to a postil, for these usually stretched over an entire codex. Nor does it refer to the MS III H 22 compilation which was created much later, probably after Hus’s death. I read it as an indication that the Corpus Christi sermon circulated independently, in the form of a booklet.62 Hus could very well have written it in the first year of his preaching, not as part of his running sermon collection, but as a piece on its own. In the Puncta, there remained shorter Corpus Christi texts. It is also possible that he authored Ego enim accepi in 1401 (the feast was on 2 June), whereas the Corpus Christi sermons in the Puncta are from 17 June 1400. In this case, Hus referred to 1401 as the first whole liturgical year of his preaching. It remains a little awkward that Hus gave the Magistri Iohannis Hus Constantiensia, ed. by Krmíčková and others, pp. 213–14. M. Jana Husi Korespondence a dokumenty, ed. by Novotný, p. 178, no. 69; cf. Jan Hus and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Betlemské texty, ed. by Ryba, pp. 19–20. 62  See Latinitatis medii aevi lexicon Bohemorum, xix, ed. by Silagiová and others, p. 466. 60  61 

114 Pavel Soukup

date of the ‘book in white leather’ (undoubtedly the Puncta) as 1402. But we may ascribe this to a lapse of memory, since Hus himself said the year was ‘perhaps’ (forte) 1402. The Sources and the Homiletical Style At the present stage of research, and especially in the absence of any edition of the work, it is too early to identify all the sources Jan Hus used when compiling his earliest preserved postil. Nevertheless, the sources identified so far, alongside those not yet identified, give an idea of the compilatory character of the Puncta. One explicitly cited source has attracted the attention of historians. The sermon Cum descendisset Iesus de monte on the third Sunday after Epiphany speaks about Jesus’s curing of the leper. In two manuscripts, the passage concludes with the words, ‘Hec Iohannes Wikleff ’.63 The source of these few lines indeed is Wyclif ’s Sermones. The credit given to Wyclif openly yet in an entirely casual tone indicates that the situation was not yet so tense when Hus wrote the Puncta. After the controversy over Wyclif escalated, Hus quoted him in his sermons in a demonstrative way, as if he wanted to show the perfect orthodoxy of the Oxford theologian.64 One source more important than Wyclif emerges at the very beginning of the collection: the Puncta’s incipit and opening passage are identical with that of Bernard Gui’s Speculum sanctorale. It may appear ironic that Hus, who later was to be burned as a heretic, copied from a famous inquisitor. Yet Bernard Gui was an equally diligent historian and hagiographer.65 His Speculum sanctorale did not enjoy as great a popularity as the Legenda Aurea of his fellow Dominican Jacobus de Voragine, but it still survives in 25 copies. These manuscripts are conspicuously concentrated in two regions: France and the Iberian Peninsula; and Bohemia and Moravia.66 From the Speculum sanctorale Jan Hus copied the prologues to his sermons on the first Sunday in

See John Wyclif, Sermones, i, ed.  by Loserth, pp.  79–80; Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 99. Explicit reference to Wyclif is contained in M, fol. 18v; W, fol. 28v; O, fol. 50v. 64  Vidmanová, ‘Autoritäten und Wiclif in Hussens homiletischen Schriften’, p. 392. 65  See Dubreil-Arcin, Vies de saints, légendes de soi. 66  Vernet, ‘La diffusion de l’œuvre de Bernard Gui d’après la tradition manuscrite’, pp. 231–34. The most complete list of Speculum manuscripts is Käppeli, Scriptores ordinis Praedicatorum medii aevi, i, p. 210, no. 612. To seven manuscripts in Prague, two in Brno, and one in Vyšší Brod, one more is to be added: Columbus, Ohio State University, Thompson Library, Spec. 63 

The Puncta of Jan Hus 115

Advent, Epiphany, and All Saints.67 He often shortened his model, arranging the material, when possible, in the graphically demarcated distinctiones (with lines connecting individual points) that gave his postil its name. Sometimes he retained the proof material from the original. At others he replaced it with other theological evidence.68 Hus treated his other sources in a similar way. In more than one sermon, he drew on Jacobus de Voragine.69 The Puncta sermon for the fifth Sunday after Trinity on Preceptor, per totam noctem laborantes is modelled after Jacobus’s third sermon for the same day. Hus followed his model closely throughout the whole sermon, somewhat shortening the original text. Whenever he found it possible (and also in places where it was unnecessary), Hus rearranged Voragine’s text into distinctiones, which he laid out in his typical way by using braces.70 Similarly, the Laetare sermon on Abiit Iesus trans mare Galilee uses Jacobus as its source. Hus slightly abbreviated the given sermon from Jacobus’s Quadragesimale, and he again rendered certain of the distinctiones into his favoured graphical form, the puncta. Moreover, he left out a large portion of his source, approximately half, in the middle of the sermon. When he came to the second verse of the pericope ( John 6. 2), he left Jacobus entirely and switched to another source.71 The same happened with the Ego sum pastor bonus sermon on the second Sunday after Easter: before reaching the mid-point of the sermon, Hus leaves the source, which is Jacobus’s first sermon for that feast day.72 Finally, in his sermon for St Thomas on Rare MS Lat. 6, of Bohemian provenance. See OSU Library Catalog, [accessed on 30 June 2014]. 67  J, fols 61r–v, 79r–80v, 159v–v; K, fols 62r–v, 87v–89r, 194v–95r; M, fols 1r–v, 100r–02r, 146r–v; N, fols 24r–25v, 127r (first Advent missing); O, fols 5r–v, 39r–41v, 186v–87r; P, fols 1r–v, 98v–101r, 154r–v; W, fols 17v–19v, 120v–21r (first Advent missing). Cf. Speculum sanctorale in Prague, KNM, MS XV A 12, fols 19ra–20vb, 54ra–56va, 229ra–vb. 68  More about Jan Hus and Bernard Gui in Soukup, ‘K pramenům Husových Punkt: Jan Hus a Bernard Gui’, pp. 235–47. 69  The examples I analyse below were briefly pointed out by Tönnies, Die mittelalterlichen lateinischen Handschriften, p.  133. The extent of borrowings by Hus in the Puncta from Jacobus’s Sermones is to be established through further study. 70  J, fols  127r–v; K, fols  146r–147r; N, fols  83r–84r; O, fols  124v–25v. Jacobus de Voragine, Sermones dominicales per totum annum, ed. by Somascho, fols 244v–47r. 71  J, fols  95r–96r; K, fols  108r–09v; M, fols  29r–30v; N, fols  44v–46r; O, fols  68r–70r; P, fols  30v–32v; W, fols  43v–45v. Jacobus de Voragine, Sermones quadragesimales, ed.  by Somascho, fols 108r–10v. 72  The sermon is contained in J only (fols  106v–107v); cf.  Jacobus de Voragine, Sermones dominicales per totum annum, ed. by Somascho, fols 152r–54v.

116 Pavel Soukup

Ut sapiens architectus, Hus treated Jacobus’s original in an even more liberal way. He copied the first sentence only, thereafter taking only keywords from his model. He marked two distinctiones, and added some biblical and other material of his own choosing.73 Jacobus’s sermons, immensely popular among late medieval authors, have not been traced before as a source for Bohemian preaching materials:74 even if Hus’s Puncta are the first to document their use, they may not be the last. Another thirteenth-century author has been identified as a possible source: Guilelmus ‘Parisiensis’. Hus copied extensively from the sermon collection of Guillaume Peyrault, which was sometimes attributed to Guillaume d’Auvergne.75 Anežka Vidmanová also suggested the use of Guilelmus in the Puncta.76 Yet, except for two quotations common to both the Puncta and the Leccionarium, coming respectively from Glossa ordinaria and from Bede and therefore unremarkable,77 the remaining textual overlaps with Parisiensis that Vidmanová noted belong to sermons inserted into the KNO group of manuscripts from the Leccionarium. The use of Parisiensis in the Puncta thus remains unattested. Identifying where the numerous distinctiones come from is a challenge for future study. As mentioned earlier, they represent a characteristic feature of the Puncta. It cannot be ruled out that Jan Hus formulated some, or indeed many, of these distinctions himself. A great many, however, must come from the available collections of distinctiones, or from other handbook-like writings which often used this sort of structuring for their theological content.78 For example, a distinctio listing possible reasons for martyrdom is taken from the Vita Iesu Christi by Ludolph of Saxony. It is contained in the sermon on the Holy Innocents where it forms part of the discussion of whether or

73  J, fol. 68v; K, fols 73r–v; M, fol. 86v; O, fols 18v–19r; P, fols 81r–v; W, fols 1v–2r. Jacobus de Voragine, Sermones de sanctis per anni totius circulum, ed. by Somascho, fols 16r–17r. 74  Jacobus’s Legenda aurea features among Hus’s sources: see e.g. Magistri Iohannis Hus Postilla adumbrata, ed. by Ryba, pp. 283–85, 401–02, 412–15. 75  Dondaine, ‘Guillaume Peyraut’, pp. 197–204. See also Kejř, ‘Kdo je “Parisiensis” ve spisech Husových?’; Vidmanová, ‘Hus a Vilém z Auvergne’. 76  Jan Hus, Leccionarium bipartitum, ed. by Vidmanová-Schmidtová, pp. 11–12. 77  Jan Hus, Leccionarium bipartitum, ed. by Vidmanová-Schmidtová, p. 396, p. 437. 78  See, as an introduction to the topic, Bataillon, ‘Les instruments de travail des prédicateurs au XIIIe siècle’; Rouse and Rouse, ‘Biblical Distinctions in the Thirteenth Century’; Rouse and Rouse, Preachers, Florilegia and Sermons, pp. 3–42.

The Puncta of Jan Hus 117

not the children from Bethlehem can be considered martyrs.79 There is little doubt that Hus used other similar compendia as sources for his Puncta. The exempla, which are also found relatively frequently in the Puncta, present a similar problem. In contrast to the distinctiones, Hus sometimes referred to sources for his exempla and animal stories (Pliny, Aristotle, etc.). Sometimes he provided a full encyclopaedic entry about a certain animal. The peacock, for example, is described in every detail, precisely as in bestiaries, and is introduced with the suggestive label ‘Liber rerum’. The description shows some correspondence with Thomas of Cantimpré but is supplemented with moralizing expositions.80 In other cases, the story is kept short. Such exemplary stories disappeared in later postils. At that stage in his career, Hus denounced superfluous story-telling and worldly, pandering anecdotes (‘poeses aut fabule’).81 By doing so, he turned his back on a wellestablished mode of medieval preaching, opting instead, in accordance with both Wyclif and the earlier Czech reformists, for a simple homiletic style focused on the Gospel message. This practice is confirmed by statistics of the sources he quotes in these later writings. Three-quarters of the quotations in Hus’s edited sermons come from the Scriptures. The majority of the remaining quotations are patristic, and the rest come from medieval authors and handbooks. Only 1.5 percent of authorities come from classical antiquity. The question is, of course, whether or not Hus’s preaching style was different from his contemporaries. We are far from being able to answer this question satisfactorily. The comparandum usually evoked is Hus’s contemporary Johlín of Vodňany and the Quadragesimale Admontense, one of a few sermon collections other than Hus’s that have been edited.82 In this Lenten collection, non-biblical citations amount to almost half of the total number, a large portion of them coming from classical and especially medieval sources. The main difference consists in the use of narrative material. Whereas 79  J, fol. 15r, K, fol. 82r, M, fol. 96r, N, fol. 18v, O, fol. 31r, P, fol. 93r, W, fol. 11r. Ludolph of Saxony, Vita Jesu Christi, ed. by Rigollot, i/1, p. 119. 80  J, fol. 106r; Thomas of Cantimpré, Liber de natura rerum, ed. by Boese, p. 220. This sermon is missing in the other Puncta manuscripts and its origin is thus uncertain. 81  Jan Hus, Sermones de sanctis, ed. by Flajšhans, p. 204. The reproach of the friars’ preaching and the definition of the right preaching style are taken from Wyclif: John Wyclif, Opus evangelicum, ed. by Loserth, i, p. 3. See also Jan Hus, Sermones in Capella Bethlehem, ed. by Flajšhans, iv, p.  18: ‘incipere deberemus predicare vitam et verbum Christi, qualiter vixit et predicavit, ita et nos, ut predicemus verbum eius, non fabulas mendosas vel humanas adinvenciones, que nunc ultra legem Christi appreciantur’. 82  Quadragesimale Admontense, ed. by Florianová and others.

118 Pavel Soukup

Johlín’s preaching (if he was the author of the Quadragesimale Admontense) was full of lively explanations, stories, and exempla, Hus seems to have been much more cautious about their use.83 It is probably mistaken to draw a strict line dividing the conservative/Roman from the reformist/Hussite preachers as far as the style of their sermons is concerned. In the case of Jan Hus, however, such a line existed: it separates the Puncta from his later ­homiletic works. Czech Glosses and the Limits of Reconstructing Oral Delivery Passages in the Czech vernacular form just a tiny portion of the text of the Puncta. For the most part, the Czech is confined to interlinear or marginal glosses. Some of them are later additions by users of the manuscripts. This is the case of N, which contains a number of readers’ annotations in Czech. Some are simple translations of isolated Latin words, while others seem to summarize selected Latin passages or render them in Czech. Still others dilate upon topics the sermon touched upon.84 Czech glosses and interlinear translations appear frequently in sermons taken over from the Leccionarium. In most cases, they must be considered part of the original Leccionarium text. Some (only a small portion) are found in just a single manuscript and thus can be considered the work of the Puncta copyist.85 A few Czech glosses are shared by more than one manuscript. M and P are generally very close to each other. Their main scribes copied some Czech equivalents to Latin words, apparently from a common exemplar.86 In addition to these, P contains other Czech translations written in the main hand, yet not found in M.87 K and N share the interlinear translation of ‘genimina viperarum’ as ‘plémě ještírkové’ (‘brood of lizards’), and also the Czech heading to the sermon on St Ludmila, emphasizing her status as patron saint of the country:

Soukup, ‘Jan Hus as a Preacher’, pp. 120–21. N, fols 68v, 75v (marginal translation of the pericope); fols 21v, 70v, 7v. On Czech glosses in O, see below. J has similar annotations in German. 85  e.g. O, fol. 86r–v. 86  e.g. ‘sub asellis’ – ‘pod pažmi’, M, fol.  133r, P, fol.  138r; ‘animas vestras pro testamento’ – ‘životy za ustavenie’, M, fol.  145v, P, fol.  153v; ‘appropriata’ – ‘přijednané’, M, fol.  133r (directly in main text), P, fol. 137v (on margin). 87  See e.g. interlinear Czech equivalents to naval terms in P, fol. 21r: ‘remos’ – ‘veslo’, ‘velum’ – ‘opona vel plátno’, ‘malum’ – ‘žezlo [žeslo]’, ‘anchoram’ – ‘kotva’, ‘haustorium’ – ‘kořec’ [korzycz; cf.  fol.  21v: korzecz; Gebauer, Slovník staročeský, ii, pp.  103–04]; or translations such as ‘curiositate’ – ‘kvapnosti [quapnosty]’; ‘incaute’ – ‘neopatrně [neobatrnye]’, P, fol. 70r. 83  84 

The Puncta of Jan Hus 119

‘Ludmille, české dědice’ (‘[Feast] of Ludmila, Bohemian patron’).88 M and W mention the saint as a patron, in Latin.89 To sum up, most of the vernacular glosses are unique to one or at most two manuscripts. As a result, not even the glosses written in the main hand can be considered part of Hus’s supposed archetype. It seems that the original Puncta did not contain Czech interlinear translations or macaronic passages. Nothing seems to suggest that the collection could have been composed en aval of the preaching and thus reveal something about the live preaching event. Only exceptionally do we find vernacular texts common to more than two Puncta manuscripts. Such is the case of the Resurrection sermon which contains a Czech explanation of the Alleluia at the end. The acrostic exposition is contained in four manuscripts (in the remaining three, the entire sermon is missing) and reads as follows:90 Alleluia, alleluia, id est laus omnibus sanctis et laus mihi. Unde ethimologice in Boemico sic dicitur: Al – Ale hoře mi mého minulého zamúcenie le – lepý sem božím vykúpením nynie lu – Lucipera neb Lucka sě neboje ya – já již hřiechóv nemaje. Protož vesele začni: Buoh všemohúcí.91 (Hallelujah, hallelujah, praise be to all saints and praise be to me. Etymologically, it is rendered in Czech as follows: Al – But I am sorry about my past grief le – I am now splendid through divine recuperation lu – not fearing Lucifer or Lucek ya – I have no sins any more. Therefore commence merrily: God the Almighty.)

K, fols 136v, 170r; N, fols 74r, 104r. M, fol. 133r; W, fol. 96r. 90  J, fol. 100r; M, fol. 39v; P, fol. 44v; W, fol. 51r. This passage, the most frequently noted of all Puncta, was transcribed by Menčík, ‘O dvou spisech Husových’, p. 78; Flajšhans, Mistr Jan řečený Hus z Husince, p. 336; and Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 85. 91  Variant readings for this passage are: id est] om. J; mihi] om. MP; dicitur] dicitur: Al-lelu-ya MPW; hoře mi] herze J, herze my M, herzye my P, herzemy W; minulého] myleho MPW; zamúcenie] zamutczenye J; nynie] nenie P; všemohúcí] wsyemohuczi W.  Between ‘nemaje’ and ‘Protož’, M and P insert a Latin phrase (‘Domine, probasti me’) which in other manuscripts stands before the exposition of the Alleluia. Some of the variants (hoře mi / herze my) indicate that the respective copyist possibly did not understand Czech well. 88  89 

120 Pavel Soukup

The origin of this piece is uncertain. It is incorporated in one of the manuscripts of Jan Hus’s Leccionarium bipartitum, where it forms part of an exposition on Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum.92 This exposition appears among additions at the end of the codex which include materials from the Leccionarium and elsewhere.93 The same text appears in a fragmentary manuscript of the Quadragesimale Admontense. Here, too, it is appended to sermons undoubtedly stemming from the Qudragesimale, and it is not clear whether or not it should be considered part of it.94 Thanks to its style and an attached fable, it looks much like other Admontense sermons. Yet it is not contained in the main manuscript of the Quadragesimale. On the contrary, this main manuscript has a different text for Easter Sunday. If a definitive statement about the origin of the Resurrexi text appended to both Quadragesimale Admontense and Leccionarium bipartitum is impossible, we cannot say anything about the authorship of the acrostic exposition of Alleluia. It seems that this piece was quite widely known and circulated independently. It accompanies a Resurrection exhortation in another manuscript comprising various sermons, some of them of Hussite provenance.95 No evidence rules out that it was originally composed by Jan Hus, but it appears rather unlikely: more probably he recycled an older piece.96 In three of the four Puncta manuscripts which contain the sermon Resurrexi et adhuc tecum suum and thus this exposition, the sermon Cum rex glorie Cristus follows, a text which has a richly glossed pericope with many interlinear Czech translations. As mentioned above, Cum rex glorie forms part of the Leccionarium bipartitum but circulated independently as well.

92  Prague, NKČR, MS III B 3, fol. 225v. This was first noted by Truhlář, ‘Paběrky z rukopisů Klementinských X’, p. 271, who took Hus for the author of the Alleluia exposition. I do not find this Resurrection sermon in the Leccionarium manuscript Prague, NKČR, MS III A 6. 93  The Leccionarium seems to end at fol.  211r, cf.  Vidmanová, ‘Husova tzv. Postilla De tempore’, p. 16 (who uses different foliation). 94  Prague, NKČR, MS  XX B 9. The Quadragesimale texts end at fol.  28v. The sermon Resurrexi  […] Mater ecclesia hodie reads on fol.  29r–v. Cf.  Tille and Vilikovský, ‘Rukopisná bohemika v Admontě’, pp.  103–04; Quadragesimale Admontense, ed.  by Florianová and others, p. LVI. The sermon is followed by the aforementioned Easter Sunday sermon Maria Magdalena et Maria Iacobi (fols  30r–31r) which is also contained in manuscript J of the Puncta. 95  Prague, NKČR, MS X E 7, fol. 40v. Here, the accompanying lines are missing. I owe these last two references to manuscripts of the Alleluia exposition to Jan Odstrčilík. 96  It was Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 85, who first expressed the opinion that Hus reused an earlier text.

The Puncta of Jan Hus 121

Neither the Czech glosses, nor the vernacular Alleluia exposition, and not even its closing appeal for singing a traditional devout song in Czech (Buoh všemohúcí deals with the Resurrection, too), tell us anything substantially new. One does not need any Czech gloss to know that popular preaching, even if the respective texts survive in Latin, was delivered in the vernacular. In this respect, the Puncta represent a typical example of how sermons were transmitted in late medieval Central Europe. Preaching, originally a vernacular oral event, was recorded in the context of Latin learned culture, reworked by the preacher himself and by readers who used it for their own reference. We do not, then, have to give up the efforts to learn something about live preaching from extant Latin postils. In fact, the collections of more or less rough material in Latin may reflect oral preaching more closely than elaborate vernacular sermons. The latter tend to be literary works rather than recordings of what was said from the pulpit. Jan Hus’s Czech sermons on saints, and more so his Czech Sunday Postil, can be classified as ‘armchair preaching’: they are fully developed texts intended for private reading rather than direct preaching.97 Hus himself said in the preface to his Czech Postil that he did not compile this work ‘in the same manner as I preach’ (‘ač ne ovšem týmž obyčejem, jako káži’).98 Admittedly, ‘preachable materials’ in Latin needed translation and possibly also some spontaneous oral explanation, or at least an introduction which would embed them into the live sermon. None the less, they may represent the rhetorical structures and theological content of a live sermon more faithfully than literary works in Latin or the vernacular, even if these literary sermons may stage orality through their rhetorical elements. In any case, raw preaching matter in Latin shows what the preacher prepared for his live performance, or what he considered appropriate to prepare for such an event. This is not to say that the preacher could not improvise. The fact that fables and exempla became less prominent in Hus’s postils over time does not necessarily mean that he refrained from telling them from the pulpit. But his written sermon collections may have changed their purpose. While preaching at the Bethlehem Chapel, Hus also taught at university and (from 1406 at the latest) was in charge of the Nazareth College adjacent to Bethlehem. Given his dedication to both preaching and teaching, he presumably

97  98 

Zink, La prédication, p. 478. Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 60.

122 Pavel Soukup

placed his postils at the students’ disposal.99 This may have affected the style and contents of the postils. Anything which could be of advantage in the hands of an experienced preacher but dangerous in the mouth of a beginner he would not record. His pupils needed biblical education in the first place, not natural history or anecdotes which could easily become a vice if not used properly. There is evidence, even in Hus’s later sermons, that he did use examples and stories of certain kind.100 Yet his growing responsibilities and increasing popularity as Bethlehem preacher influenced the way he conceived his written postils. The Puncta are usually seen by historians as an indicator of Hus’s development. According to Jan Sedlák, the specific character of the Puncta stems from the fact that it is an early, juvenile work. In his mature postils Hus would replace narratives with polemics.101 While this is probably true, an additional suggestion can be made: possibly it was not only the preacher but also the audience who changed in the course of time. Not only Hussite preachers but also their audience underwent development in the first two decades of the fifteenth century. A long-term agitation and propaganda campaign, based on the pulpits but also using other media, must have had an impact on its recipients.102 A mature consumer of reformist agitation expected other content and rhetoric than a listener of classic mainstream preaching of the later Middle Ages. If he was more puritanical in matters of homiletics, it does not mean he would enjoy a live sermon any less. After all, Hussite preaching often dealt with matters so topical that using fiction or theatrical gestures for keeping the audience involved could rightly be considered superfluous. Jan Hus never entirely abstained from using expressive language, verses, and narratives where he considered them useful and edifying, but he probably modified his preaching style according to his message and to the presumptive needs of his audience.

Vidmanová, ‘Hus als Prediger’, p. 75; for further references to Hus’s teaching and students, see Soukup, Jan Hus, pp. 83–84, pp. 95–96. 100  See, for example, the story about Macharius from Vitas patrum in Jan Hus, Sermones in Bethlehem, i, ed. by Flajšhans, p. 52; a tale about a women who kept the bloody clothes of her deceased husband in Jan Hus, Leccionarium bipartitum, ed. by Vidmanová-Schmidtová, p. 365 (‘ponitur tale exemplum’; cf. Marin, ‘Les usages de la liturgie dans la prédication de Jean Hus’, p. 64); or the story about Heracleus at Jerusalem in Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 179. 101  Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 85. 102  Fudge, Magnificent Ride, pp. 186–258; Soukup, Jan Hus, pp. 104–16. 99 

The Puncta of Jan Hus 123

Conclusion: The Use of Sermon Manuscripts These hypotheses take us far from the codices of the Puncta. This examination of the extant copies allows some conclusions concerning the origin and purpose of this postil. The Puncta originated as a private collection, in close connection to Hus’s own preaching. Hus started working on it in 1400, as soon as he was admitted to the pulpit. We do not know if his composition of sermon sketches was compiled as he preached, or if he was able to deliver only some, or none, of the sermons.103 In any case, Hus soon realized that the result had some value for others, too. He passed the Puncta on for circulation: seven surviving manuscripts is not a small number in the given context. We can only guess when this happened – perhaps when Hus had already gained some renown as a preacher in 1401,104 or perhaps when he came into closer contact with the students living at Bethlehem. In any case, the collection underwent several modifications which mark its transformation from a personal handbook to a more user-friendly preaching tool. We do not know which of these modifications were undertaken by Jan Hus himself and which by the users and editors of this collection. I imagine that the first change was still made by Hus: the rearrangement of the collection so that it started with the first Advent Sunday. Other changes may have been the work of users. One such was the separation of the temporal and sanctoral cycle. This made the postil searchable more easily in any year. The other indicated the need for completeness on the part of the recipients: Missing materials were supplied from the Leccionarium bipartitum, and possibly from elsewhere, too. Again, this can only be explained by practical purposes: the Puncta were considered appropriate material for actual preaching during the church year. At the same time, an awareness of Hus as author can be discerned from the fact that the additions were drawn from another collection by Jan Hus. Fragment X witnesses to a similar concept of authorship: it contains a compilation of Advent sermons from three of Hus’s postils – the Puncta, the Collecta, and the Leccionarium.105 The fact that St  Prokop and Assumption displaced the respective Sundays suggests live preaching: if Hus compiled the Puncta for future use, he probably would have included all Sunday sermons. 104  Soukup, ‘Jan Hus as Preacher’, pp. 101–02. 105  As for the Puncta sermons, three texts for the first Advent Sunday and one for each for the remaining three Advent Sundays are recorded. X, fols 2v–3r, 4r–v, 4v–5v, 8v–10v, 14r–15v, 18v–20r. 103 

124 Pavel Soukup

My expectation that the order of sermons in individual manuscripts would help to date the respective versions has not been confirmed. The sequences in J and KNO are congruent and make it possible to date the hypothetical archetype. The differing order of W does not reflect the date of this same copy, as it is impossible to locate in any liturgical year (after all, W is the only copy dated by the colophon, namely to 1414). Nevertheless, the recipients left some significant traces in the manuscripts. Six manuscripts contain glosses and users’ notes (P has no textual signs of use). The Puncta seem to have been read in both Hussite and Catholic milieux. All manuscripts except one (W) circulated without Jan Hus’s name, an omission which certainly facilitated their reception among Catholics. Like the previously-mentioned glosses in Czech, Codex J has similar annotations in German, translations of Latin phrases. The same annotator extended some biblical quotations, corrected chapter numbers and added more information in Latin.106 We can only presume that the author of these glosses was a Cistercian monk of the abbey in Grünhain, Saxony, some fifteen kilometres away from the Bohemian border. In addition to this, another hand added names of feasts, marked citations, numbered individual paragraphs, and emphasized certain points or keywords by repeating them in the margins.107 The readers’ annotations in other manuscripts are of a similar kind, presumably written with the intention of making the book more convenient for use. In codex O, the first glosses were made by the rubricator, who corrected numerous places of the copied text. He also added Czech equivalents to some terms such as ‘rinocerus – jednorožec’ (the Czech word actually meaning ‘unicorn’) and a larger comment in Latin written continuously in the margins.108 Subsequent users left further interlinear translations and Latin marginalia, sometimes expanding the given topic wherever they found space. A number of glosses are written in a sixteenth-century hand. Similarly, the text of K has been emended by a hand different from the main scribe’s, and this other scribe also put keywords in the margins and added larger comments. Yet another hand added names of some of the feasts as well as citations and short expositions. Manuscript N has been supplemented in both Czech and Latin by several hands. Moreover, an early modern hand added J, fol.  103v, ad ‘puritas mentis et corporis’: ‘Renikeit des gemütes und des leÿchnams’; ‘Austeritas greusemkeÿt’; ‘largiter mildiklich’. For further examples, see fols 160r, 160v, 162r, 163r. 107  J, fols 102r, 121r, 122r, 132v, 133v, 134v, 135r, 149r, 152v, 155r. 108  O, fols 3r, 58r–59r. 106 

The Puncta of Jan Hus 125

a dozen feast names where they were missing and included glosses as well as longer marginalia. Codices M and W also witness to interest in the Puncta during the sixteenth century. The oldest marginalia in M could have been made by the main scribe. Subsequent users added more distinctiones and quotations as well as corrections.109 A sixteenth-century hand added a few remarks in reddish ink, supplementing some headings and writing enigmatic annotations at the end of certain sermons, including: ‘odtud 98’ (‘from here 98’), ‘97 přepsal’ (‘97 copied’), ‘přepsal jsem 98’ (‘I copied 98’), or ‘až potud’ (‘up to here’).110 These give the impression that someone copied individual sermons from this manuscript, perhaps during the years 1597/8. While the identity of this user remains obscure, one owner of W left his signature. The manuscript, too, contains glosses by the main scribe and other fifteenth-century readers – keywords, excerpts, or supplementary headings. In addition to this, there are a few later annotations, notably by Václav Rosa, who served as an Utraquist parish priest or chaplain in a number of Bohemian towns and villages, and died in 1560 or after. Rosa acquired codex W in 1517, as he himself notes: ‘Sacerdos Wenceslaus Rossius Pressorovius habet libellum istum ordinis sui anno 1517, sed scripsit ista manu propria anno 1554 in Veneciis tempore Benesi Hendrigo de Donijn, cuius parens destruxit totam parochiam ibi.’ (‘The priest Václav Rosa of Prešov has this book in the year of his ordination, 1517, but wrote this with his own hand in 1554 in Benátky nad Jizerou in the times of Beneš Jindřich of Donín, whose parent destroyed the entire parish there.’)111 Other annotations reveal that Rosa was well aware of Jan Hus’s authorship of the sermons. To the sermon on the feast of St John the Evangelist, on ‘Drink ye all of this’ (Matthew 26. 27), he added: ‘Super Mt. 26 Bibite ex eo omnes Johannis Hus’. Alongside the Palm Sunday sermon on the passion text from Matthew 26. 2, Rosa remarked: ‘De passione beati Johannis Hus sermo 1527’. Hus’s authorship is noted in the colophon of W, together with the date 1414. Rosa took this year to be the date of composition. To fragment Y of the collection, which formed part of another codex owned

Interestingly, a later hand corrected the tense in the interlinear translation of the word ‘intraret’ in Cum rex glorie from ‘všed jest’ to the grammatically more proper ‘vcházieše’. M, fol. 39v. 110  The given examples are found in M, fols 5r, 10v, 51v, 69r. 111  W, fols 44v–45r. For first information on Rosa, see Lexikon české literatury, iii/2, ed. by Opelík, p. 1272 (the date of his ordination is given there as 1516). 109 

126 Pavel Soukup

by him, Rosa added a comment placing the location of composition for the Puncta at Krakovec castle – obviously an association based on Hus’s itinerary in 1414.112 Rosa’s interest in the sermon Bibite ex hoc omnes can be easily explained by his Utraquist convictions. The date 1527 in the Palm Sunday sermon in W remains obscure. Why would the priest add this date to a codex which had been in his possession for more than ten years? Did he study the sermon in that year, or did he even choose it for delivery? Whether Rosa preached sermons from the Puncta, we cannot say. It is generally difficult to decide the objectives of users by tracing their marginal notes in the extant manuscripts. Some may have made their notes as aides-mémoire for future private study; others may have been noting material for future sermons. Although the Puncta do not neglect historical exegesis, they lay emphasis rather on allegorical figures, spiritual edification, and moral instruction – in short, homiletical exposition. In light of this, we would have to assume that the collection was used by preachers well into the sixteenth century. Hus’s materials were transformed, yet his preaching was carried on and the sermons multiplied. The Bethlehem preacher himself had little control over the transmission of the Puncta. In his later postils he was perhaps more aware of the problems of publishing, concerned mainly with what he wanted readers to receive – and what he wanted them not to receive. Jan Hus authored the Puncta at an early stage of his career, and he probably gave up control over its shape at an early stage of the transmission process. Some of the work necessary to make it a preaching tool was taken over by readers. Apparently, the fact that the Puncta were atypical among Hus’s postils as far as their structure and sources were concerned was never considered to be a negative thing.113

‘Vide Sermones magistri Johannis Hus pro te exoranti (!), Boheme, pie lege. 1532. Dicuntur Puncta M. J. H. a jest jim tohoto léta 1532 sto let a XVIII. | Dicunt hos sermones esse compilatos a beato Johanne Hus in Krakowecz kastro tempore regis Wenceslai.’ (‘Behold, Sermons of Master Jan Hus praying for you, Czech, read devoutly. 1532. They are called Puncta M. J. H. and in this year 1532 they are 118 years old. | They say these sermons were compiled by blessed Jan Hus at Krakovec Castle in the time of King Wenceslas.’) Y, fol. 215r–v. Rosa’s mistake in dating and placing the sermons was explained by Bartoš, ‘Domnělá kázání Husova pronesená na Krakovci’, p. 107. 113  This study was supported by a grant from the Czech Science Foundation (GA ČR) ‘Cultural Codes and Their Transformations in the Hussite Period’ (P405/12/G148), awarded to the Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences. 112 

RELIGIOUS CROSS-CURRENTS AT THE END OF THE MIDDLE AGES: REMARKS ON THE TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION OF NICHOLAS OF DRESDEN’S TABULE VETERIS ET NOVI COLORIS Petra Mutlová

A

round 1412, Nicholas of Dresden, an active supporter of the Huss­ ite party in Prague, composed a Latin text entitled Tabule veteris  et novi coloris seu Cortina de anticristo (hereafter Tabule).1 Besides its immediate popularity among the Hussite reformers, this sharp and propagandistic work, based on the contrasts between the Primitive Church and the modern Roman Church, continued to stir emotions long after the death of its author. At the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, an Old Czech adaptation of the Latin original was included in two richly illuminated codices, one of them a unique treasure of late medieval Bohemian culture and arguably one of the most popular medieval manuscripts of Bohemian provenance. The vernacular adaptation of the Tabule, which contains numerous pictorial antitheses that supplanted the text and played a major role in transmitting the message, has received much attention from modern scholars. The editor of the Latin Tabule, Howard Kaminsky, saw in Nicholas’s text ‘perhaps the highest stage of the passage of Wyclifism into propaganda, so stark and simple that it could be embodied in pictures to be carried in street demonstrations’, and stressed how uniquely it expressed the radical­ ism of Hus’s movement.2 Scholars have been attracted by the Tabule mostly because of the book illustrations preserved in the two above-mentioned codices dating from the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries – the ­so-called

1  Nicholas’s Tabule are available in Master Nicholas of Dresden, ed. by Kaminsky and others, pp. 38–65. 2  Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, p. 40.

Pursuing a New Order, Volume II: Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian Reformation, ed. by Pavlína Rychterová with the collaboration of Julian Ecker TMT 17.2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 127–151 © DOI 10.1484/M.TMT-EB.5.116600

FHG

128 Petra Mutlová

Göttingen and Jena Codices.3 The relationship between Nicholas’s ­original Latin text and its Old Czech adaptations in these two manuscripts has been subject to a long-lasting discussion and by now the main points are clear: the two illuminated codices were modelled on different examples and were adjusted to the original Latin text in different ways.4 This in turn supports the presumption that some pictorial antitheses were spread among the ­Hussites. However, the function of Nicholas’s original Latin Tabule and the question of its connection to the early Hussite visual propaganda remain unclear.5 In an extensive recent analysis, Milena Bartlová challenges the function of the text anew and suggests that the Tabule was a pictorial-textual kind of book product that connected pictures and text in a very specific way, namely as two equal and interconnected components that only together represented a specialized argumentation.6 She also proposes that the material antitheses were probably painted on canvas, a technique of public communication that existed in Europe at that time, which, moreover, could be easily exploited during public performances. Bartlová shows how students made possible the transformation of scholarly ideas into the practice of public performances. The students who utilized the antitheses in these street performances could have intentionally made use of the title of the ‘tabule’: in Medieval Latin the term ‘tabula’ or ‘cortina’ could designate a method of scholarly argumentation. Taking advantage of this semantic ambiguity could point to deliberate propaganda or, more precisely, intentional manipulation: the presentation of common visual images as authoritative scholarly evidence. In any case, the semantic structure of the pictures described in the Latin Tabule belonged to a university milieu; thus it remains ambiguous how these antitheses could have served as an agent of transfer of the non-conformist ideas of the Hussite

For the Göttingen Codex, see Svec, Bildagitation; for the Jena Codex, a facsimile edition with a transcription and a commentary is available: Jenský kodex, ed.  by Vaculínová and Boldan, containing an up-to-date bibliographical list of previous studies dealing with this codex (pp. 201–05). A critical edition of the Old Czech adaptation of Nicholas’s Tabule has appeared recently: Tabule staré a nové barvy Mikuláše z  Drážďan ve staročeském překladu, ed.  by Homolková and Dragoun, where I published a short Czech version of this analysis (pp. 33–46). 4  An essential study on the topic was published by Chytil, Antikrist v  naukách a umění středověku a husitské obrazné antithese, pp. 139–72; for a summary of the results of previous analyses, see Dragoun, ‘Jenský kodex z hlediska kodikologie’, pp. 77–86. 5  Šmahel, ‘Audiovizuální media husitské agitace’, pp. 232–33. 6  Bartlová, ‘“Prout lucide apparet in tabulis et picturis ipsorum”’, pp. 249–68. 3 

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 129

reformers to the unlearned laity.7 Bartlová finds the answer in an essential feature of medieval communication, namely in the dependence on emotions as a crucial component of visual media and the general priority of visual perception in the Late Middle Ages. At the same time it has been pointed out that the function of the mentioned pictorial-textual manuscripts is still not clear. Even though some particulars indicate a connection with preaching, further analysis is required in this matter.8 Moreover, the question of the role of the original Latin and the subsequent vernacular materials is of great importance in this issue. We still understand very little of the intentions of the author or the function of the Latin text that stood at the beginning of this unique insight into medieval communication. Bartlová’s conclusions present a breakthrough in our understanding of images as communication media at the beginning of the Hussite movement.9 At the same time, the more we understand the function of visual media and the process of communication, the more interesting the form of the textual antitheses in this case seems. It is beyond doubt that the problematic texttradition of the original Latin text deserves further attention. As described above, most scholarly efforts have been aimed at analyzing and comparing the illuminated vernacular adaptations and quite inevitably have not paid special attention to the lengthy Latin treatise composed by Nicholas. This is, of course, more than understandable: the lack of a critical edition of the Latin Tabule made such comparisons overly complicated.10 Later, Kaminsky’s critical edition did facilitate such analyses, yet ever since its publication not much attention has been paid to the intricate structure of the Latin text. Therefore, the aim of this study is to add to the intricate situation concerning Nicholas’s Tabule a few pieces of information that could enhance our comprehension of this text and its function. In my opinion, several problematic aspects of the structure of the Latin Tabule have not been satisfactorily accounted for. I will examine these in the 7  For more on the matter of Hussite propaganda and the means it employed, see Zilynská, ‘From Learned Disputation to the Happening’, pp. 55–67. 8  For more on this issue, see Rivers, Preaching the Memory of Virtue and Vice. 9  See also Bartlová, ‘Der Bildersturm der böhmischen Hussiten’, pp.  27–48; Bartlová, Skutečná přítomnost, pp. 287–309. 10  It should be stressed that neither Chytil, who compared the Latin Tabule and its Czech adaptation for the first time, nor Vlk, whose conclusions, achieved through a meticulous analysis of both illuminated codices, still more or less hold true, had the critical edition at hand. See Chytil, Antikrist v naukách a umění středověku a husitské obrazné antithese, pp. 139– 72; Vlk, ‘K otázce předlohy Jenského kodexu’, pp. 1–11.

130 Petra Mutlová

broader context of text transmission, especially focusing on manuscript evidence that has so far escaped attention. Subsequently, I will consider whether a structurally different version of the Latin Tabule might explain some of the confusion about the composition of the later vernacular adaptations. Finally, I will present further manuscript evidence connected to a text that was supposedly written as a reaction to the Latin Tabule, the anonymous Responsiones ad obiecciones et picturas, which can also shed some light on the original structure of the Latin treatise. The Latin Tabule by Nicholas of Dresden Granted, the content of the Tabule is not strikingly new. The contrasts presented in the Latin text are very much grounded in contemporary ideology, especially in the works of John Wyclif, Matthias of Janov, and others. Some of the antitheses generally correspond to the ideas of Wyclif, who developed this topic primarily in his De Christo et suo adversario Antichristo.11 However, a rich indigenous eschatological tradition was also available to Nicholas: it was developed, for example, by Milíč of Kroměříž, Matthias of Janov, and most importantly Jakoubek of Stříbro.12 Since Milíč did not scrutinize deeply the contrast between Christ and Antichrist, the generation of the Hussite reformers was influenced rather by Matthias of Janov, who in the five books of his Regule Veteris et Novi Testamenti provided copious supply for pictorial antitheses. The prevailing position of the Hussite reformers concerning the Antichrist was later formulated by Jakoubek of Stříbro.13

‘De Christo et suo adversario Antichristo’, ed.  by Buddensieg, pp.  33–58. Although the Bohemian reception of Wyclif ’s writings is well-known and has been greatly discussed, a detailed comparison of Nicholas’s Tabule with Wyclif ’s writings has not yet been carried out. Even though a cursory glance at Wyclif ’s De Christo et adversario suo Antichristo does not disclose any concrete parallels, a thorough analysis of both texts, or the quotations used in them, might bring interesting results. Naturally, other texts by Wyclif could be included in such an analysis, for example Iohannis Wyclif Operis evangelici liber tertius et quartus sive De Antichristo and others. A few examples of a possible inspiration by Wyclif were registered by Kaminsky in his foreword to Master Nicholas of Dresden, ed. by Kaminsky and others, p. 10, note 37. 12  For a general introduction to the problem, see Cermanová, Čechy na konci věků, pp. 47–67. See also Morée, Preaching in Fourteenth-Century Bohemia. 13  Hus himself was more engaged in concrete criticism of the pope than in identifying the pope with the Antichrist. Recent analysis of Hus’s position concerning the Antichrist based on his synodical preaching yielded interesting results and showed that his eschatological views were not truly apocalyptical: see Mazalová, ‘“Quare examinemus nos ipsos, o clerici…”’, pp. 159–73. 11 

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 131

The Tabule expresses explicitly what is implicit in these well-known works: the Roman Church is presented here as the mystical body of the Antichrist while the Primitive Church stands for a new social order that can be restored among people. The new element in Nicholas’s criticism, moreover, is that it is postulated from the point of view of a person standing outside the criticized institution.14 In order to grasp the message of the Tabule we need principally to consider its composition. The structure of Nicholas’s Latin text is rather complicated. It has survived in at least fourteen manuscript copies, of which three contain only excerpts or are incomplete, and another three are believed to represent an independent phase of textual development.15 The text is subdivided into nine parts entitled in several manuscripts a ‘tabula’, i.e. ‘table’. The majority of the tables consist of several numbered clusters of quotations from relevant authorities that aptly contrast the ‘old colour’, i.e. the Primitive Church, and the ‘new colour’, i.e. the (modern) Roman Church. The purpose behind such an arrangement was to evoke as vividly as possible the contrast between Christ and Antichrist. The stress on the difference between the lives of Christ and Antichrist is also echoed in the incipit of the work in two manuscripts (Incipit conversacio Cristi opposita conversacioni Anticristi).16 In his later treatises, the author himself refers to this text mostly as Cortina de Anticristo.17 Based on the subdivisions of the text, the title Tabule veteris et novi coloris, or Novus color et antiquus, emerged in the manuscript material during the fifteenth century and the treatise was subsequently spread and recognized under this title. As for the actual content of the Tabule, the very first pair of authorities in the first table can be seen as emblematic of the whole work: it is the antithesis of

For more, see Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, pp. 40–51. A list of fourteen extant manuscripts and more details are available in the introduction to the critical edition of the Tabule: see Master Nicholas of Dresden, ed. by Kaminsky and others, pp.  28–29, pp.  32–37. Spunar and Vidmanová, ‘Review of Master Nicholas of Dresden, The Old Color and the New’, p.  209, add to the list a copy from Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 92, fols 422r–30v, and question why another codex has been excluded from the list, namely Prague, Archiv Pražského hradu, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly u sv. Víta, MS  D 50, fols  266r–67v; moreover they exclude from the list Prague, NKČR, MS  I D 9, fols 137v–38v. Neither of these is according to my opinion an extract from the Tabule. 16  Prague, Archiv Pražského hradu, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly u sv. Víta, MS A 79/5, fol. 256rb; MS O 50, fol. 127r. For further variants of the title, see Master Nicholas of Dresden, ed. by Kaminsky and others, p. 38. 17  E.g. in his Expositio super Pater noster, or Puncta, see Sedlák, Mikuláš z Drážďan, pp. 8–9. 14  15 

132 Petra Mutlová

the humble Christ and the Pope, using the well-known representation of Christ carrying his cross and the Pope riding a lavishly adorned horse. The ensuing criticism of the Pope in this table elaborates on the Donation of Constantine and the corruption stemming from it. The authorities in the second table deal mostly with the corrupted character of the Roman Church and its jurisdictional practice, contrasting Peter and the Pope. The third and fourth tables enlarge upon these thematic oppositions in connection with the Church’s jurisdiction. The fifth table presents a turning point in the whole treatise. It abandons the pattern of opposing arguments and opens with a description of a Black Horseman from the Apocalypse with a balance in his hand – the explanation of the scene follows the gloss on the Apocalypse and attacks those who explain the Scripture differently from how the Holy Spirit commands and who transgress the divine law, such as simoniacs. A second image described here presents Christ driving out the moneychangers from the Temple and is accompanied by biblical quotations divided into four numbered points relat­ed to the story of Susanna. These are succeeded by a handful of unnumbered passages from the Canon law, mostly concerning fornication. The abandonment of the principle of alternation might have been caused by the subject matter, since there could not have been any canonical texts defending the sins of simony and fornication.18 Nevertheless, the change in both form and content is remarkable. The sixth table concentrates on vestments and criticizes the vanity of clerical garments. The seventh table elaborates on the same topic, using the parable of Dives and Lazarus at its beginning. Another slight change in form appears here. Firstly, there are four numbered points pertaining to the old colour, followed by sets of two opposing arguments, entitled ‘primus impugnans indumentum humile et comendans statum’ (‘the first assailant of humble attire and supporter of pomp’), immediately followed by their solutio (‘solution’, i.e. rejection). There are five of such pairs altogether. The numbering of these pairs continues into the eighth table that opens with the sixth and seventh impugnantes and their ‘solutions’. These are then followed by a description of Christ washing the feet of his disciples as opposed to the Pope having his feet kissed. At the end of this table, an opposition of the ‘curia Christi’ and the ‘curia Romana’ appears. The ninth table breaks with all previous patterns and is devoted to the coming of the Antichrist, consisting almost entirely of relevant biblical quotations. 18 

See Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, p. 45.

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 133

As mentioned above, the authorities in each of the nine parts are subdivided into numbered points which in most cases alternate between the old and new colours – and present a fine source for a picture (or two or more opposing pictures) on each theme. In some tables, however, the sequence of individual points is rather cumulative, while in others it does not correspond to either of these systems. The editors of the Tabule explained this union of text and pictures by the possibility that ‘picture-titles tell their own story, and the sequence of authorities, which do not follow a simple one-for-one pattern of antithesis, bears witness to a principle of grouping that can be best understood in terms of pictures.’19 The distribution of the arguments as well as the content of individual tables is crucial for comprehending the structure of the Tabule as well as its subsequent adaptations, and thus it is best to look at it in full detail:  

Color antiquus

Color novus

tabula prima

1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13

2, 5, 6, 11

tabula secunda

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14

1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13

tabula tertia

2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

1, 3, 8

tabula quarta

2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11

tabula quinta

-

-

tabula sexta

1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14

3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12

tabula septima

1, 2, 3, 4, solutio primi – quinti

primus – quintus impugnans

tabula octava

solutio sexti – septimi, conclusio, Christus lavans pedes discipulorum

sextus – septimus ­impugnans, curia papae

tabula nona

1–18

 

It can be seen that the antithetical system is far from straightforwardly applied throughout the work. Moreover, this intricate system is not followed in the same way in all the manuscripts. In some copies the numbered subdivisions appear on new lines as titles, in others the numbers appear either within the text, or in the margins (or both). Moreover, there are discrepancies not only in the distribution of quotations to each colour, but most importantly in the subdivision of the whole work. The lack of symmetry in the nine parts is the most remarkable element, yet we can easily accept that even a treatise based 19 

Master Nicholas of Dresden, ed. by Kaminsky and others, pp. 35–36.

134 Petra Mutlová

on alternating antitheses does not need to be perfectly symmetrical. But there are further problems, most notably in the transition between tables 7 and 8: why does the numbering of the subdivisions in these two tables continue without a break from one to the other table, whereas, in the other tables, the numbering always starts anew? Why are the subdivisions in these two parts formally different from the rest of the treatise? Another question concerns the fifth table, the longest of all: what is the function of it and why does no numbering appear here? Last but not least, why do the eighteen quotations solely to the old colour stand in an individual table without any counterpart at the very end of the whole treatise? Consequently, can a full appreciation of the structural diversity of the Latin Tabule explain some of the ambiguous points in the system of illuminations in the later vernacular adaptations preserved in the Jena and Göttingen Codices? Answers to these questions can add much to the understanding of the original function of Nicholas’s text and as a result provide valuable insights into the late medieval communication. The Latin Tabule: A Different Structure? Jan Sedlák was one of the first scholars who paid attention to the treatise and tried to sum up its content.20 He suggested that the text was divided into nine parts, each entitled ‘tabula’.21 Sedlák knew of eleven manuscripts of the Tabule (all included in the critical edition) and pointed out that in two manuscripts there were only eight tables because the sixth and seventh tables were connected into one.22 This, nevertheless, does not entirely correspond to the manuscripts in question. As a matter of fact, none of the extant manuscripts (including the thirteen copies the editors of the text examined)23 divides the Sedlák, Mikuláš z Drážďan, pp. 8–14. Sedlák, Mikuláš z Drážďan, p. 9. 22  Sedlák, Mikuláš z Drážďan, p.  9, note 5 – namely manuscripts Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 2148, and Prague, NKČR, MS IV G 15. 23  Since all these manuscripts will be repeatedly discussed in the following, I  will refer to them using the sigla they were assigned in the critical edition. The list is as follows: B – Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, MS  A X 66, fols  296r–304r; K – Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 2148, fols 111v–18r; L – Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, MS 346, fols 120r–27v; P – Prague, NKČR, MS IV G 15, fols 232va–40ra; Q – Prague, NKČR, MS V G 15, fols 84r–92v; R – Prague, Archiv Pražského hradu, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly u sv. Víta, MS A 79/5, fols 256rb–61rb; S – Prague, Archiv Pražského hradu, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly u sv. Víta, MS  N 7, fols  30v–35r; T – Prague, Archiv Pražského hradu, Knihovna Metropolitní 20  21 

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 135

text into nine parts by using headings for tables 1 to 9. The two manuscripts Sedlák had in mind – Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 2148, and Prague, NKČR, MS IV G 15 – do indeed have only eight headings, although not as he presented it: both manuscripts read ‘tabula octava’ (‘table eight’), but there is no heading for table 9. Moreover, it seems that Sedlák understood the layout of the tables differently from the editors of the Tabule: when one reads his summary of the content of the Tabule, it becomes apparent that he considered table 5 as two tables (one dealing with simony, the other criticizing fornication), and therefore, in his subsequent numbering, his seventh table equals table 6 of the critical edition, and his eighth and ninth parts correspond to parts of tables 7 and 8, namely to the sequence of seven arguments with their solutions (‘primus – septimus impugnans’) that stretch from table 7 to table 8 in the edition. Even if Sedlák’s division of the text is not fundamentally wrong, his misleading description, in combination with a failure of the critical edition to address the question of the work’s structure, has caused much subsequent confusion in understanding the division of the Tabule, and more importantly has much bearing on our understanding of the illuminated vernacular versions of the Tabule. Let me repeat that none of the surviving manuscripts includes the head­ ing ‘tabula nona’ within the text. There is a single apparent exception:24 in manuscript S, the numbers of tables 1 to 5 appear in the text and only subsequently were marked by a different hand in the margins. This subsequent corrector numbered as ‘8’ the beginning of the sets of assailants with their solutions in table 7 (fol. 33v), and continued with ‘tabula nona’ at the point where the text reads ‘sequitur alia tabula’ (‘another table follows’) on fol. 34v: here, in fact, the papal curia is being described (i.e. at the end of table 8). Subsequently, he marked the words ‘sequitur tabula ultima’ (‘last table follows’) of the text as ‘Tabula ultima de anticristo’ (‘last table about Antichrist’) in the margin. In sum, the numbering in this manuscript is a result of attempted amelioration, and thus the division of the text into ten parts that seemingly appears there must be rejected. This leaves us with the assumption that the

Kapituly u sv. Víta, MS O 50, fols 127r–32v; V – Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 4902, fols 181r–6r; W – Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 4488, fol.  67r–v; Y – Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 4343, fols  181r–88r; Z – Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 4875, fols  29r–34r; H – Herrnhut, Universitätsarchiv, MS  AB. II.R.1.16.a, fols 61v–63v, fols 93v–97r. 24  For the sake of accuracy it has to be said that the heading ‘tabula nona’ (‘table nine’) erroneously appears in V, on fol. 185r but the sequence of numbers is distorted there to a high extent. This issue will be discussed in full detail later.

136 Petra Mutlová

last part of the Tabule – a series of eighteen arguments concerning Antichrist of no antithetical character – was not originally a separate table, and thus constitutes a special part of the treatise with an as yet unknown function. It is also possible that it was originally not an integral part of the text. Working backwards from the end of the tract, another remarkable element in the structure is represented by the series of seven arguments with counter-arguments (i.e. ‘primus – septimus impugnans  +  solutio’) that stretches from table 7, after the first four quotations of the table, to table 8. In other words, one might ask: does table eight exist? And if so, in what form? The heading ‘tabula octava’ (‘table eight’) at the beginning of the sixth assailant appears only in manuscripts P and K and in a miscounted form in V.25 Nevertheless, the seven assailants are presented as a coherent section without any break in manuscripts Q, R, T, S, B, W, Z, which lack the heading of table 8. In L, the beginning of the eighth table is located at the end of the seventh assailant. Thus, it seems unlikely that the sixth assailant marked the beginning of a new part of the text.26 Can we then suppose that the material treating the seven impugnantes was originally seen as an add-on to the original antithetical structure? There is evidence that the copyists saw a dividing line here: in S, for example, a note in the margin of fol. 33v marks the first assailant of table 7 as the beginning of the eighth part. In L, the first assailant starts on a new line highlighted by a marginal note. However, in other manuscripts, the series of seven assail­ ants follows the four numbered points at the beginning of table 7 without any interruption. Remarkable is the division in T: here, the scribe combined the numbering of the tables with a system of alphabetical division by letters. Judging by these letters, it seems that a break came only after the end of the seventh assailant in table 8, marked on fol. 132r by the letter ‘M’. The preced­ ing letter ‘K’ marks the beginning of table 6 (fol. 130r).27 In V, there is a longer omission at this place: after the first point comes the first a­ ssailant which The heading ‘octava tabula’ in Q on fol. 89v stands at a miscounted beginning of what is actually table 7. 26  Even though it appears in the middle of a line of argumentation, the reasons behind the problematic beginning of table 8 are unfortunately not discussed in the critical edition. 27  We can only guess where the obviously missing letter ‘L’ should have been: at the beginning of table 7, or at the beginning of the first assailant? A  barely visible superscript letter ‘L’ might seem to indicate that it was at the beginning of table 7 – however, there is an omission between the fourth point and the beginning of the first assailant which makes it impossible to decide the matter either way. 25 

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 137

could mean that this manuscript have been copied from a model where the series of seven assailants presented a separate part. At the end of the series of assailants, some sort of division is marked also in B, L, Q, R, S, and V. To conclude: following the evidence of the extant manuscripts, there is no reason to number table 7 and 8 as separate tables; rather, it would seem more logical to understand the series of seven assailants with their solutions as a separate and coherent part of the text. The fifth table presents another strange element in the text. Apart from the fact that it lacks the antithetical character of the earlier tables (and thus the numbering of individual arguments), it is the longest part of the text and appears to bear the form of a tract against simony and fornication. In its middle, it is interrupted by the story of Susanna and the Elders, presented under four numbered points. The beginning of the story (i.e. the first point) is marked in the manuscripts in various ways. In Q and V, this place is marked as ‘sexta tabula’ (‘table six’); L reads ‘table five’ here (and lacks a heading at the actual beginning of the fifth table); in T, there is a new paragraph marked by letter ‘I’ and a title: ‘Here the church is condemned because fornicators and keepers of concubines are in it’ (‘Hic condempnat ecclesiam, quia fornicarii et concubinarii sunt in ea’); a new paragraph with a title appears also in R; in K and B, the first numbered point of the story appears in a new line. Therefore, the transition in the content of the fifth table (i.e. between the part about simony and the one dealing with fornication) is supported also by manuscript evidence. At any rate, the function and the place of this table in the general context of the Tabule are not at all clear. In the previous description, manuscripts of the Tabule where the text is preserved in an incomplete or disturbed manner have been largely ignored. With the help of the above details of the structure of the Tabule, I hope the confused order of the tables in these fragments can now be better explained. I will choose only two examples. Manuscript V is an incomplete copy, start­ ing with paragraphs seven and eight of the third table, followed by tables 4–9. The fifth table is divided into two,28 marked as tables 5 and 6, and as a result table 6 is marked as 7, and table 7 as 8. In this table, the order of the numbered points and of the assailants with their counterarguments is As opposed to other headings in this copy which contain only simple numbers, the fifth table reads ‘tabula quinta alteram partem continens libri precedentis’ (‘table five containing another part of the previous tract’).

28 

138 Petra Mutlová

c­ ompletely muddled.29 As mentioned above, a heading of a new table appears at the beginning of the sixth assailant (although misnumbered as table 9). The parts with the headings ‘curia Cristi’ (‘curia of Christ’) and ‘modus curie Romane’ (‘mode of the Roman curia’) comprise relevant material from the very end of table 8 of the edition. The content of table 9 is not separated from the previous text in any way. Even more interesting is the evidence of manuscript H, a fragment now kept in Herrnhut, Germany. Here, the text of the Tabule has been copied in two places, namely on fols  61v–63v and 93v–97r. Kaminsky seems to have considered only the second part in his preface to the edition of the Tabule. He suggested that H was written very close to the date of origin of the tract, i.e. around 1412, and that the sets of facing authorities on fols 93v–97r represent an early draft of the text. Nicholas could have compiled here a handful of relevant statements in a way that documents the antithetical plan for the text. The headings ‘pars Cristi’ (‘the side of Christ’) and ‘pars pape’ (‘the side of the Pope’) that can be found here are in some cases amplified by instructions that document the original picture-text association.30 Subsequently, Nicholas could have elaborated on this first draft, adjusted and regrouped the authorities in such a way as to contrast the two colours, and this elabo­ rated stage of text development is preserved in most of the extant manuscripts of the Tabule.31 The evidence of the first part of the text preserved in the Herrnhut fragment adds weight to Kaminsky’s suggestion about the work’s antithetical form. The first two sets of facing pages (i.e. fols 61v–62r) contain the headings ‘prima tabula’ and ‘2a tabula’ (i.e. ‘first and second table’) at the top of the pages, above the texts of the first (fol. 61v) and the second table (fol. 62r). The quotations are heavily abbreviated (often there is only the first word) and follow one another without breaks. The numbering has the form of ­superscripts. The critical apparatus of the edition does not record such variants; the order is as follows: ‘primus, primus impugnans, secundus, solucio primi, quartus, tercius, solucio tercii, solucio secundi, secundus impugnans, tercius impugnans, quartus impugnans, solucio quarti, quintus impugnans, solucio quinti’. 30  Such as ‘pars Cristi que debet depingi baiulans crucem’ (‘the side of Christ which should be depicted as Christ carrying the cross’) on fol. 94v and ‘pars pape que debet depingi iuxta tenorem privilegii’ (‘the side of the Pope which should be depicted as the Pope by the wording of the privilege’) on fol. 95r. 31  Master Nicholas of Dresden, ed. by Kaminsky and others, pp. 34–36. I have presented a few matters connected with the Herrnhut fragment in Mutlová, ‘Communicating Texts through Images’, pp. 29–37. 29 

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 139

Both of these parts are underlined and followed by other quotations. On fol. 61v, the third table can be found (with an incomplete number one), the fourth table starts in a new paragraph and is followed without interruption by the part of table 5 which ends before the series of four numbered points (i.e. before the story of Susanna). On fol. 62r, below the underlined end of the second table, appears the rest of the incomplete first point from the third table, followed by the continuation of table 5, i.e. from the story of Susanna onwards. The end of the page corresponds with the end of table 5. Lacking any heading, the sixth table starts on fol. 62v: the uninterrupted text fills the whole page and ends on the upper part of fol. 63r. A new paragraph without any title contains the beginning of table 7. The first assailant is then separated and appears in yet another paragraph. However, apart from the first assail­ ant and its counterargument, there is only one quotation from the solution of the second paragraph, which means that most of the assailants and their solutions are missing.32 The rest of this folio is taken up by text from the end of the eighth table, namely the mode of the Roman curia – the text in versified form appears in one column. The following fol. 63v contains, in abridged form, a list of nineteen numbered quotations from table 9. In sum, the part on fols 61v–63v contains in an abridged form almost the entire text of the Tabule, with the exception of the beginning of table 5 (a gloss on Apocalypse 6 evoking the picture of the black horseman with scales) as well as a few lines from the middle of it (related to the picture of Christ expelling moneychangers from the temple); moreover, it lacks the third through seventh assail­ ants, even though there is evidence that this part was intentionally skipped. Thus, the text that continues on fol.  93v introduced by the heading of ‘statera’ (‘scales’) at the top of the page seems at first sight to complement the previous part. Yet it is not so. What follows is in fact material from the beginning of the fifth table along with authorities that do not appear in the Tabule. Underneath the title ‘pars Cristi’ follow authorities from the second table and one from the sixth table – all of these contain longer pieces of quotations than appear in the Tabule. With another title, ‘sacerdos’ (‘priest’), come quotations from tables 2, 1, and 6. On the adjacent fol. 94r, the upper half of the page is left blank and what follows comprises quotations from tables 2 and 4. Such a disorderly distribution of quotations can be found A note ‘Infra per totum de preciositate et ornatu vestituum’ (‘Below all about costliness and sumptuousness of clothing’) can probably be understood as a reference to the rest of the missing assailants. Moreover, it seems to indicate that the scribe was copying or making notes from another copy.

32 

140 Petra Mutlová

in the rest of this part, too. It should be emphasized that the authorities are for most part the same as in the previous passage (i.e. fols 61v–63v), which means that the text on fols  93v–97r does not complete the previous part. To put it differently, the authorities here are grouped differently from the previous part where the system of tables is applied. Moreover, even though the arrangement of the second part indeed evokes contrasts between Christ and the Pope, the distribution of the quotations (i.e. their content) does not follow the antithetical character.33 As far as the final structure of the Tabule is concerned, it is remarkable that there is no material from table 5 or anything connected with the criticism of vanity regarding clothing, as captured in the seven assailants and counterarguments. Last but not least, the content of table 9 appears ­partially on fol. 96v under the title of ‘de Anticristo testes infrascripti’ (‘below witnesses of Antichrist’) in an order different from the one in the Tabule.34 Regrettably, it is difficult to decide what the relation between the two parts of the text in the Herrnhut fragment was. Can we see a first draft or notes of the author of the text on fols  93v–97r that was subsequently reworked into a new system on fols 61v–63v? That it could not have been the opposite way can be inferred from the fact that the text on fols 61v–63v complies more or less with the structure of the Latin Tabule preserved in the extant manuscripts, which therefore seems to represent the later form. Unfortunately, this hypothesis cannot be accepted or fully rejected. Based on the contents, the order of quotations on fols 61v–63v cannot be deduced from the other part. The numbering of the quotations (which appears only here and not in the other part) could have been added later – which may be the reason why it was superscribed. But there is another possibility, namely, that this part was copied from a different model. More evidence is needed to elaborate this hypothesis.

To make it clear by a concrete example: the authorities on fol. 95v, entitled as ‘pars Cristi’, contain III/7, IV/8/3, IV/9, II/14, III/9, IV/8/2, IV/8/1, IV/9 (where the Roman number stands for the table and the Arabic for the numbered point within each table, and in some cases its sub-parts). The opposing fol. 96r contains under ‘pars pape’ IV/7/2, IV/10, IV/1/3, IV/7/1 – the first quotation on the page, a gloss of Bartholomew Brixiensis on the nature of papal dispensations (i.e. on C. 15 q. 6 c. 2), does not appear in the Tabule. 34  The list contains IX/1, IX/2, IX/4/1, IX/3, IX/17, IX/7, IX/18, IX/10 together with some additions (Matthew 24. 15; Mark 13. 14); some of the quotations are longer while some are shorter than those in the Tabule. 33 

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 141

At any rate, it can be inferred from the above description that the structure of the Latin Tabule was highly complex and diverse already at the time of its origin. In this light, if we consider the fact that table 5 is altogether missing from some of the extant manuscripts (such as W), or that some manuscripts openly claim that the text is divided into eight parts only (the title in L), and that many of the copies made dividing lines at different places (such as the series of assailants and counterarguments), the structure of the treatise as presented in the critical edition and the structure of Nicholas’s text as pre­ sumably seen by his contemporaries differ substantially from each other. If, for instance, we disregard table 5 as not being part of the treatise, we would read a text that comprises six sets of clusters of antithetically arranged quotations (this would include the first four numbered points from table 7), followed by a series of seven arguments and counterarguments criticizing sumptuousness of clothing, and rounded off by a cluster of authorities concerning the Antichrist. To accept any such suggestion, however, we have to look for evidence in further sources. Nonetheless, it can be propounded already that the debate on later vernacular adaptations of the Latin Tabule, which took the form of the Latin treatise for granted, could have benefited from a full appreciation of the structural diversity of the Latin Tabule. The Tabule and the Vernacular Versions The confused order of the tables in the Latin text and the two Old Czech adaptations has been subject to ample discussion. An intriguing hypothesis was presented by František Šmahel. He suggests that the transposition of the tables in the two illuminated codices might stem from the layout of wall-paintings at the Black Rose House in Prague, where Nicholas and his colleagues from Dresden supposedly lived and worked.35 Such disposition, as Šmahel argues, could have corresponded to the layout of the tables in the Göttingen Codex where the ninth table is presented first, followed by tables 5 to 8 and completed by tables 1 to 4. This could have been caused by the fact that tables 5 to 8 and 1 to 4 were painted on the side walls, while the longest ninth table was to be found on a central pillar column in the atrium of the Black Rose House. Šmahel concludes that the Latin Tabule most probably served as a libretto for certain wall-paintings or painted boards and the later

Šmahel, ‘Die Tabule veteris et novi coloris als audiovisuelles Medium hussitischer Agitation’, p. 99. See also Šmahel, ‘Audiovizuální média husitské agitace’, pp. 231–37.

35 

142 Petra Mutlová

Old Czech translations were rather independent adaptations than a replica of the original pictures. Based on what has been shown above, some of the ambiguities in the vernacular versions of the Latin Tabule might be understood now to a certain extent. As a model example I will refer to the Jena Codex because it has recently been subject of a thorough analysis.36 The part of the Jena Codex containing the Tabule was copied by one scribe (namely the owner of the manuscript, Bohuslav of Čechtice), except for two places.37 One is on fol. 26rv where the beginning of table 5 appears. In the light of the previouslydescribed structure of the Latin text, this fact seems to be in accordance with the specific position of table 5 in the Latin text. It should also be mentioned that in the fifth table in the Jena Codex, there are discrepancies concerning the part where the story of Susanna begins – i.e. a part that was separated from the rest in the Latin text as well.38 The same scribe who wrote the beginning of table 5 also copied the other exception, i.e. fol. 34rv that contains text from the end of table 8 (namely the seventh and eighth assailants on fol. 34r and the text accompanying the scene of Christ washing the feet of his d­ isciples). Nevertheless, Bohuslav of Čechtice filled in the blank spaces left for rubrics on both of these pages, which proves that the two scribes c­ ooperated. For Vlk, it is strange that the scribe left a blank space for a rubric on fol. 34v, which is not the beginning of a new thesis (the term Vlk uses for the beginnings of the numbered points).39 As we could see above, at this point in the Latin text a dividing line can be seen – as this is the place where the series of assailants ends. Moreover, Vlk shows in his palaeographical analysis that the main scribe’s handwriting varies throughout the text and that the end of the Tabule was copied later (possibly after several years). He hypothesized that the varying handwriting had to do with the possibility that the text was copied from different models.40 Again, this tallies with the above suggestions that the end of the Latin Tabule seems to be somewhat

Basic comparison of the content of the Latin Tabule and its adaptation in the Jena Codex was carried out by Karel Chytil and subsequently by Miloslav Vlk – see above, note 4; for a summary, see Dragoun, ‘Jenský kodex z hlediska kodikologie’, pp. 77–86. 37  Vlk, ‘Paleografický rozbor Jenského kodexu’, p.  55; Dragoun, ‘Jenský kodex z hlediska kodikologie’, pp. 82–83. 38  Namely, on fol. 27v the first point in the Susanna story is missing, as well as the text that follows after the four points until the end of table 5. 39  Vlk, ‘Paleografický rozbor Jenského kodexu’, p. 58. 40  Vlk, ‘Paleografický rozbor Jenského kodexu’, pp. 67–69. 36 

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 143

problematic. Vlk also observes that the numbered points are mixed up in the seventh and eighth tables.41 There are some minor discrepancies throughout the text,42 but the main confusion starts in table 7. The first and the fourth points in the Latin text contain the story of Dives and Lazarus, and quote different verses from Luke’s Gospel – these do not entirely correspond to the content of point one and four in the Jena Codex. More importantly, after the fourth point, a series of assailants and counterarguments starts in the Latin text – in the Jena Codex, however, these are numbered continuously, i.e. the first assailant is numbered as five, the solution of the first assailant is numbered as six and so on. To further confuse matters, there is another slip: according to this shifted numbering, the second assailant should have been numbered as seven, but instead it is numbered as two. Thus, the solution of the second assailant is numbered as three, the third assailant as four and so this new series continues without interruption until the end. Like in the Latin text, there is no break in the numbering between tables 7 and 8 and therefore the solution of the seventh (i.e. the last) assailant comes as number thirteen, followed by a gen­eral conclusion on fol. 33v numbered as fourteen. Therefore, the above suggested division (or rather its non-existence) of tables 7 and 8 in the Latin text is justified by the layout of the vernacular version in the Jena Codex. The last table in the Jena Codex is not numbered and the text appears beneath half figures of twenty different speakers. In the Latin edition, the text is divided into eighteen numbered points. This was caused by the fact that the last two points of the Latin text (i.e. seventeen and eighteen) are divided into two in the Jena Codex. Interestingly enough, a hint at such division can be found in the Herrnhut fragment where the last two witnesses on the Antichrist on fol. 63v are also divided into two.43

Vlk, ‘K otázce předlohy Jenského kodexu’, p. 4, note 8, where he himself fell for the problematic numbering of points and assailants in table 7 and 8; thus he thought that table 7 contained six theses (i.e. numbered points) and table 8 fourteen, which does not correspond neither to the Latin nor to the Old Czech text. Also Chytil, Antikrist v naukách a umění středověku a husitské obrazné antithese, p. 161, registered that there was a problem with tables 7 and 8. 42  For example, in the second table on fols  17v and 18r numbers twelve and fourteen are swapped. In the fourth table, on fol. 22v the number of the ninth point is missing, on the opposing fol. 23r the third point should have been numbered as the seventh and the tenth point is missing altogether. Table 6 starts on fol. 28r by the third point as numbers one and two are missing. 43  Even though the numbering stops at nineteen in the Herrnhut fragment – the last point is evidently divided into two as the second quotation appears in a new line and the scribe obviously only forgot to or did not get to number the last item. 41 

144 Petra Mutlová

Evidence of Other Sources As I have tried to show, understanding the transmission of the Latin Tabule is a key element in understanding later vernacular versions that represent highly popular and sharp pictorial criticism. The point can be confirmed by considering an important witness to the transmission of the Latin Tabule. Around 1418, an anonymous author wrote a tract that is believed to directly oppose Nicholas’s Latin Tabule. It is usually entitled Responsiones ad obiecciones et picturas (‘Answers to objections and paintings’, hereafter Responsiones) and it has already attracted attention from scholars interested in the vernacular versions of the Tabule. This had to do mostly with the question of existence or non-existence of wall-paintings in the Bethlehem Chapel, the most prominent place of vernacular preaching in Hussite Prague, where the above-described antitheses were believed to have been painted.44 More importantly for the matter at hand, the Responsiones is believed to attest to the early existence of pictorial antitheses as preserved in the illuminated vernacular versions of the Tabule because the author described several pictures that seem to match the extant, much younger illuminations in the vernacular version of the Tabule.45 The author explicitly mentions that the heretics assail the Roman Church in their ‘tabulis et picturis’ (‘tables and paintings’) and describes scenes that appear in several tables in Nicholas’s text.46 Nevertheless, there are discrepancies in associating the pictures described in the Responsiones with Nicholas’s Latin Tabule. There were various hypotheses as to what the author of the Responsiones described, whether he had actual paintings in front of his eyes or described paintings he

The discussion was most recently summed up and enriched by Bartlová, ‘“Prout lucide apparet in tabulis et picturis ipsorum”’, pp. 250–57. 45  A number of valuable observations concerning this text was originally made by Chytil, Antikrist v naukách a umění středověku a husitské obrazné antithese, pp. 151–72, pp. 248–57; and Vlk, ‘Obrazy v Betlémské kapli’, pp. 161–65; a more recent discussion is summarized in the study by Bartlová – see preceding note. See also Stejskal, ‘Poznámky k současnému stavu bádání o Jenském kodexu’, pp. 1–30. 46  ‘Prout lucide apparet in tabulis et picturis ipsorum. Depingunt enim in una parte tabulae papam equitantem et insigniis apostolicae dignitatis utentem […], in alia vero parte depingunt Christum pauperem, crucem suam in humeris bajulantem’ (‘As it clearly appears in their tables and paintings: For on one side of the table they picture the Pope riding a horse and employing the insignia of the apostolic office […], on the other side they depict poor Christ carrying his cross on his shoulders’) – see Chytil, Antikrist v naukách a umění středověku a husitské obrazné antithese, p. 237. 44 

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 145

had previously seen from memory, or whether he objected only to a textual version of Nicholas’s Tabule that was not illuminated. Most researchers worked with an inaccurate transcription of the Responsiones based on a single manuscript that was published by Chytil in an appendix to his pioneering work on the Antichrist.47 This, in my opinion, is a major obstacle in grasping the message of the Responsiones. Without due context, the text of the Responsiones is rather difficult to comprehend. At the very beginning of the text, the author describes a few pictures that have attracted the attention of scholars dealing with the illuminated vernacular adaptations of the Tabule. However, the Responsiones analyses a number of different issues taking up most of the text as the main objective of the author. This fact has not been fully recognized by scholars.48 There are indeed shared materials including references to tables and similar quotations, and criticism of sumptuous clothing and simony. Yet the order in which they are presented by no means matches that of the Tabule. At the same time, many issues treated, not always clearly, are not self-evidently related to materials in the Tabule. Moreover, the text is obviously corrupt in some parts and larger chunks of text have probably been omitted. A few examples may help. After a short introduction (with a brief de­scription of several pictures), the text goes on to disprove the argument that the Pope can be identified with the Antichrist. Subsequently, it deals with sumptuousness of clothing and general criticism of the Roman Church. Among other things, the author states that although it is fruitless to rebut all arguments presented by the heretics who assail the Roman Church, he wishes to help Christians to see the truth more easily and thus he chooses to present a few answers to such objections – he announces seven such cases, but only four are presented. In a similar manner, many of the arguments the author of the Responsiones presents are unbalanced and confused (such as the examples of free will and predestination, with which the author illustrates the problem of contradiction and congruity). Last but not least, throughout

The text was transcribed from a manuscript preserved in Prague, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly, MS  D 50, fols  133r–37v by Antonín Podlaha and printed in Chytil, Antikrist v naukách a umění středověku a husitské obrazné antithese, pp. 237–47. 48  Only Vlk observes that the description of pictures forms only some sort of introduction and that the tract argues with the whole of Nicholas’s Tabule – Vlk, ‘Obrazy v Betlémské kapli’, p. 165. Bartlová, ‘“Prout lucide apparet in tabulis et picturis ipsorum”’, p. 263 assumes that the author of the Responsiones worked with a lost exemplar of Nicholas’s text, but this does not explain the connection between these two texts satisfactorily. 47 

146 Petra Mutlová

the text the author refers back to different chapters – these are not the chapters of the criticized treatise and we cannot presently determine to what text he is referring. In sum, even though there are many similarities with the content of the Latin Tabule, the treatise in fact does not follow the structure of the Tabule. Therefore, if one wants to compare the Tabule and the Responsiones and to understand what kind of antitheses, in what order and how they were dis­proved in the later treatise, one needs a critically assessed text of the Responsiones at hand – all the more so since the Responsiones seems to be a part of another treatise, a fact that further enhances the need to fully appreciate the textual tradition of the Responsiones as well as those of the Latin and ­vernacular ­versions of the Tabule. The Responsiones and the Collecta et excerpta To take a further step in solving this riddle, the question of the transmission of the Responsiones must be addressed. It has been suggested that it is only one part of a treatise by a Catholic author who undertook the task of refuting certain heretical ideas.49 However, these two parts – the first part comprising twenty-one heretical articles, while the second, the abovementioned Responsiones, possibly refutes Nicholas’s Tabule – circulated also independently. Both parts survive together at least in nine manuscripts, the first part alone in four other copies, the second in another four.50 The first part is a selection of quotations from Benedict of Alignan’s voluminous treatise Tractatus fidei contra diversos errores but the inclusion of the issue of

Master Nicholas of Dresden, ed. by Kaminsky and others, p. 27. Further research into the manuscript material is still needed but for the sake of the present argument, the tentative list should suffice. An incomplete list of manuscripts can be found in Spunar, Repertorium, ii, pp. 202–03, no. 412, which is augmented and corrected in a few details here; see also Grabmann, ‘Der Franziskanerbischof Benedictus de Alignano († 1268) und seine Summa zum Caput “Firmiter” des vierten Laterankonzils’, pp. 59–62. There were other copies of both of the analysed texts which are presently lost: one such manuscript was, for example, in the collection of the parish church of St Jacob in Brno, old shelf-mark 93; see Sedlák, Mikuláš z Drážďan, p. 13, who was able to see this manuscript which the modern catalogue of the collection registers as lost, see Petr, Soupis rukopisů knihovny při farním kostele svatého Jakuba v Brně, p. 19. I have presented some additions to the list of extant manuscripts earlier in Mutlová, ‘Vybrané prameny k existenci drážďanské školy’, pp. 556–57.

49  50 

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 147

infant communion, which is a very distinct Hussite novelty,51 marks it as a clearly anti-Hussite work.52 It is usually entitled Collecta et excerpta de summa Benedicti abbatis Marsilie super capitulo Firmiter credimus with the incipit Una est fidelium universalis ecclesia, que vivit in veritate fidei. Neither this nor the second part has been critically edited or analysed so far. The surviving manuscripts in which both parts are preserved are: I. Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, MS E I 9, fols 351r–76r II. Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, MS R 409, fols 255rb–81va III. Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 421, fols 210v–42v IV. Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 602, fols 3v–43rb V. London, British Museum, MS Arundel 458, fols 107r–56v53 VI. Prague, Archiv Pražského hradu, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly u sv. Víta, MS D 119, fols 4r–137r VII. Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, MS  Ottob. Lat. 350, fols 209v–41v VIII. Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, MS I F 308, fols 12ra–54va IX. Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, MS I Q 87, fols 58r–122v Manuscripts in which the so-called Collecta et excerpta exists independently are: I. Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 423, fols 74r–97v54 II. Prague, NKČR, MS I F 18, fols 227v–33v III. Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, MS C 188, fols 141v–76r IV. Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, MS I F 237, fols 133ra–65vb55 Manuscripts in which the Responsiones exists independently are: I. Kraków, Archiwum Polskiej Prowincji Dominikanów, MS R XV 14, fols 321ra–26vb For the background on infant communion, see Holeton, La communion des tout-petits enfants. The most recent detailed analysis of Benedict’s treatise and the intricate manuscript history of his text was carried out by Arnold, ‘Benedict of Alignan’s “Tractatus fidei contra diversos errores”’ (forthcoming). 53  I would like to thank John A. Arnold for correcting my data on the foliation. 54  There are three different systems of foliation in this manuscript: according to the oldest red numbers the text is on fols 88r–111v (with a mistake); another numbering was erased but is still visible (fols 75r–98v). 55  The catalogue registers an older foliation, according to which the text was copied to fols 128ra–60vb. After the end of the Collecta et excerpta, there are three empty folios and thus it is possible that the scribe might have intended to copy the Responsiones. 51 

52 

148 Petra Mutlová

II. Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 423, fols 170r–75r56 III. Prague, Archiv Pražského hradu, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly u sv. Víta, MS B 22/2, fols 89r–93v57 IV. Prague, Archiv Pražského hradu, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly u sv. Víta, MS O 50, fols 133r–37v Most probably, further manuscripts in which either of these texts survives are still to be identified and the issue of the transmission of the text requires further research.58 At any rate, even the tentative outline of manuscripts indicates the intricacy of the way in which these two texts are preserved – and the question of how the two parts relate to each other is of crucial importance for the present argument. Starting with the manuscripts which include both texts: the copyist of the Leipzig manuscript considered the two parts to have been written by one and the same author.59 In Kraków, MS 421 both texts were copied by the same scribe and follow each other without any interruption, and must have been considered a coherent text. In Wrocław, MS I Q 87 the two texts were copied one after the other as well but with separate titles, although the scribe assumed that they were the work of the same author.60 In Wrocław, MS I F 308 they were also copied together, but here the scribe considered the two parts to be independent treatises, as the According to two other foliations that appear here, the text is on fols 187r–92r (old red numbers) or on fols 171r–76r (barely visible modern pencil). 57  The end of the treatise is missing from this copy. 58  Such as Padua, Biblioteca di San Giovanni, MS Pluteo VII, fols 190r–249r, see Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, p. 49; or Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, MS Theol. 76 XI, fols 1–116v, ‘Ex Benedicti, abbatis Massiliensis, libro fidei tractatus duo contra Hussitas, scripti a. 1424’, see Bartoš, ‘Husitika a bohemika několika knihoven německých a švýcarských’, p. 23. John H. Arnold kindly pointed out to me further copies of the Collecta et excerpta, compiled by the editors of the Mirabile website: [accessed on 21 May 2015], but some of these confuse the Collecta et excerpta with another summary of Benedict’s treatise; for this reason, I put them on the list only tentatively as I have not been able to verify the data. They include Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, MS Lat. Z. 131 (1719), fols 1–48; Vienna, Dominikanerkonvent, MS 35/36, fols 5–63; Vienna, ÖNB, Cod. 3513, fols 71r–72v. 59  A preliminary collation of the copies listed above showed that this might be the closest copy to the lost original. It is certainly one of the oldest among those that contain both parts of the treatise. 60  Cf. fol. 112v, ‘Incipiunt Responsiones ad obiecciones et picturas et est secundus tractatulus eiusdem doctoris’ (‘Here starts the Responsiones ad obiecciones et picturas and it is the second tract of the same doctor’). 56 

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 149

explicit of the first and the red title of the second reveal. The table of contents on the flyleaf shows that a later cataloguer was of the same opinion. In Kraków, MS  423 both parts appear, but were copied on different sexterns. The whole codex was written by more than one scribe and the watermarks of the folios on which the two parts were written also differ. Nevertheless, both the Collecta et excerpta and the Responsiones were copied by the same scribe and it is therefore possible that the sexterns were bound and transposed only subsequently. Both parts have rubricated titles and explicits that fail to note that they are the work of one author and thus might have been considered by the scribe as differently authored. Prague, MS O 50 contains an imperfect copy of the Responsiones although the only available transcription was printed from this copy. A long omission is evident at the beginning of the text where a passage about the exemplary quality of Christ’s poverty has been skipped – in the Leipzig manuscript and both Kraków codices this stretches over two columns or half a folio. Even a perfunctory examination discloses that the wording of this copy is very different from that in the other manuscripts. Nevertheless, in this codex the Responsiones is immediately preceded by the text of Nicholas’s Tabule (fols 127r–32v), which offers a unique witness to the assumed link between this tract and Nicholas’s text. Moreover, on the subsequent fols  143r–44r, there is a sample of what seems to be an extract from the Collecta et excerpta, i.e. from the first part. Prague, MS I F 18 at first sight contains the whole text of the Collecta et excerpta. Closer inspection reveals that the text is far from complete. The first two chapters present the same text as the other copies but towards the end of the second chapter the text begins to display major discrepancies. This incomplete copy contains only five selected chapters.61 The last chapter is entitled Heretici qualiter inpugnant ecclesiam Romanam and turns out to be an extract from the Responsiones. This fact bolsters the hypothesis that the Collecta et excerpta and the Responsiones were accepted – if not as a single text – at least as two very closely connected parts of one treatise. Based on the manuscript evidence presented above it seems justifiable to consider the Collecta et excerpta and the Responsiones one treatise. Since the Responsiones contains intertextual references to places that cannot be Namely Chapters 1 (‘Una est fidelium universalis ecclesia’), 2 (‘Ecclesia Romana non defecit sub Silvestro sicut heretici dicunt’), 7 (‘Solis sacerdotibus missis et ordinatis licet sacrificia ministrare et predicare’), 6 (‘De contempnentibus statuta et sacros canones’), and 18 (‘Quomodo heretici dicunt quod soli Deo est confitendum’).

61 

150 Petra Mutlová

identified in Nicholas’s Tabule, it is quite possible that they are somehow connected with the Collecta et excerpta. This unfortunately complicates the matter even further and one cannot pursue it without first analysing the Re­sponsiones and the Collecta et excerpta more closely, a task that exceeds the limits of the present study. Conclusion It has been mentioned at the beginning that when Nicholas of Dresden wrote his Tabule veteris et novi coloris he could not foresee the impact his text would have. We are still unable to answer the question of how exactly the antitheses presented in Nicholas’s work relate to Hussite visual propaganda. We know more about how visual culture functioned and why the material presented by Nicholas could have been successfully employed by the Hussites, but the quest for understanding the nature of late medieval communication is still underway. Further evidence, I  have argued, could resolve the complicated issue of the antitheses that circulated in a textual or pictorial form in the Hussite milieu at the beginning of the fifteenth century. I have further argued that the structure of Nicholas’s original Tabule was different from the one suggested by the critical edition. Based on the evidence of extant manuscripts, the parts that diverge most from the previously accepted form are the end of the treatise and the division into tables. The different structure of the Latin text also explains some of the confusion in the subsequent vernacular adaptations. In the case of the Jena Codex, the ­seemingly unbalanced distribution of subdivisions in individual tables in fact follows the different structure of the Latin text that I tried to reconstruct. The present analysis was based on the Jena Codex, for which reliable data are at hand. The analysis of the vernacular adaptation of the Tabule in the Göttingen manuscript will possibly yield further results. Finally, the search for the function of the antitheses will also benefit from the appraisal of further sources: the transmission of the Responsiones, a text seemingly arguing with Nicholas’s Tabule, has not been considered in a satisfactory manner and a critical edition of the text will probably shed light on the structure of the Tabule as well. We have encountered a virtuous circle here: the analysis of the intricate Latin text resulted in a critical edition, which subsequently enhanced the debate on the vernacular version of the Latin Tabule. Later on, a ­thorough examination of the Jena Codex provided us with a first-hand testimony re­garding the original form of the Latin text. Further examination of

Religious Cross-Currents at the End of the Middle Ages 151

­manuscript material relevant to the transmission of the Tabule (i.e. the Responsiones and the Collecta et excerpta) will give us a better insight into the antithetical material that was circulating at the beginning of the fifteenth century in Bohemia and hopefully will shed light on more general questions of communication in the Late Middle Ages.

TRANSLATION AND TRANSFORMATION OF JAN HUS’S CZECH SUNDAY POSTIL1* Jan Odstrčilík

I

n autumn 1412, the conflict of Jan Hus, the leader of the Czech reform movement later called after him, reached its peak with the highest representatives of the church. A papal interdict forced him out of Prague, and with that he lost his most important means of communication: the pulpit in Bethlehem Chapel in the Old Town of Prague, one of the most spacious places of worship in the city. Jan Hus was at that time already a famous preacher and author of numerous sermon collections.1 They all were written down in Latin and aimed at other priests. The need to communicate with his audience still left in Prague as well as an intention to broaden his influence among laymen living outside of the city brought him to compose his first and only complete collection of Czech sermons, the so-called Czech Sunday Postil, which he finished in October 1413.2 The work reached quite a substantial popularity as attested by five surviving complete manuscripts and two early prints.3 Remarkable is especially the stability of textual transmission. All these witnesses constitute

*  This study is based on the unpublished doctoral thesis of Odstrčilík, ‘Analýza dvou latinských překladů Husovy České nedělní postily v rkp. Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 56 a Mk 91a jejich částečná edice’, defended in 2015 in the Faculty of Arts, Charles University. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013)  / ERC grant agreement no. 263672. In this study translations from Czech, where not otherwise noted, are my own. For the translation of biblical passages the so-called Douay-Rheims Bible was also used. I thank Jakub Sichálek for his advice regarding the medieval Czech language. However, all errors and shortcomings in this study are exclusively my own. 1  See Vidmanová, ‘Hus als Prediger’, and Soukup, ‘Jan Hus as a Preacher’. 2  Vidmanová, ‘Kdy, kde a jak psal Hus českou Postillu’. 3  See the Introduction in Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed.  by Daňhelka. See also Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů k literární činnosti M.  Jana Husa a M.  Jeronýma Pražského, pp. 170–73. Pursuing a New Order, Volume II: Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian Reformation, ed. by Pavlína Rychterová with the collaboration of Julian Ecker TMT 17.2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 153–184 © DOI 10.1484/M.TMT-EB.5.116601

FHG

154 Jan Odstrčilík

only one redaction of the text.4 According to Jiří Daňhelka, this manifests the piety of scribes and early printers towards the creator of the work.5 Perhaps unsurprisingly, a number of Latin (or Latin-Czech) excerpts and adaptations exist as well. However, in contrast to the Czech original, they represent a great variety of approaches. Apart from two excerpts,6 three adaptations exist. First, in the Cistercian monastery of Wilhering, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. IX 122, we have an adaptation of three sermons (the so-called Wilhering sermons [Kázání wilheringská]) from the Czech Sunday Postil.7 The text follows basically the Czech model, but roughly 13 percent of it is translated into Latin, creating thus a highly macaronic text which will be a subject of another study. The two other adaptations are preserved in Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 56 and Mk 91 respectively.8 Their main language is Latin; however, they contain also Czech words and phrases. Jiří Daňhelka pointed out that the text in Mk 56 cannot be regarded as a direct translation of the Czech original. Rather, it comprises Latin abstracts, perhaps drafted from one of Hus’s Latin postils.9 Hana Florianová (née Miškovská) arrived at a similar conclusion and was able to identify similarities to other of Hus’s works.10 This leaves us with the text in Mk 91, the only one which can be truly described as a translation of the almost entire Czech Sunday Postil.

See Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 14. Ibid. 6  The excerpts are extant in two manuscripts from the sixteenth century preserved in the Austrian National Library in Vienna. The critical edition of the Postil published one of them: Vienna, ÖNB, MS  Pal.  Lat. 11 561: see Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed.  by Daňhelka, p. 40. The MS contains Czech incipits and explicits from Hus’s preface, as well as from the first and last Sunday sermons, connected by short Latin phrases. On the second manuscript, MS Pal. Lat. 11 794, see Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 28. 7  The sermons were first published by Patera, ‘Mistra Jana Husi česká kázání na posvěcenie kostela a na sv. Trojici’, pp.  355–85. On the basis of Patera’s transcription the Wilhering sermons were published in a supplement to the critical edition of Czech Sunday Postil ( Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, pp. 37–39 and pp. 673–96). 8  Dokoupil, Soupis rukopisů mikulovské dietrichsteinské knihovny, pp. 101–02, pp. 153–55. 9  Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 29. 10  See her analysis of two sermons (34 and 43) from Mk 56 in Miškovská, ‘Latinské překlady Husovy české Postilly v rukopise Mk 91 a Mk 56 a vztah k jejich předlohám’, pp. 193–97. Miškovská found that in the former sermon, only c. 40 percent of the text is based on, Czech Sunday Postil, ed. by Daňhelka, and in the latter case only c. 18 percent (ibid.). 4 

5 

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 155

Understanding the Manuscript Context The manuscript Mk 91 has been dated to 1448–60 by Dokoupil.11 It contains a number of Utraquist texts: Expositio decalogi (Exposition of the Decalogue), written by the preacher in the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague, Václav of Dráchov;12 an anonymous De vitiis et virtutibus (On Vices and Virtues); three anonymous sermons on the dedication of the church (based on the verses from Apocalypse); De communione infancium in baptismo (On the Communion of Infants in Baptism), written by the first bishop of the Utraquist church, Jan Rokycana, followed by short text De coniugio (On Marriage); and a treatise De utilitatibus corporis et sanguinis sub utraque specie (On the Benefits of the Body and Blood under Both Kinds) ascribed to Jakoubek of Stříbro.13 Several sermons follow: on Thomas the Apostle, on the conversion of St Paul and on the purification of Virgin Mary. The last and the longest text in the manuscript is the Latin translation of Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil. It would seem reasonable to define the manuscript simply as an Utraquist collection, but, as will be shown in the final part of this study, it is a more complicated issue. Although all the works preserved in the manuscript are written in Latin, Czech words and sometimes whole Czech phrases are regularly present. In addition to the Latin translation of Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil, Czech words appear in Expositio decalogi, De vitiis et virtutibus, the three sermons on the dedication of a church,14 and also in other texts, though rarely. They are mainly used as interlinear glosses15 or in expressive passages.16 Especially interesting in this respect is the Expositio decalogi, ­attributed to Václav of Dráchov. Unlike the other texts in the manuscript that include Czech passages, it survives in another copy in MS  NŘ 14, kept in the

Dokoupil, Soupis rukopisů mikulovské dietrichsteinské knihovny, p. 153. Identified as such by Bartoš, ‘Husitský Sborník novoříšský’, Václav’s authorship is, however, not completely certain. 13  Spunar, Repertorium, i, p. 230. 14  Dokoupil only noticed Czech words in the first sermon though they are present in all three. Dokoupil, Soupis rukopisů mikulovské dietrichsteinské knihovny, p. 154. 15  e.g., Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 91, fol.  115r: ‘Qui autem non dirigunt se secundum legem illius, mox exilientur – wipowiedyeny budu ab illa civitate.’ 16  e.g., Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 91, fol. 112v: ‘Takze bi gich sam czrt na sochorzie rozbiehna sie neprzieskoczil tiech gich zlosti [so that the devil himself would not be able to pole vault their wickedness], quanta mala in dedicacionibus carnalibus in conspectu Dei, contra preceptum Dei facta fiunt.’ 11  12 

156 Jan Odstrčilík

­ remonstratensians monastery of Nová Říše, Czech Republic.17 Both copies P differ in respect of textual additions or omissions and occasionally in their choice of Latin vocabulary18 and their corpus of Czech words.19 This may indicate that some of the Czech words were present already in the model of both extant versions, maybe even in the original text written by Václav of Dráchov. At the same time, other Czech words and passages were added, altered, and removed by subsequent copyists. The author as well as the copyists regarded, it seems, the vernacular elements in multilingual texts as always open to change. This attitude and active approach towards the multilingual texts seems to be typical. Expositio decalogi attracts attention also because, though not a sermon in the strict sense of the word, it is surprisingly close to one. Especially in Mk 91, we find in the text not only addresses to an audience20 but also, very occasionally, signs of an almost colloquial style.21 It is possible that the exposition or its parts were delivered orally. More importantly, these parts can be interpreted or understood almost as actual sermons.

Dokoupil, Soupis rukopisů z knihovny minoritů v Brně, františkánů v Moravské Třebové a premonstrátů v Nové Říši, pp. 92–93. 18  So, for instance, from the incipit of the work, Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 91, fol.  2r: ‘Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata, quia omne tortuosum semper ad aliquam regulam dirigitur et nichil in toto mundo tam tortuosum et obliquum quam voluntas humana cuiuslibet hominis, ideo indiget regula, secundum quam reficeretur hec voluntas humana, existens tam tortuosa.’ Nová Říše, Kanonie premonstrátů, NŘ 14, fol. 149r: ‘Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata, quia omne tortuosum ad aliquam regulam dirigitur et nichil est in mundo ita tortuosum et obliquum sicud voluntas humana, ideo indiget regula, secundum quam reservetur.’ 19  We find both cases, i.e. Czech words present only in Mk 91, and only in NŘ 14. E.g., Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 91, fol. 10v: ‘Contra istud tercium faciunt omnes timidi et pusillanimes – chulostywi, qui de misericordia Dei et providencia nescientes infinitos in se habent timores’. Nová Říše, Kanonie premonstrátů, NŘ 14, fol. 155v: ‘Contra istud tercium faciunt omnes pusillanimes – strassliwi et timidi – a bazliwi, qui divinam providenciam nescientes infinitos habent timores’. 20  There are multiple cases of address ‘ecce, dilecti’ in Mk 91, e.g., on fol. 14r, fol. 19r, fol. 74v, and fol.  84r. 21  Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 91, fol. 71v: ‘Septimo conmittitur peccatum alienum adulando vel detrahendo, ut si qius dicat alicui potenti domino aut principi, quod furare et rapere sit strenuitatis. Et hoc ad te pertinet, quia dominus es et non habes vivere cum quo alio. Et oportet te familiam magnam servare. Sicud sunt circa curias adulatores quam plurimi. Vel eciam aliquem dicat divitem mercatorem aut institorem etc. dignum spoliacione. Talis enim adulator et detractor tenetur ad restitucionem’. 17 

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 157

To sum up, a substantial part of the manuscript consists either of sermons, or texts related to preaching activity. Traces of oral delivery and active communication strategies directed at an audience can be found in some of them, including Czech words, most fully revealed in the translation of the Czech Sunday Postil. Dealing with Multilingual Sermons The clear majority of preserved sermons from the Middle Ages were written in Latin. When they do appear, vernacular sermons often seem to be intended for pious reading, and their style is quite different from that of sermons composed for a pulpit.22 The original Czech Sunday Postil of Jan Hus bears obvious traces of an intention to be read rather than preached. The prevalence of Latin sermon production led Lecoy de la Marche to the famous and still widely accepted conclusion that the language in which the sermons were delivered was determined according to their audience, i.e. in the vernacular to the lay public, and in Latin to the clerics.23 Although an elegant solution, it is not without issues: for example, the audiences were often mixed, and the knowledge of Latin could be very weak among some clerics24 and quite strong on the part of some laymen.25 The precise audience of any given sermon is, furthermore, often unknown, assuming the sermons had any listening audience at all. Rather puzzling is the fact that many sermons written down in Latin contain isolated words, phrases, or complete sentences in a vernacular language. Some of the vernacular expressions can be explained in satisfactory way: for example, a preacher may not have been able to find a suitable Latin equivalent for a vernacular expression. In the case of reportationes, they could be also a result of hasty translation of oral vernacular preaching into Latin during the event itself. However, we come across vernacular words which one could translate easily into Latin, if wished. There are also many sermons that contain sudden switches between the languages without any obvious reason.

Bériou, ‘Latin and the Vernacular’, pp. 268–69. Muessig, ‘The Vernacularization of Late Medieval Sermons’, pp. 268–69. 23  Lecoy de la Marche, La chaire française au moyen âge, p.  235. Similarly, d’Avray, The Preaching of the Friars, pp. 94–95. 24  Hauréau, ‘Sermonnaires’, p. 388. 25  Constable, ‘The Language of Preaching in the Twelfth Century’, p. 141. 22 

158 Jan Odstrčilík

The study of multilingual sermons has been mainly confined within the borders of national philologies without any universally developed methodology. In a simplified way, there are two main streams in the research. The first one is philological coming out mostly from the tradition of medieval studies. Arguably, the most important work of this sort is Macaronic Sermons by Siegfried Wenzel.26 He was not only the first to study Latin-English sermons systematically, but he also classified the various language elements into different categories. Based on their functional relation to the dominant language in the discourse, he divided them into glosses, structuring elements, and real macaronic parentheses.27 The second recent approach is purely linguistic and based on the study of modern code-switching.28 These are not the only possible ones. Lately, a role of graphical features in multilingual sermons has started to be discussed.29 This study follows primarily the first approach. Yet despite various attempts, the main questions still have not been satisfactorily answered, notably that of oral delivery of multilingual sermons.30

Wenzel, Macaronic Sermons. Other notable works of English scholars are especially studies of Fletcher, ‘“Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini”’, Late Medieval Popular Preaching in Britain and Ireland, and ‘Written Versus Spoken Macaronic Discourse in Late Medieval England’. Recently, two major editions of Latin-English macaronic sermons were prepared (Horner, A Macaronic Sermon Collection from Late Medieval England, and Johnson, The Grammar of Good Friday). For France, see especially Bériou, ‘Latin and the Vernacular’; for Italy, Lazzerini, ‘“Per latinos grossos…”’; Delcorno, ‘Predicazione volgare e volgarizzamenti’ and ‘The Language of Preachers’; for Germany, Palmer, ‘Latein, Volkssprache, Mischsprache’, Schiewer, ‘Spuren von Mündlichkeit in der mittelalterlichen Predigtüberlieferung’ and recently, Schiewer and Schiewer, ‘Opera mixta – Deutsch-lateinische Mischpredigten:’ 28  The pioneer of this method in the field of Medieval Studies is Herbert Schendl, who, like Siegfried Wenzel, focuses on the mixing of Latin and English. e.g., Schendl, ‘Text Types and Code-Switching in Medieval and Early Modern English’; Schendl, ‘Linguistic Aspects of Code-Switching in Medieval English Texts’; Schendl, ‘Code-Switching in Late Medieval Macaronic Sermons’. In a similar fashion Helena Halmari and Timothy Regetz continue the work on English-Latin material. See Halmari and Regetz, ‘Syntactic Aspects of Code-Switching in Oxford, MS Bodley 649’ and ‘Language Switching and Alliteration in Oxford, MS Bodley 649’. The arguably most extensive work to date on the theme of codeswitching was written by Carmen Kämmerer (Kämmerer, Codeswitching in Predigten des 15. Jahrhunderts) who may also be the only scholar working comparatively on the sermons from different linguistic areas; namely, Latin-German, Latin-Italian, and Latin-Spanish. 29  Horst and Stam, ‘Visual Diamorphs’. 30  Siegfried Wenzel departures from Lecoy’s position and argues for possible multilingual delivery of macaronic sermons, see Wenzel, Macaronic Sermons, pp. 105–29. On the other 26  27 

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 159

The differences in opinion seem to stem not only from different methodologies and expectations (about composition of the audience or understandability of multilingual texts), but also often from the utilization of different source material from different periods. Furthermore, only a very small number of multilingual sermons has been edited, and an even smaller number studied. This is true also for the collections of Bohemian origin.31 Partially analysed have been the Quadragesimale Admontense,32 so-called Sermones in Bethlehem connected with Jan Hus (Betlémská kázání) (an edition by Václav Flajšhans33 and a study by Eva Kamínková34) and Sermones de sanctis latinobohemici by Michal Polák (fragments edited by I.  J. Hanuš35 and Zdeněk Uhlíř36). The scope of this article allows only a few notes on them, but they are too important to be entirely passed over. The case of Quadragesimale Admontense (supposedly composed around 1394) is noteworthy for one particular aspect of the discussion concerning this multilingual text (written in Latin with Czech glosses and parentheses): the question regarding the circumstances of its origin. While the editors argued in the introduction that these are transcripts of live sermons (in other words reportationes),37 reviewers38 cast doubt on this assertion, arguing that it would be too difficult for a listener to simultaneously translate the Czech sermon into Latin and write it down at the same time. Although such sermons are well known from France39 and other countries,40 it seems generally

hand, Fletcher is rather sceptical of such possibility and stresses the written character of these sermons and the general acceptability of multilingual texts by the society, see Fletcher, ‘Written Versus Spoken Macaronic Discourse in Late Medieval England’. 31  For the general introduction on different forms of multilingualism in late Medieval Bohemia, see Sichálek, ‘Vícejazyčnost literárního života v českých zemích 14. a 15. století’. 32  Quadragesimale Admontense, ed. by Florianová and others. 33  The first of six volumes which contains the introduction: Jan Hus, Sermones in Bethlehem 1410–1411, i, ed. by Flajšhans. 34  Kamínková, Husova Betlémská kázání a jejich dvě recense. 35  Hanuš, Malý výbor ze staročeské literatury and ‘Příspěvky k historii literatury české.’ 36  Uhlíř, ‘Das lateinische und tschechische Predigen im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert’, pp. 38–40. 37  For example, Quadragesimale Admontense, ed. by Florianová and others, pp. XXIII–XXX. 38  Šmahel, ‘[Review of ] “Quadragesimale Admontense”’; Spunar, ‘[Review of ] “Quadragesimale Admontense = Quadragesimale admontské”’. 39  Cf. Bériou, ‘Latin and the Vernacular’. 40  Cf. Delcorno, ‘Medieval Preaching in Italy (1200–1500)’, pp. 497–501.

160 Jan Odstrčilík

more challenging to argue such an origin in the context of non-Romance languages like Czech,41 German,42 or English.43 Something similar can be observed in the case of the so-called Sermones in Bethlehem, composed around 1410/11 (main text is again written in Latin with Czech glosses and parentheses). Václav Flajšhans supposed they were transcriptions of performed sermons.44 However, this was later contested by Eva Kamínková, who prepared probably the best study on Latin-Czech sermons. She hypothesized that the disciples of Hus might have obtained his drafts for the sermons and later added parts of them as orally delivered. However, Kamínková does not exclude the opposite possibility that the reportatio came first and was later enriched by consulting Hus’s earlier works.45 The whole debate seems to be a kind of ‘chicken or egg’ dilemma, very difficult, if not impossible, to solve.46 Both collections, Quadragesimale Admontense and Sermones in Bethlehem, also have in common that they were both intended as collections of model sermons for further use by preachers.47 This seems to be in accord with the observation that vernacular-only collections of sermons were often literary works composed not for the active use of a preacher, but rather for reading,48 and that preachers usually worked with Latin sermon collections.49 In both Quadragesimale Admontense and Sermones in Bethlehem, some vernacular words probably originated in the source text. Other vernacular words could have been inserted in the course of copying, but some could have been also removed (e.g., to make the sermon more accessible to an audience with less knowledge of the given vernacular) or explained by the Cf. Pavel Soukup’s contribution in this volume. Cf. Schiewer and Schiewer ‘Opera mixta – Deutsch-lateinische Mischpredigten’. 43  On the situation in Medieval England see Wenzel, Macaronic Sermons, p. 105, no. 1. 44  Jan Hus, Sermones in Bethlehem 1410–1411, i, ed. by Flajšhans, pp. V–VI. 45  Kamínková, Husova Betlémská kázání a jejich dvě recense, p. 76. 46  See also a short comparison of two versions of one of the sermons done by Soukup, ‘Jan Hus: Betlémská kázání’. 47  Quadragesimale Admontense, ed.  by Florianová and others, p.  XV; Kamínková, Husova Betlémská kázání a jejich dvě recense, p. 76. 48  On the situation in France, see Bériou, ‘Latin and the Vernacular’, pp. 268–69. Similarly on the situation in Czech literature, Uhlíř, ‘O Řečech nedělních a svátečních Tomáše ze Štítného’, p.  82. However, there were also vernacular texts intended for preaching (Green, Medieval Listening and Reading, pp. 97–99). 49  See also the dissertation of Mary C. Davidson, who associated the multilingual character of sermons with a general text-type of references or manuals (Davidson, ‘Language-Mixing and Code-Switching in England in the Late Medieval Period’, pp. 55–71). 41  42 

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 161

copyist (with the help of marginal glosses, for example).50 In the absence of known interdependencies between extant manuscripts, there is often no easy way to tell which vernacular words were present in the original text, and which were added later, and why. However, there clearly was a substantial number of recipients, who not only did not despise the multilingual character of these texts, but seem to have appreciated it, adding or removing vernacular words and engaging with the sermons in other ways as well.51 Since, as mentioned, these texts were intended as collections of model sermons, a possible explanation for the vernacular words and passages scattered through the text is that they could have helped a preacher to convert the Latin model back into the vernacular during his own preaching. The third collection of Latin-Czech sermons, discussed here, Sermones de sanctis latino-bohemici (Latin-Czech Sermons on Saints), attributed to Michal Polák and dated to the last third of the fifteenth century,52 seems to be slightly different. In comparison to Quadragesimale Admontense and Sermones in Bethlehem, it contains many more Czech words already at first sight, e.g., in the first sermon, In vigilia Andree, they constitute 16 percent of the text. But it is not just the higher number of Czech words that is significant, but also their different character. We find only a few Czech glosses here (i.e., Czech equivalents to particular Latin words in the text); much commoner are Czech parentheses or insertions (i.e., Czech passages without respective Latin equivalents). The switching between the two languages therefore appears very smooth. There are also more intersentential switches between the languages (i.e., switches on the boundaries of sentences) than in the other two sermon collections. The use of the Czech language in these Sermones de sanctis might suggest a different origin, or a different purpose from the other collections.

As one Latin reportatio of a French sermon shows, sometimes the choice of language can be rather counter-intuitive. In this case, a particularly valuable one, a rough draft and subsequent elaboration of the reportatio are preserved. The draft contains a small number of French words (around 10 percent), which were partially translated into Latin in the subsequent elaboration of this particular copy. However, curiously, the reportator also introduced some new French words, and even replaced some Latin words by French. Bériou, ‘Latin and the Vernacular’, pp. 273–75, pp. 280–81. 51  The general acceptability of multilingual text matches the observations made by Fletcher, ‘Written Versus Spoken Macaronic Discourse in Late Medieval England’. 52  See Spunar, ‘Literární činnost utrakvistů doby poděbradské a jagellonské’, pp.  243–44. Zdeněk Uhlíř dates the collection of sermons to 1475–1510 (Uhlíř, ‘Das lateinische und tschechische Predigen im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert’, pp. 38–39). 50 

162 Jan Odstrčilík

Would it be possible to argue, in some degree, for a multilingual delivery of these sermon collections? For Sermones in Bethlehem, an argument could be made based on passages which are understandable only in Latin (e.g., passages that contain etymologies of Latin words, wordplay, Latin verses, and technical terms). This seems to mean that they are neither records of Hus’s vernacular preaching, nor intended for later preaching in Czech.53 This leaves us still with an unsettling variety of options, e.g., they could be later additions. Nevertheless, the possibility that they are actual records of Hus’s language mixing is significant. In support of the hypothesis of the multilingual delivery of Sermones de sanctis latino-bohemici, we might note the already-mentioned smoothness of code-switching at sentence boundaries. There is, indeed, convincing evidence for the existence of multilingual preaching, at least, of a limited scope. One important piece of evidence is a Latin treatise on the art of preaching, Aurissa, composed by Jacobus de Saraponte54 in the late fourteenth century. It lists as a possibility not only a Latin sermon and a vernacular sermon, but also the sermo intermixtus. In the purely vernacular sermon, only the theme and the invocation should be in Latin. The case of the sermo intermixtus, which seems to be intended for a mixed audience or for nuns, is intriguing. In such sermons, a preacher can freely decide when he speaks in Latin or in the vernacular.55 It even leaves as a possibility using both languages in the same sermon.56 The conclusion of the sermon should be in Latin if the sermon is Latin or intermixtus. Curious is also the case of the sermons in capitulo: The invocation should be done in the vernacular language, also the first notabilitas should be said in Latin, the following ones in the vernacular language. The preacher can also say auctoritates, probaciones, and exclamaciones in Latin, however, he has to translate them immediately into the vernacular etc. The treatise was adapted for Bohemian readers by adding references to the Czech language.57 This still does not mean that such preaching was indeed See Kamínková, Husova Betlémská kázání a jejich dvě recense, pp. 71–74. See Charland, Artes praedicandi, p. 52. For the details on the treatise and its contents, see Morenzoni, ‘Les prédicateurs et leurs langues à la fin du Moyen Âge’, pp. 505–06. 55  Wilhering, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. IX 122, fol. 107v: ‘Item si sermo tuus fuerit intermixtus vel si monialibus sermonizas in materno, tunc sit in arbitrio, quando loquaris latinum vel quando maternum’. 56  Wilhering, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. IX 122, fol. 108r: ‘Item circa discursum procede in latino vel in materno vel in utroque, et hoc secundum placitum tuum’. 57  This led Adolf Patera and subsequently Eva Kamínková to suggest, that the treatise on art of preaching is of the Czech origin, see Patera, ‘Mistra Jana Husi česká kázání na posvěcenie 53  54 

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 163

practised in medieval Czech lands or that the code-switching in these sermons was similar to well-known multilingual sermons collection we know today. Yet, it shows that some type of language mixing within sermons was at least imaginable and possibly acceptable. Previous Research on the Latin Translation of the Czech Sunday Postil The research on the Latin translation of Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil in Mk 91 may be described as modest. It has concentrated mainly on the origin and purpose of the work. F.  M. Bartoš has advanced an important thesis, that ‘Hus’s Postil written for the Czech secular audience was adapted for Hussite priests who, although they preached in Czech, used Latin texts as preaching aids to which they were accustomed and which using an advanced system of abbreviations had the distinct advantage of fitting into books much smaller than the Czech postils.’58 Further insight was provided by Anežka Vidmanová. According to her, the translator ‘omitted all the topical allusions so typical of Hus’s Czech Postil.’59 In doing so he endeavoured ‘evidently to acquaint with this most important Czech work people with no command of Czech, so he was a follower of Hus but hardly belonged to the radical Hussite wing’. The most important contribution was arguably made by Miškovská. She chose at random four sermons from Mk 91 (nos 1, 8, 34, and 43) and two sermons from Mk 56 (nos 34 and 43). In her linguistic and comparative analysis of the Latin translations and the Czech and other Latin sermons written by Jan Hus she noted that in the case of Mk 91 the Czech glosses in the pericopes are partly created on the basis of Hus’s text, but some are ‘ad hoc’ translations, i.e. words without counterparts in Hus’s Postil;60 she lists various possible reasons for the Czech words in the expositions of the sermons. Czech parentheses might represent an effort to preserve original explanations by Hus. Other Czech words in the parentheses might have been left untranslated because of ignorance of proper Latin equivalent. Or the translator might not remember quickly a kostela a na sv. Trojici’, pp. 355–56, and Kamínková, Husova Betlémská kázání a jejich dvě recense, p.  71. However, this error has been already spotted by Vilikovský, ‘Kazatelství a počátky české prózy’, p. 116. 58  Bartoš, ‘Česká postila Husova v latinském zpracování’, p. 70. 59  Vidmanová, ‘Stoupenci a protivníci mistra Jana Husi’, p. 56. 60  Miškovská, ‘Latinské překlady Husovy české Postilly v rukopise Mk 91 a Mk 56 a vztah k jejich předlohám’, p. 188.

164 Jan Odstrčilík

Latin word at one point which he otherwise knew and used. Concerning the glosses, she suggests that the Czech words could have been an attempt to produce a more precise translation (or a confirmation of translation’s correctness). Alternatively, the translator could read aloud the Czech original while preparing the translation and might then repeat the end of the translated part and unintentionally write it down.61 Miškovská also concludes that several translators worked on the translation.62 A final contribution63 to research on the Latin translations of Hus’s Czech Postil was delivered by Jiří Daňhelka in his critical edition of Czech Sunday Postil. He did not have the article of Miškovská available and could not therefore discuss her findings (likewise, Miškovská could not work with Daňhelka’s edition).64 According to him the translation in Mk 91 was made ‘relatively soon’ after the source text was drafted. He characterizes the translation as ‘quite superficial’ and supposes that it is a work of a single translator who gradually improved his skills and used both languages spontaneously.65 Translating Czech into Latin – A Hurdle Race The translation of Hus’s Postil in Mk 91 contains all fifty-nine sermons of the Czech original. It preserves Hus’s basic structure, with the individual sermons divided into pericopes and expositions. It lacks the ‘index or pointer’, made by Hus to accompany the work (an elaborated index of topics with which

Miškovská, ‘Latinské překlady Husovy české Postilly v rukopise Mk 91 a Mk 56 a vztah k jejich předlohám’, p. 189. 62  Miškovská, ‘Latinské překlady Husovy české Postilly v rukopise Mk 91 a Mk 56 a vztah k jejich předlohám’, p. 193. 63  Except for a short recent article by Michaela Falátková (née Martinková) who looked briefly at Sermon 32 in both Mk 91 and Mk 56. She noted that some socially critical passages were removed in Mk 91 because the translator either did not regard them as interesting for their form or contents, or he omitted them for their harshness. See Martinková, ‘Husova staročeská Postila v latinském překladu’. 64  Although the critical edition of the Czech Sunday Postil was published in 1992, its preface is dated 1987. The study of Hana Miškovská was published in 1990. 65  Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed.  by Daňhelka, p.  28 and pp.  40–42: The translator ‘interpreted the source text in the simplest possible way and often turned to Czech expressions and turns of phrase in the Latin context.’ Daňhelka’s edition contains a selection of Latin sermons from the translation Mk 91, namely Preface, Sermon 1, Sermon 11, Sermon 33, Sermon 38, and Sermon 59, all of them edited by Vidmanová ( Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, pp. 40–42). 61 

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 165

the reader could easily and quickly search for individual topics in the text). By contrast, concluding calls to prayer are added in several sermons with the words Rogemus ergo (‘Therefore let us pray’) (Sermons 1, 4, 7). Similarly, we find more frequent addresses to listeners in the sermons with words like fratres dilecti (‘beloved brothers’) (Sermons 2 and 20) and fratres karissimi (‘dearest brothers’) (e.g., Sermons 19, 21, 55, 59). In some passages, we read phrases like dilata, prout scis (‘expand as you know’) (Sermons 4, 17, 19, 20, 44, etc.). The translation was obviously aimed at preachers addressing their audiences and not at readers. The text in Mk 91 is quite definitely a copy. This is evidenced, e.g., by scribal errors.66 The manuscript from which the text was copied is not extant. Likewise, there is no direct correspondence with any of the manuscripts used for the critical edition of the Czech Sunday Postil by Daňhelka. In Hus’s Postil each sermon consists of a pericope and an exposition of the pericope (i.e. the body of the sermon itself ). The translator approached both parts in a specific manner. The Czech versions of the biblical readings were replaced with a corresponding Latin passage from the Vulgate. Major parts of the original Czech text were put into interlinear glosses, sometimes bringing the whole translation of the Latin text. The translator, however, made some changes in their wording: occasionally, he modernized the language, replacing for example the old imperfect sedieše (‘was sitting’) with the compound perfect form sediel gest67 (fol. 189r).68 On the other hand, he used some archaic elements, changing, for example, the very same compound perfect form přistúpili sú (‘they approached’) into the aorist przistupichu (fol.  193r), the form reptali sú (‘they were grumbling’) into the imperfect reptachu (fol. 181r), and the like. Such oscillation between ‘modernizing’ and ‘archaizing’ efforts is far from exceptional in medieval Czech texts, particularly when biblical texts are concerned.69 Hus sometimes briefly glossed words in the periscope. Such glosses are generally preserved untranslated in the form of interlinear glosses. Only a few are translated into Latin.

The scribe wrote, e.g., enim instead of expected *omnium and non instead of *nunc (both Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 91, fol. 180r), and iam instead of *non (fol. 181v). 67  Czech words from Mk 91 are written in small capitals and appear here in their transliterated, not transcribed form. 68  A similar form ‘sediel’ can be found in the sixteenth-century prints of the Czech Sunday Postil, see Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 495. 69  Rychterová, ‘Autorität und Wahrheitsdiskurs im vernakularen katechetischen Schrifttum im spätmittelalterlichen Böhmen’, p. 123. 66 

166 Jan Odstrčilík

The exposition of the pericope is handled very differently by the translator. Here he opted basically for word-for-word translation. To illustrate, we can take a passage from the first sermon in which Latin corresponds to the Czech exemplar almost perfectly: Postil

Mk 91

Sermon 1, l. 24–25

fol. 147

A

Et

English word-by-word translation v

  And

tak

sic

so

již

iam

already

ten

istud

that

vešken

totum

all

čas

tempus

time

nazývají

vocant

they call

advent,

adventum,

advent,

to

hoc

that

jest

est

is

čas,

tempus,

time,

v

in

in

němž

quo

which

pamatují

recordamur

(CZ: they/LAT: we) remember

Kristovo

Christi

Christ’s

navštievenie.

visitacionem.

visitation.

The heavy influence of the language of the model is very apparent on both lexical and syntactic levels. This can be also observed in cases in which the Czech language is mirrored in the Latin translation in such a way that it does not accord with the rules of classical Latin. A very striking instance is the translation of the Czech verb ‘brániti’ which has two main meanings: ‘to defend’ (with direct object in accusative, e.g., to defend someone) and ‘to prevent’ (with dative and prepositional construction, e.g., to prevent somebody from something). The proper translation into the classical Latin should respect this difference and should use the Latin verbs defendere (‘to defend’), and prohibere (‘to prevent’). However, the translator uses often the

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 167

verb defendere in the meaning of ‘to prevent’.70 He translates, for example, the Czech sentence bránil mu jíti (‘he was preventing him from going’) (Sermon 8, l. 136–37) as defendit ei transire (fol. 171v). Similarly, he writes Quare dominus de se predicari defendit? (‘Why the Lord prevents preaching about himself ?’) (fol. 297r). This does not mean that the translator did not know the classical counterparts: he used both defendere and prohibere in profusion and was even able to switch between the classical Latin and the Czech syntactic forms in a single sentence, e.g., predicari de se prohibuit et defendit (‘he forbade and prohibited to preach about himself ’) (fol. 297r).71 Likewise, the translator used prepositions in the Czech manner; for example na (‘on’, ‘onto’) denoting direction (with accusative) is translated with super: the sentence ‘A že mužie chodili sú zvláště a ženy zvláště i na hody’ (‘And that the men were going separately to the feasts and the women separately’) (Sermon 6, l. 47–48) is then translated as ‘Et quod viri ambulaverunt presertim et mulieres presertim super festa’ (fols 161v–62r). Also typical of Czech Medieval Latin is the translator’s use of the pronoun solus (‘sole’, ‘alone’, ‘only’) in the classical meaning of ipse (‘self ’),72 because in the Czech language both meanings are expressed by the same word (sám). We find such cases in phrases like ‘sicud dicit solus salvator’ (‘as the sole saviour says’) (fol. 146v), i.e. ‘jakož die sám spasitel’ (‘as the saviour himself says’) (Preface, l. 37). There is, however, a small twist. In many passages we find the cryptic-sounding ipse solus, as in the sentence ‘ideo scias, quando regnum celorum in parabola est ipse solus’ (fol. 177v). However, the original Czech sentence solves this puzzle: ‘protož věz, že králevstvie nebeské v podobenství jest on sám’ (‘therefore you should know that the kingdom of heaven in the parable is he himself  ’) (Sermon 11, l. 28–29). Further examples from the Latin translation prove that the author is uncommonly systematic in the use of these two pronouns. He translates the Czech pronoun on (‘he’)

Such usage of the verb defendere is attested also in other Latin Medieval texts from Bohemia: see Latinitatis medii aevi lexicon Bohemorum, viii, ‘defendo’. 71  Another unclassical form is the use of habeo for the translation of the Czech mít (i.e., ‘have an obligation’); for example, měli sú choditi (Sermon 6, l. 26) translated as habuerunt intrare (fol. 161v). However, we also find such usage in Medieval Latin from other linguistic areas and so cannot attribute it exclusively to the Czech influence. 72  Kamínková, Husova Betlémská kázání a jejich dvě recense, pp.  67–68; Quadragesimale Admontense, ed. by Florianová and others, p. XXVIII. 70 

168 Jan Odstrčilík

almost exclusively as ipse (originally ‘self ’). Its original classical Latin role (‘self ’) is assumed by the pronoun solus (originally ‘sole’). Greater demands were placed on the translator by some distinct grammatical differences between Czech and Latin concerning, e.g., the several past tenses in medieval Czech: aorist (simple past), imperfect (continuous past) and two additional tenses, compound perfect, and pluperfect (in the fifteenth century compound perfect began to be used for the general past tense, today called preterite). A good case in point is the following sentence: Postil: Ale Jan trest nebieše větrem klácená; neb ho ani přiezeň chvály pochlebníkem učinila, ani čí kolivěk hněv ukrutným učinil. Ani jím zčastné věci v pýchu pozdvihly, ani protivné v ctnosti ponížily. (Sermon 3, l. 117–19)73 (But John was not being the reed shaken in the wind, because neither favour of praise made him an adulator, nor anybody’s anger made him cruel, nor did fortunate things elevate him into pride, nor did unfortunate things humiliate him in virtue.) Mk 91: Sed Iohannes non erat arundo vento agitata, nam eum nec favor glorie adulatorem fecit, nec cuiuscumque ira crudelem fecerat, nec eum prospera ad superbiam levabant, nec contraria in virtute humiliaverunt. (fol. 154v) (But John was not being the reed shaken in the wind, because neither favour of praise made him an adulator, nor anybody’s anger had made him cruel, nor were fortunate things elevating him into pride, nor did unfortunate things humiliate him in virtue.)

All the Latin past tenses are used in a single sentence in this quotation. The form učinil/a (‘he/she made/did’, compound perfect of the perfective verb), appearing twice, is once translated as perfect fecit (‘it made’) and once as pluperfect fecerat (‘it had done/made’). The compound perfect pozdvihly (‘elevated’) is translated as imperfect levabant (‘were elevating’). The other two tenses, the Czech imperfect nebieše (‘was not being’), and the compound perfect ponížily (‘humiliated’) are translated into Latin as expected (non erat, humiliaverunt). We find similar vacillation within the whole verb system, including various verb modes, such as conditionals or participles. Actually, Jan Hus quotes here Gregory the Great, i.e. we deal here with double translation, from Latin into Czech and then again from Czech into Latin ( Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 590), cf. p. 170 in this article.

73 

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 169

It is possible that the translator was unable to render Czech tenses properly into Latin. However, it seems more likely to me that the Latin tense system was simply not so important for the targeted user of this translation. As long as the Latin tense was clearly indicating past, present, or future, the text was still understandable. Rather different are the great number of translator’s decisions which seem to have been motivated by aesthetic or stylistic considerations. This is best seen in the translations of names or invocations of divine and saintly figures. For example, Hus uses very often the plain Ježíš, Kristus, pán (‘Jesus’, ‘Christ’, ‘Lord’), etc., but in the Latin translation these are markedly expanded with references to liturgical Latin, e.g., (additions in italics): ‘piissimus dominus noster Iesus Christus, filius Dei, propter nos crudeli morte crucifixus’ (‘the most pious our Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, died a horrible death by crucifixion for us’) (fol. 202v). Here, the words dominus noster, Christus, and filius Dei have been attached. Likewise, the name of the Church is regularly elevated, e.g., svatá církev (‘Holy Church’) occurs often in the translation as ‘sancta mater ecclesia’ (‘Holy Mother Church’). The author of the translation also tends to insert new references to Jesus Christ, God, or the Holy Virgin, for example, ‘vos pro nobis exorate  […] ut nos coram iustissimo iudice Iesu Christo nostra taciturnitas non abiudicet’ (‘And pray for us [...] so that our silence will not give judgment against us in front of the most righteous judge Jesus Christ’) (fol. 146v). Superlatives A typical trait of the translation is frequent use of superlative adjectives instead of their positive forms. Whereas Hus’s Preface to the Czech Sunday Postil begins with the words ‘Milosrdný spasitel, pán všemohúcí’ (‘merciful saviour, lord almighty’) (Preface, l. 1), the Latin translation has ‘Misericors et piissimus salvator noster, dominus omnipotens’ (‘merciful and most pious our saviour, lord almighty’) (fol. 146r). A similar approach is applied to Latin adverbs derived from adjectives. The sentence ‘A popúzie pracovitých, aby statečně u vinici jeho pracovali’ (‘And he urges the industrious ones to work diligently at his vineyard’) (Sermon 12, l. 34–35) is translated, as ‘Et compellit – a popuzie laboriosos – praczowitich, ut diligentissime in vinea sua laborarent’ (‘And he urges – a popuzie the industrious ones – praczowitich to work most diligently at his vineyard’) (fol. 181v). The translator perceived Latin as a language in

170 Jan Odstrčilík

which superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs, usual in the liturgical language, often correspond to the basic forms in Czech.74 Synonyms A relatively frequent phenomenon is translation of one Czech word with two Latin words. Generally speaking, the translator’s dual motivation is manifested here. Translating with two Latin words helps him to express more precisely the sense of the original Czech word which may have semantic nuances difficult to express in just one Latin word. In other cases, the translator’s aesthetic sense apparently played a role. A clear representative of the first group are word pairs separated by the conjunctions vel (‘or’) or et (‘and’); for a single example, in Sermon 8, ‘z jeho pokolenie’ (‘from his generation’) (Sermon 8, l. 134) is translated as ‘ex eius generacione vel tribu’ (‘from his generation or tribe’) (fol. 171v). It is evident that the motivation for these synonyms was the desire to express various nuances of the Czech word. In some passages containing two Czech words, one of them is translated with two Latin words in order to create a triad or tricolon; for example, for Czech ‘Neb jest míle a srdečněje přijímala’ (‘Because she was receiving them piously and cordially’) (Sermon 6, l. 155–56), ‘quia ea pie et dilecte et cordialiter percipiebat’ (‘because she was receiving them piously and kindly and cordially’) (fol.  164r). The reverse case, two Czech words translated by one Latin word, is rare. We do find it in a quotation from Gregory the Great: ‘a to bez meškánie béřeme neb přijímáme’ (‘and we take it or accept without delay’) (Sermon 12, l.  229), which is translated as ‘et hoc sine negligencia accipimus’ (‘and we take it without negligence’) (fol.  184v). Interestingly, the original Latin quotation from Gregory the Great has also only one verb: ‘et illud sine mora percipimus.’75 Thus we have a remarkable case in which Hus first translated one Latin word with two Czech words probably to preserve semantic nuances, and then it was again translated into Latin with one word.

The gloss ‘praczowitich’ (‘the industrious ones’) directly taken from the Czech original could serve as a kind of specification or verification of the translation ‘laboriosos’. This possible motivation for glosses in the Mk 91 was already mentioned by Miškovská, ‘Latinské překlady Husovy české Postilly v rukopise Mk 91 a Mk 56 a vztah k jejich předlohám’, p. 189. 75  Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 601. See also no. 73 above. 74 

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 171

Errors Lastly, there are instances which we can only designate as erroneous translations. By errors I mean those passages which change the sense of sentences unintentionally, that is, cases where the translator most likely misunderstood the Czech original. They can, however, cast an important light on the process of translation itself. The first relatively frequent category of errors has its origin in case homonymy of Czech words. In the Czech language, some noun cases (or grammatical persons) can have same endings. Usually, the context in the sentence can easily disambiguate them. However, several remarkable occurrences of misunderstanding in the Latin translation seem to prove that the translator not only translated the text word-for-word, but that he also proceeded wordby-word – disregarding sometimes the context of the sentence: Postil: To má rytieř Ježíšóv znamenati a patřiti, že má na svém králi Ježíšovi boj, vítězstvie a odplatu. (Sermon 15, l. 33–34) (This should the knight of Jesus note and attend, that he has in his king Jesus combat, victory and reward.) Mk 91: Ibi omnis miles Christi debet notare a patrzyti, quod in suo rege habet bellum victorie et mercedem. (fol. 193r) (Here should every soldier of Christ note and attend, that he has in his king combat of victory and reward.)

Here Hus had in mind a spiritual triad in which combat, victory, and reward follow in sequence for the soldier of Christ. The translator was probably confused, however, by the ambiguity of the Czech form vítězstvie (‘victory’), which can signify accusative as well as genitive singular. He chose, therefore, to translate it with the genitive construction bellum victorie. A similar situation arises in some verbal forms. A tough challenge for the translator must have been the following sentence: Postil: Ktož móž, jez i Krista umučeného jako rybu pečenú, i jako chléb; a jez stred, to jest požívaj Kristova božstvie jakožto najslazšie věci. (Sermon 23, l. 146–48) (And who can, let him eat also tortured Christ as roasted fish, and as bread; and let him eat honey, i.e. use Christ’s divinity as the sweetest thing.’)

172 Jan Odstrčilík Mk 91: Qui potest, comedat et Christum vmuczeneho, sicud piscem assum; et comedas favum, id est utere Christi deitate sicud nayssladssie wieczi. (fol. 219v) (And who can, let him eat also tortured Christ as roasted fish, and do eat honey, i.e. use Christ’s divinity as the sweetest thing.)

Again, we see here an example of homonymy of endings, namely jez and požívaj (both meaning ‘eat’), which in Old Czech may be second or third person imperative. From the opening subordinate clause ‘Ktož móž’ (‘Who can’) it seems likely that Hus has in mind the latter. This is also how the translator initially understood this sentence, translating the first jez as comedat in subjunctive mood for suggestion or command. But after a few words he translated the identical form in the second person: ‘et comedas favum, id est utere Christi deitate’. Often the cause of these mistranslations seems to lie in the conventions of Old Czech spelling, and inaccurate punctuation. This is the case of Sermon 10, in which a very frequent collocation appears with an unexpected translation: Postil: Spasitel náš milostivý, dieku vzdav bohu otci (Sermon 10, l. 17) (Our merciful Lord, after he gave thanks to the Father) Mk 91: Salvator noster, dilectissimi, gracias agens Deo patri (fol. 175r) (Our Lord, dearest [people], after he gave thanks to the Father)

If we consider the irregular use of y/i in medieval Czech orthography, it comes as no surprise that such a frequent turn of phrase as ‘spasitel náš milostivý’ (‘our merciful Lord’) could have been misunderstood by the translator as addressing the audience by the Czech word *‘milostiví’ in the sense of ‘dearest’ or ‘dears’. Also, there are frequent substitutions of adjectives for adverbs caused by similar ambiguity in the writing system: for example, the adjectival ending -é (neut. sg.) can be confused with the adverbial suffix -ě: Postil: Neb muž s ženú plodie děti tělestné, ale Kristus s chotí svú plodí děti duchovnie. (Sermon 7, l. 157–58) (Because a man produces carnal children with a woman, but Christ produces spiritual children with his spouse.)

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 173 Mk 91: Nam vir cum uxore prolificant pueros carnaliter, sed Christus cum sponsa sua prolificat pueros spiritualiter. (167r) (Because a man produces children with a woman carnally, but Christ produces children with his spouse spiritually.)

Case homonymy is also responsible for several errors on the level of the sentence structure. A  special problem is posed by cases where the direct object form of inanimate masculine nouns stands at the beginning of a sentence before the subject. Such masculine nouns have the same form for nominative and accusative in the Czech language. In this case, there is the risk of breaking up the collocation, especially if the object is separated from the predicate by more words: Postil: Nebť die s. Řehoř v dnešním kázání: ‘Ten den, bratřie najmilejší, vší neb plnú myslí pamatujte, života popravte’ (Sermon 2, l. 200–02) (Because St Gregory says in today’s sermon: ‘That day [acc. sg.], dearest brothers, you should remember with all and full soul, correcting your life’) Mk 91: Dicit sanctus Gregorius in hodierna omelia sua: ‘Illa dies, fratres dilectissimi, vestra plena mente memoramini, vitam emendantes’ (fol. 152v) (Because St Gregory says in today’s sermon: ‘That day [nom. sg.], dearest brothers, you should remember with your entire mind, correcting your life’)

The last category includes cases in which a Czech sentence is completely misunderstood. The result of this misunderstanding is not merely a change of case but a completely different meaning, such as: Postil: Brány toho královstvie jsú rozumové a ty rozumy mistři, zákonníci a pokrytci před lidem zavierají brániece, aby sprostní písmu nerozuměli, a sami také v písmo rozumem pravým nevcházejí. (Sermon 11, l. 77–80) (Gates of that kingdom are explanations, and masters, Pharisees, and hypocrites close these explanations in front of the people preventing simple ones from understanding the scriptures, and also themselves do not enter the scriptures with right ­understanding.)

174 Jan Odstrčilík Mk 91: Defendit illam scripturam. Regnum sunt intellectus et hos intellectus magistri et pharisei et ypocrite claudunt ante homines, defendentes, ne simplices scripturas doceant, et soli eciam intellectu recto in scripturam non intrant – newchaziegi. (fol. 178r) (He defends the scripture. The Kingdom are explanations, and masters, Pharisees, and hypocrites close these explanations in front of the people preventing simple ones from learning the scriptures, and also themselves do not enter the scriptures with right understanding.)

The translator evidently understood brány (‘gates’) as the homonymous word *brání (‘he or she defends/prevents’), again probably because of ambiguus medieval spelling. To make the sentence understandable he divided it into two parts: Firstly, he translated *brání toho (‘he or she defends/prevents it’) as defendit illam with the added scripturam (‘scripture’). Secondly, he understood the word královstvie (‘kingdom’) not as the genitive construction to the word brány (‘gates’), i.e. gates of the kingdom, but as a nominative. Subsequently, he reinterprets the second part as *Královstvie jsú rozumové (‘Kingdom are [sic!] explanations’) and translates it as Regnum sunt intellectus. The following example is even stranger: Postil: Isa v 5. k. o nich: ‘Běda, kteříž řkú tomu, co jest zlé, dobré, a co jest dobré, řkú zlé!’ A druzí slepci řkú, že neškodí, ale dobré jest s jedniem zlým mnoho dobrých lidí zahubiti. (Sermon 11, l. 144–47) (Isaiah in the fifth chapter about them: ‘Woe to those, who call evil, what is good, and call good, what is evil!’ And other blind men say that it does not hurt, but that is good to kill with one evil person many good ones.) Mk 91: prophecia Ysaie 5o capitulo: ‘Ve, qui dicitis malum bonum et bonum malum, ponentes tenebras lucem et lucem tenebras, ponentes amarum dulce et dulce amarum.’ Et Beda de eis dicit, qui dicunt, quid est malum, cum uno malo multi boni interficerentur. (fol. 179v) (prophecy of Isaiah in the fifth chapter: ‘Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.’ And Beda says about them, who say, why is it bad to kill many good ones with one bad one.)

How does Bede appear out of the blue in the Latin translation? This is difficult to answer with any certainty but it seems the key role is played by

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 175

the word slepci (‘blind men’). After all, in Hus, Bede is designated as slepec drahý (‘dear blind man’) (Sermon 23, l. 95), in accordance with the Medieval belief that the Venerable Bede lost his sight in older age.76 Some role could have been also played subconsciously by the Czech word běda (‘woe’) in the previous sentence. Although it is translated correctly into Latin as ve, it might have led the translator to associate later slepci with the English monk. In a nutshell, Latin in the translation mirrors the Czech original extremely closely. This, even in combination with already mentioned Czech words present in the translation, does not necessary preclude use of the translation by non-Czech speakers who could still understand the general meaning. Yet it is arguably much more suitable for Czech speakers who could profit from its closeness to their native tongue. What can be considered a major hindrance for the former, can be of a great help for the latter, especially if they intended to use the translation as a model sermon collection for their own vernacular preaching. The Latin language seems to work as kind of a meta-language in which the Czech is encoded. Some type of information may be lost during this process, like finer differences between various Czech past tenses. They are, however, not of a critical value and can be easily reconstructed or remade during the oral delivery. The preservation of the lexical items and the overall sentence structure seems to be much more important. Czech Words in the Latin Text We have already noted that the Latin translation of the Czech Sunday Postil contains a number of Czech words. The percentage varies widely among the sermons in the collection. If we consider only the expositions of the sermons, the number of Czech words can be from as low as 1.2 percent (Sermon 1) to 14.8 percent (the Sermon 15). In general, the number of Czech words decreases in the second half of the collection. Most Czech words are preserved from Hus’s original; however, some 10 percent can be labelled translator’s addition. In the expositions of the sermons, these appear in two forms: they are either intralinear glosses or parentheses. I  use the term ‘intralinear glosses’ for vernacular expressions usually following the Latin word (for example, ‘Christus […] visum – zrak et auditum ei restituit’, fol. 200r). Parentheses represent a Czech text with no 76 

Cf. Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea, ed. by Grässe, p. 833.

176 Jan Odstrčilík

Latin equivalent. The parentheses may be relatively long, for example, ‘Filia populi mei, precinge te cilicio et pospi sie prachem, lkanye gedyneho syna vczyn sobie placz horzki’ (‘O daughter of my people, gird thyself with sackcloth and sprinkle thyself with ashes: make thee mourning as for an only son, a bitter lamentation’) (fol. 204v), or very short, just a single word, ‘in ventre matris inchoat sie talis miseria’ (‘in the belly of the mother begins such misery’) (fol. 272v). Here the reflexive pronoun was added as part of the Czech equivalent of inchoat (‘počíná sě’). A closer look at the first 20 sermons shows that the proportion of Czech words in intralinear glosses and those in parentheses tends to favour the former (more or less) in sermons with a low percentage of Czech words, and to favour the latter in highly multilingual sermons. This shows that the high level of multilingualism in some sermons is a consequence of the higher number of parentheses. One of the motivations for retaining Czech may be seen in cases where the translator probably did not know a correct Latin term. For example, in the following passage the source text mentions various sorts of jugs and vessels: ‘Et sic hec sex ydrie, sive sint studwe, dolia, vasa, tine, urcea, kbelikowe, lagene aut fiala – banye’ (fol. 165v). In other cases, one can imagine that the translator could not call to mind the Latin words if he was working fast on his translation. However, we cannot explain many other Czech words in the same way, above all the short phrases, for example, extreme cases in Sermon 33, ‘Y quomodo ego denuo renascar’ (‘And how will I be born again’) (fol. 249v)77 and ‘To intendit de baptismo aque – wody’ (‘That he intends about the baptism of water – wody’) (fol. 250r). Two words appear in Czech particularly often: pak (‘then’) and acz (‘although’). They emerge as simple glosses, e.g., ‘Et tunc – pak sextum miraculum posuit’ (‘And then – pak he put the sixth miracle’) (fol. 154r), and parentheses, e.g., ‘Quia eius sancto ewangelio non credunt nec intelligunt, hoc scias, acz slissie, carnaliter intelligunt’ (‘Because they neither believe, nor understand his holy Gospel, nor know it, although they hear, carnally understand’) (fols  189v–90r). In both cases the translator knows and uses the Latin equivalents of the respective Czech words, yet he prefers the Czech expressions even in those passages he translated at the end of his work. Of what use could these Czech words be to readers of the collection? It has been argued above that the Czech language is translated in the sense 77 

Cf. also John 3. 7.

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 177

of being encoded into Latin which allows easy back translation (decoding). A  limited number of untranslated Czech words may help to accomplish this task and still preserve the advantages of Latin. In the case of difficult words, it removes a burden from the preacher where he could have problems to quickly recall a proper (back) translation. The small and simple Czech words can help to direct the preacher and kick off the correct translation (this does not mean that there were no other motivations for the use of the Czech words possible; some of them are mentioned above). Dialogue of the Translator with the Author The translator tried to translate Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil as faithfully as possible, yet ceaselessly interfered with the text. This does not concern only the language aspects discussed above, but, above all, the content of Hus’s text. In several cases the translator omitted more than a third of the source text and in Sermon 18 more than 50 percent, whereas in other sermons he only omitted isolated words. He also sometimes significantly modified or supplemented the wording of individual sermons. The number of these modifications is more uniformly distributed, from less than 5 percent in Sermon 10 up to as much as 19 percent of added and/or modified text in Sermon 20.78 The first category of omissions seems to have been due to inattention on the part of the translator or scribe. They include omissions of words or lines because of eye-skip if one word in the Czech original is repeated: Postil: A třetie pro nápis; neb jakož na peniezi jest nápis na světlém střiebře neb zlatě (Sermon 12, l. 70–71) (And thirdly for the inscription; because there is an inscription on the coin in light silver or gold) Mk 91: Et tercio propter inscripcionem in lucido argento aut auro (fol. 182r) (And thirdly for the inscription in light silver or gold)

It is important to note that some of these shorter omissions could be copied from a Czech manuscript which served as a model for the Latin translation, e.g., the quoted omission is present also in the manuscript Prague, Knihovna

78 

Calculations based on the first twenty sermons (with introduction).

178 Jan Odstrčilík

Národního muzea, MS III B 11.79 However, this manuscript is an unlikely model for the Mk 91, since it has also omissions not present in Mk 91. The future research will hopefully clarify the relationships between Mk 91 and the Czech manuscripts. Other omissions seem to have no clear motivation. Often, they are passages in which Hus repeats himself and the translator might therefore have considered them superfluous. For example, in the first Sermon he abbreviates a passage about the three visitations of Christ, past, present, and future (Sermon 1, l. 111–18). The reason for this seems to be that a similar interpretation is found in the beginning of the sermon (Sermon 1, l. 26–52). These omissions are usually brief, typically a few lines. Most of the omissions, however, are programmatic and have more or less clear motivations: above all, the passages concerning Hus himself and his process at the curia, are missing regardless of their content. The Czech Sunday Postil, which is one of the most personal of Hus’s works, becomes in the translation, at first sight, an almost anonymous sermon collection, although one can argue that to persons conversant with the genre and text milieu it would have been identifiable as Hus’s work. Additionally, most of Hus’s assaults on the Church hierarchy, abundant in the source text, are missing in the translation. For example, in Sermon 18 there is a missing passage, more than hundred lines long in the critical edition (l. 155–273), beginning with the words ‘Ale ještě móž býti otázka’ (‘But there may be still a question’, Sermon 18, l. 155–56) and leading to a listing by Hus of the reasons why Jesus avoided his enemies, which he relates to himself, so as to defend himself for not obeying the pope’s summons to go on trial in Rome. An important aspect of Hus’s criticism of the Church, suppressed or reinterpreted, is Hus’s notion of the Antichrist. The alteration is sometimes slight: the translator retains the structure of Hus’s sentence but changes important words. For example, in Sermon 19 Antikrist a jeho údové (‘Antichrist and his lambs’) (l.  67–68) becomes omnes mali christiani (‘all bad Christians’) (fol. 206v). The result of these modifications and omissions is that the theme of the Antichrist, a major element of Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil, is only preserved in Sermon 2, for the second Sunday in Advent, and removed or reformulated in all the others. Similarly, references to the Church can be changed. For example, in Sermon 9 Hus begins with the words (l.  9–10): ‘Svaté toto čtenie vedlé čísla jest k rozumu dosti lehké. 79 

See Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 490.

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 179

A však jest v něm naučenie cierkvi svaté, kterak má slúžiti pánu bohu.’ (‘This holy reading is according to the text very easy to understand. However, there is advice to the Holy Church in it how it should serve the Lord God.’) The translator probably found it unseemly that the Church should be taught how to serve God, and he therefore made a change in its second part: ‘et tamen in eo est doctrina sanctorum et sancte matris ecclesie, quam debet servare homo Deo’ (‘and though there is advice of Saints and Holy Mother Church in it, which one should preserve for God’) (fol.  173v). A  lesson for the Church on how it should treat God becomes a lesson for ordinary people. Although the translator consistently omitted Hus’s criticism of the Church and its representatives, at times he did not hesitate to level his criticism in a similar direction: ‘Sicud moderni faciunt dicentes: Bonus et egregius est predicator a b c.  Et sic magnificant sacerdotes tantummodo et non Deum, non intelligentes verba domini, que sonant in auribus fidelium in ewangelio’ (‘As the moderns do now saying: Good and excellent is that preacher a b c.  And so they praise priests only and not God, and they do not understand the words of the Lord, which sound in the ears of the faithful in the Gospel’) (fol. 305v). And where Hus criticized secular powerholders, in whom he saw hope for a Church reformation, only moderately, the translator is much sharper, as on fol. 156v: ‘Similiter et moderni faciunt et domini temporales dicentes: Non predica, non missa, debemus equitare pro censibus colligendis’ (‘Similarly also the moderns and temporal lords do and say: Do not preach, do not do the masses, we have to ride for annual payments’). This passage replaces in the translation a text which fiercely criticized the clergy and the Archbishop of Prague: ‘Též nynieší [i.e. kněží] činie posielajíce posly své i z Říma, i z Prahy a dobývajíce bul, aby kázanie v kaplách stavili a kníhy pálili. Jakož sě stalo za arcibiskupa kněze Sbynka. A  nynie sě děje v zmatciech pražského arcibiskupstvie’ (‘Also today’s men [i.e. priests] send their messengers from Rome and from Prague and they obtain the bulls to stop the preaching in the chapels and to burn the books. As it happened under the archbishop priest Zbyněk. And  now it happens in the confusions in the Prague archbishopric’) (Sermon 4, l. 40–43). Some of the conspicuous additions by the translator concern women. For example, in Sermon 5 Hus speaks of Saint Anna the Prophetess in these words (l. 90–91): ‘Tato Anna v prvém stavu, panenském, bez muže, byla čistá panna.’ (‘And this Anne in the first state, virginal, without a man, was a pure virgin.’) The translator cannot resist a little addendum: ‘Ista Anna in primo

180 Jan Odstrčilík

statu virginali abs viro est pura virgo, non sicud moderne virgines, etc.’ (‘And this Anne in first state, virginal state, without a man, was a pure virgin, not as modern virgins, etc.’) (fol. 160r). Finally, the translator also sometimes gives the source text a completely new meaning. Although these cases are very rare, they are extremely valuable as they point to the translator’s intentions. In Sermon 23, Hus stresses the need for penitence for sins and denies the advantage of paying for indulgences (l. 241–44): Neb to jest spravedlivé vedlé písma. Ale ne to, aby jeden, dada penieze a maje skrúšenie, ihned umra v radost nebeskú šel, hřiechóv měv velmě mnoho. A druhý, nedada peněz, umra, aby múky trpěl, měv věččie skrúšenie a hřešiv mnoho méně než onen. (Because that is just according to the Scripture [i.e. to do only penitence for absolution from sins]. But not that that one, who after gave money and does penitence, would die and would go immediately into the heavenly joy, but another one, who did not give money, after death would have to suffer, although he did greater penitence and committed many fewer sins than the former one.)

Such emphasis that money cannot be a condition for forgiveness from sins is a central theme of Jan Hus, and, by extension, of Hussite criticism of the Church. However, the translator replaced the theme of trafficking in indulgences with the theme of lacking personal piety and left the rest of the passage on the indulgences out: Quia illud est iustum secundum scripturam, sed non illud, ut unus diceret unum pater noster etc. aut absque contricione et moriens statim in gaudium celeste intraret, peccata multiplicia habens (fol. 220v) (Because that is just according to the Scripture, but not that that one would say one Pater noster etc. and without contrition after death would enter immediately into the heavenly joy, although he has many sins)

We find what may be the most radical case in Sermon 41, in which Hus compares bad priests to false prophets (l. 130–31): ‘A že ti falešní proroci jmenují Krista, hodiny řiekají, mše slúžie, řiekajíce často: Pane, pane náš.’ (‘And that these false prophets call Christ, recite their book of hours, celebrate Masses, and say often: Lord, our Lord.’) The translator completely changes the meaning of this passage:

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 181 Mk 91: Et quod illi falsi prophete nominant Christum Iesum, devastant castra, civitates, villas, cremantes claustra, ecclesias, discurrunt per campos, laycis sacramenta divina ministrantes et sepe offerrunt se pro lege Dei pugnaturos, dicentes: Domine, domine noster. (fol. 280v) (And that these false prophets call Jesus Christ, destroy castles, cities, villages, burn monasteries, Churches, run over fields, they give divine sacraments to laymen, and they often offer themselves as fighters for the law of God saying: Lord, our Lord.)

All this seems to be the translator’s explicit criticism of the Hussite movement, particularly in its radical, Taborite form. Hus’s original text is completely upended here. Yet even here Hus is not mentioned by name. And although the translator expressed his hostility towards the Hussite radicalism in harsh words, he returns quickly back to the literal translation of Hus’s work. This is not the last change of this sort. Marginal Notes and the Question of Faith As mentioned above, there is very little known about the translator of Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil in Mk 91. Possible motivations behind the work can only be deduced from the translation itself and from the marginal notes which may be ascribed to the translator. In one, we find the comment ‘nota de taboritis’ (‘note on Taborites’) alongside the biblical quotation ‘a fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos’ (‘by their fruits you shall know them’) (fol. 280r), implying that the Taborites are false prophets who will be recognized by their deeds. On the same folio we find a marginal note written in the headings: ‘Currentes ab una ecclesia ad aliam sicud lupi de una silva ad aliam, ubi plus rapiant, et maxime Bohemi monachi’ (‘Running from one Church into another like wolves from one forest into another, where they could steal more, and mainly Bohemian monks’). It seems to refer to simony and to the monks requiring monetary payments from the faithful. This is also one of the few signs of added criticism of the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with Utraquist doctrine. The most interesting passages engage in debate with the text itself. In Sermon 6, the translator faithfully renders Hus’s comment on obedience to a superior whose order is morally wrong: ‘Tunc secundi dicunt, quod, si quid superior preceperit, sicud episcopus aut papa, malum, adhuc debet eum in hoc obedire inferior, nam ille inferior non habebit peccatum, sed ille qui preceperit. Dyabolica est ista sagitta.’ (‘And then others say that if a superior, like a bishop or the pope, orders something bad, still an inferior has to obey him

182 Jan Odstrčilík

in this, because the inferior will not commit sin, but the one, who ordered. That is a diabolic arrow.’) (fols 162v–63r). In Hus’s opinion, a sin is committed even by the person who obeys orders, not only the one who gives orders. A marginal note here, quoting Genesis 27. 13, says, ‘Contra hoc est scriptum: In me sit malediccio hec, fili mi, tantum audi vocem meam.’ Rebekah inciting her son Jacob to cheat his father and his elder brother Esau, taking the potential sin on herself, stands as a figure directly opposed to Hus’s opinion. As previously stated, the manuscript Mk 91 contains several Utraquist texts. They seem to prove the general Utraquist character of the manuscript and as well as the Utraquist origin of the Latin translation of Czech Sunday Postil. The actual situation, however, is rather more complicated. As Vladislav Dokoupil noted80 in the closing part of the first sermon on the Apocalypse (fol. 114r), a passage appears without any obvious link to the preceding text. It was probably not part of the original sermon but rather a commentary on the preacher: ‘Iste est verus wiklephista, hereticus, seductor, thaborita, falsus propheta, divisor coniugii, et nichil nobis ad placitum predicat, sed semper terrores demonum incutit’ (‘This one is a real Wycliffite, heretic, seducer, Taborite, false prophet, disrupter of marriage, and he is not preaching anything pleasing to us, but always produces terrors of demons’). This appears to be the voice of a reportator or scribe in response to the theme of the sermon. The preacher was most likely an Utraquist; on fol. 113v we read a reference to communion under both kinds.81 His sermon seems to be therefore captured by somebody who did not actually agree with its message. The manuscript of Mk 91 features rather an unusual mixture of texts. They are, indeed, predominantly Utraquist, but often with a small twist, catch, or comment. In other words, they are often almost Catholic and they are definitely moderate and prevalently conservative. Conclusion Let us attempt to summarize now what we can infer from the research into the Latin translation of the Postil in Mk 91. It was intended as a collection Dokoupil, Soupis rukopisů mikulovské dietrichsteinské knihovny, p. 154. ‘Ideo hoc tempore luctuoso et tribulato incole veri illius Ierusalem eterne nunc in maxima sunt fame, siti, nuditate, durant et calumpnias iniustas propter corpus et sanguinem Iesu Christi.’ (‘Therefore, in this sorrowful and afflicted time true inhabitants of this eternal Jerusalem now are in the greatest hunger, thirst, nudity, and they bear also unjust accusations for the body and blood of Jesus Christ.’)

80  81 

Jan Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil 183

of model sermons. Elements unnecessary for such a purpose are omitted, such as the model’s index of topics (‘pointer’). The collection is cleansed of all of Hus’s temporal and personal references and, in general, is made more neutral concerning the religious polemic between Bohemian Catholics and Utraquists. Therefore, we must perceive the Latin translation of the Czech Sunday Postil as a transformation of a genre in the first place, from a handbook intended for reading to a collection of model sermons intended for further vernacular performance. The change of language from Czech into Latin seems to be part of the transformation. The choice of Latin was not made for the greater prestige or universality (understandability) of that language, but probably because Latin offered the best time-tested means of expression for the given genre and the preachers were accustomed to switching smoothly from one language to another in their sermons. Such switching would mainly occur between Latin drafts and vernacular delivery, but not exclusively. Latin in the translation of Hus’s Postil thus has the character of a metalanguage in which Czech words are encoded. Latin provides the Czech Sunday Postil with a palette of set expressions in the genre and gives it a liturgical dimension. Behind seemingly unsophisticated Latin sentences hides the Czech language, word-for-word. Nonetheless, a literal and not well intelligible translation for non-Czech speakers need not be a sign of a poor quality or imperfect translation. On the contrary, the dependence on Czech might have been intentional and might have facilitated an experienced priest’s back translation into the vernacular. The translator removed the person of Hus from the work so that the reformer’s personal voice is all but silenced. His criticism of the Church was removed from most passages by the translator, or reinterpreted and turned around, mainly against the radical wing of Taborites. In the few passages where the translator maintained the church critical passages, he scribbled his polemical opinion in margine. Nevertheless, the translation of Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil is not antiHussite as it might seem. There is not a single plain anti-Hus passage in the text. The anti-Hussite and anti-Taborite passages are very rare and they seem to be translator’s reaction to the harshly critical opinions of the original, which he may have found overly aggressive towards his party. His translation could therefore also be described as a dialogue with the primary text. The translator modified some themes slightly, or adapted them. There is a distinctly sharper tone used for courtiers, royal officials, and nobles, whom he blames for the same wrongdoings as – or even worse than – those ascribed by Hus to the clergy. We find in the translation more marked misogyny than

184 Jan Odstrčilík

in Hus’s sermons, although by medieval standards it is still mild and does not break any conventions. Be it intentional or not, it diverts attention from the problems of the Church elsewhere (to lay people, nobles, and women). These features may seem to point to a Catholic translator. However, two important facts suggest otherwise: The translated source text itself, whose author was the famous Jan Hus; and the context of the manuscript Mk 91. The other sermons and treatises in the manuscript are, indeed, predominantly Utraquist. And yet, even in them we find occasionally something like disruptions or anomalies, the most remarkable of them the accusation of the preacher as a Wycliffite and Taborite. Such disruptions do not completely change the meaning of the Latin translation of Czech Sunday Postil, but they add another layer to its interpretation. The manuscript was probably written between 1448 and 1460, though many of the texts were composed before these dates. In the case of Czech Sunday Postil we should think of a date when the power of Taborites was still significant (before 1452), and the religious wars were still a living memory (i.e. after c. 1434 and the battle of Lipany). At this time the division is not between Catholics and Utraquists, but rather Catholics and moderate ­Utraquists on one side, and radical Utraquists, i.e. Taborites, on the other.82 One can find more examples in moderate writing of the time of the increasing proximity of former foes, e.g., Rokycana’s treatise De existentia corporis, or the very moderate Utraquist Jan of Příbram’s attempted agreement of tolerance to the Catholic Prague Chapter.83 I believe that the very nature of the Latin translation of Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil and the manuscript Mk 91 expresses such a situation, one in which the borders between Catholic and Utraquist are blurred, such that sometimes it is almost impossible to decide, to which group a particular text ought to be attributed. The Latin translation of Czech Sunday Postil could pass very well as a Catholic and doctrinally orthodox text, as well as an Utraquist one. And although I regard the latter option as more plausible, the ambivalence is the important characteristic of the text. It possibly shows how close the two groups were both at the spatial and at the intellectual level. Prameny k synodám strany pražské a táborské (vznik husitské konfesse) v létech 1441–1444, ed. by Nejedlý, p. 16. For different opinion see Urbánek, Věk poděbradský, i, p. 776. Zdeněk V. David argues that the moderate Utraquist formed the unique third way between the reformation and Catholicism, see David, Finding the Middle Way. 83  Prameny k synodám strany pražské a táborské (vznik husitské konfesse) v létech 1441–1444, ed. by Nejedlý, pp. 29–31.

82 

THE VERNACULAR EULOGY OF JOHN WYCLIF BY MASTER ANDRZEJ OF DOBCZYN: TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION OF DISSIDENT IDEAS IN FIFTEENTH-CENTURY POLAND Paweł Kras

The Letter1

O

n 23 June 1449 Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn, a distinguished scholar at the Cracow University and the canon of St Florian Chapter in Cracow, produced a letter to an anonymous feudal lord,2 describing the circumstances of his escape from Cracow to Lower Silesia, to the court of Duke Bolko V of Opole. He reported in detail of the confiscation of his property in his Cracow apartment and blamed in strong words Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki of Cracow and Jan Elgot, Cracow Vicar General in spiritualibus for an illegal confiscation of his personal belongings.3 Main purpose of Gałka’s letter was to alert the unknown recipient or recipients to the abuse of power by the clergy. He expected them to intervene on his behalf at the court of the Polish king: He asked his addressee to arrange a meeting with Casimir IV the Jagiellon. He argued that this would offer him an opportunity to purge himself from the charges of heresy and to prove publicly the orthodoxy of Wyclif ’s doctrine. Gałka had no doubts that his

1  I am very grateful to Pavlina Rychterová for all her comments and inspiring sugestions that allow me to look at Andrzej Gałka and his literary production from a different perspective. 2  Codex diplomaticus universitatis studii generalis Cracoviensis, ii, ed. by Stenzel, pp. 114–15. The style of Gałka’s letter leaves no doubt that its anonymous recipient, who is referred to as magnificus dominus by Gałka, was a powerful lord who belonged to the Polish political elite of that time. 3  The most detailed study on Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn and his anticlerical activities remains Kolbuszewski, Herezja kanonika Jędrzeja Gałki. Recent overviews of his life and career are offered by Wünsch, ‘“Nec pestifera doctrina”’, pp. 5–26; Kras, ‘Wyclif ’s Tradition in Fifteenth Century Poland’, pp. 199–210; see also the recent reexamination of that problem by Knoll, ‘The Worst Heretic’, pp. 3–29.

Pursuing a New Order, Volume II: Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian ­Reformation, ed. by Pavlína Rychterová with the collaboration of Julian Ecker TMT 17.2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 185–203 © DOI 10.1484/M.TMT-EB.5.116602

FHG

186 Paweł Kras

interests in the doctrine of John Wyclif angered the clergy and provoked his persecution. To demonstrate why Wyclif ’s ideas were considered such a great threat by the clergy, he added in his letter few comments on Wyclif ’s teaching. According to him, Wyclif unveiled the corruption in the Roman Church and demonstrated how the Roman clergy betrayed Christ’s teaching; that is why Wyclif ’s doctrine was condemned as heretical and his ­writings were banned and confiscated.4 The letter constitutes of two parts. The first part has the form of a private letter recounting the events leading to Gałka’s escape to Silesia and ending with the plea to the addressee to intervene on his behalf and with the promise to return to Poland if full freedom of speech and safe conduct would be granted to him. In addition, Gałka mentions two other letters: the first to Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki and the other to the Cracow professors, in which he allegedly proposed to hold a public debate on Wyclif ’s doctrine. Then formal signature with Gałka’s full name and title follows: Andreas de Dobschino, olim magister studii Cracoviensis.5 Though a priest, Gałka refused to be judged by his superior, the bishop of Cracow, and argued that all bishops and priests should be judged by the king. Doing so, he challenged the ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the matters of faith and advocated the superiority of secular courts over the ecclesiastical in truly Wycliffian manner.6 The Song The second part of the letter, which was originally written on a separate piece of paper (cedula), contains a song in the Polish vernacular (Quadam cantilena vulgaris), which is today known as Pieśń o Wiklefie (The Song on Wyclif  ). On the persecution of John Wyclif by Church authorities the extensive studies are provided by Dahmus, The Prosecution of John Wyclyf; Wilks, ‘Wyclif and the Great Persecution’, pp. 39–63. See also a recent overview of that problem by Larsen, ‘John Wyclif, c. 1331–1384’, pp. 50–64. 5  Below the signature there is an additional note (per modum cordis), where the author asks the recipient to contact the bishop of Cracow and demands from him the return of his personal belongings: books, money, and clothing. 6  ‘[…] quousque possem habere salvum conductum ad Regem Poloniae coram quo ac sua Baronia, si daretur mihi libertas defendendi causam meam et dicendi contra Episcopum et Doctores Cracovienses me haereticantes pro eo quod legi et scripsi libros Wicleph, speroque dominus Poloniae me cum Episcopo preaedicto et Doctoribus iudicaret, quia hoc habet facere ex scriptura iudicare Episcopos et omnes alios sacerdotes Regni sui, ut probarem Deo dante’, Codex diplomaticus universitatis studii generalis Cracoviensis, ii, ed. by Stenzel, p. 115. 4 

The Vernacular Eulogy of John Wyclif 187

Latin commentary providing basic information about Wyclif ’s teaching on the corruption of the Roman clergy precedes the song. The commentary starts with the title Quedam puncta and focuses on the fatal consequences of the donation of Constantine for the Church.7 The endowment of the Church with temporal goods and privileges by Emperor Constantine is presented as turning point in Church history. In Gałka’s opinion the Roman Church (ecclesia moderna) betrayed the teaching of Jesus Christ, and its priests (moderni sacerdotes) had nothing in common with Christ’s Church (ecclesia Christi), established by the Son of God and handed over to St Peter and the Apostles.8 The imperial gift of temporal properties, land estates, fields, towns, villages, castles, tithes, and other material goods made the Church put an end to its purity and poverty.9 Further Gałka points to the vernacular song (which follows the exposition) the first two lines of which he renders in Latin: ‘Christus non dedit ipsis hoc, et non placent Christo haec, sed potius Antichristo, utpote in vulgari cantilena: Lachowye ad illam notam omnes attendite, animadvertite etc.’10 Interestingly the vernacular song is here placed on the same argumentative level as the authority of the Bible (Matthew 19. 21 is quoted to support the argument as well as Nicholas of Lyra) and is therefore interwoven in rather complex network of meanings.

In many works Wyclif comments on the donation of Constantine, demonstrating its fatal consequences for the Church of his time, e.g. John Wyclif, Tractatus de civili dominio, ii, ed. by Loserth, pp. 107–08; John Wyclif, Trialogus, ed. by Lechler, p. 307, pp. 408–09; John Wyclif, Tractatus de ecclesia, ed.  by Loserth, pp.  372–73; John Wyclif, Tractatus de potestate papae, ed.  by Loserth, pp.  120–24. Gałka could easily found Wyclif ’s opinion on Constantine’s donation in two of the works he claimed to have read: John Wyclif, Tractatus de apostasia, ed.  by Dziewicki, pp.  40–41; or John Wyclif, Tractatus de blasphemia, ed.  by Dziewicki, pp.  8–10. On Wyclif ’s criticism of Constantine’s donation see the magisterial studies by Workman, John Wyclif, ii, pp. 77–78; Leff, Heresy in the Later Middle Ages, pp. 526–27; and the recent overview by Shogimen, ‘Wyclif Ecclesiology and Political Thought’, pp. 199–240, in particular pp. 207–11. 8  Codex diplomaticus universitatis studii generalis Cracoviensis, ii, ed. By Stenzel, p.  116, ‘Quomodo ergo concordant moderni sacerdotes cum sacerdotibus Christi, scilicet Apostolis et LXXII discipulis?’ 9  According to Gałka, Wyclif ’s persecution resulted from the hatred of the Roman clergy toward the man who so courageously made Church deficiencies known to the public: ‘tangentibus viam Wicleph, qui et qualiter ipse senserit, ex quibus aperientur vobis multae veritates propter quas moderni sacerdotes irascuntur’, Codex diplomaticus universitatis studii generalis Cracoviensis, ii, ed. by Stenzel, p. 115, no. 159. 10  Christus did not give them anything like that (i.e. temporal properties) and it does not please Christ but Antichrist, so as it is [written] in the vernacular song. 7 

188 Paweł Kras

Gałka closed his exposition on Wyclilf ’s teaching with enumeration of rich endowments the contemporaneous Polish lords made to bishop of Cracow in particular as well as to other bishops and priests. The letter as well as the vernacular song with preceding exposition, reveal his great admiration of Wyclif and his fascination with Wyclif ’s philosophical and ecclesiastical teachings. For ten years as he says he was busily collecting, reading, copying, and commenting on Wyclif ’s writings. In his letters he mentions by title only five of them: De universalibus, De ideis, De simonia, De blasphemia, and De apostasia, but appears to know the other as well.11 The first two were works on metaphysics produced in the late 1360s and forming most important parts of Wyclif ’s Summa de ente.12 Three other titles mentioned by Gałka include Wyclif ’s polemical writings: De blasphemia, De apostasia, and De simonia which were written in the last years of Wyclif ’s life, after the condemnation of his Eucharistic teaching and his expulsion from Oxford. None of these polemical works is currently preserved in the Polish libraries, and Gałka’s comments are the only evidence that they were available in Cracow in the first half of the fifteenth century. Gałka’s access to Wyclif ’s or Hussite writings is disputable but his good knowledge of Wyclif ’s metaphysical and ecclesiastical ideas looks self-evident and seems to be based solely upon his studies of Wyclif ’s texts. Criticizing his former university colleagues for their ignorance of Wyclif ’s philosophy, he ironically compares them to blind men who could not recognize colours.13 The song recorded at the end of the letter may be divided into three parts,14 each of them delivering a closed, individual message. In the first part ‘Sed tamen hoc sponte fateor quod legi et scripsi pluribus annis libros magistri Johannis Wicleph de uiversalibus et de ideis, de simonia, blasphemia’, Codex diplomaticus universitatis studii generalis Cracoviensis, ii, ed. by Stenzel, p. 113. 12  John Wyclif wrote his treatise De universalibus about 1368/9. Some of his tracts with De universalibus were the first to reach Bohemia during 1380s. Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf, pp. 20–22; John Wyclif, Tractatus de universalibus, ed. by Müller, p. LXXI, pp. LXXIX–LXXX. 13  Codex diplomaticus universitatis studii generalis Cracoviensis, II, ed. by Stenzel, p. 112. 14  Polska poezja świecka XV wieku, ed. by Włodarski, pp. 24–26. The critical edition of Gałka’s eulogy with the old-Polish transcript in Chrestomatia staropolska, ed. by Wydra and Rzepka, pp. 288–90; for the English translation see Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn, Song on Wyclif, trans. by Mikoś, pp. 143–45. A detailed examination of Pieśń o Wiklefie is offered by Włodarski, ‘Andrzeja Gałki z Dobczyna tzw. “Pieśń o Wiklefie”’, pp.  XXXIII–VII, and Michałowska, Średniowiecze, pp. 534–45. See also the online article by Lorenc, ‘“Pieśń o Wiklefie” Jędrzeja Gałki z Dobczyna’, [accessed on 25 May 2016]. 11 

The Vernacular Eulogy of John Wyclif 189

(six stanzas) the intended recipient is addressed in the first stanza: The Poles (Lachowie) at first, then the Germans (Niemcowie) and then all the nations or gentes (jezykowie) have to pay attention.15 In the first line the author clearly points towards to the apostolic model – the message which follows has to be brought to all people without exception, whereas these people are understood as groups defined by their language. We may therefore assume that the vernacular character of the song has a symbolical meaning – it has to emulate the gospel message carried by the apostles to the people in their own languages. It would be very wrong to assume that the individual noble addressee of Gałka’s letter needed the vernacular to understand the message – his proficiency in Latin (or the proficiency of his secretary) is proved by the Latin letter itself beyond any doubt. The ‘apostolical’ message (rendered in five following stanzas) which has to be carried to all people is the message on the incomparable Master Wyclif who unveiled Godly as well as human wisdoms and the true priests follows him and his books by words and deeds. Gałka as it seems identifies here Wyclif with Christ himself. In the second part of the song (four stanzas) the core of the teaching (according to Gałka) of Master Wyclif is unfurled16 – a Wycliffian ‘gospel’ so to say: Gałka sees it in Wyclif ’s interpretation of the donation of Emperor Constantine. The main elements of this interpretation as Wyclif discussed it in many of his texts are present in the four stanzas:17 The donation inducing

‘Poles and Germans, | All nationalities (gentes), | If you doubt the account of Christian faith | And all written works, | Wycliffe will tell the truth. || He has no equal; | There will be no pagan | Or Christian master, | No one will be greater | Until the day of judgement’, Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn, Song on Wyclif, trans. by Mikoś, p. 143. 16  Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn, Song on Wyclif, trans. by. Mikoś, p. 144, ‘Christ’s priests | Called upon by Christ | Follow in his footsteps | And demonstrate in deeds | What in sermons they preach. || Emperor’s priests | Are antichrists, | Their power is not from Christ, | But from the Antichrist, | From the Emperor’s document. || Pope Sylvester the First | Gained power from the tail | Of Constantine, the snake; | His venom seeps year after year | From the side of the Church. || Sylvester took pains, | As the Devil incited him, | To deceive the emperor, | Cheat him of possessions,  | And swindle Rome from him. || After him the lay people  | Were all deceived. | That’s why their heirs, | His poor successors | Are in great distress.’ 17  Gałka extensively draws on the popular medieval legend of Pope Sylvester I. For example, the song repeats the story on the angel’s voice which had been heard at the very moment of the imperial donation. The angel was to warn against the venom that seeped into the body of the Church with the imperial gifts. In the copy of Gałka’s song preserved in the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel (MS Helmst. 306), there is a Latin marginal gloss referring to the legend of angel’s voice being heard at the very moment of Constantine’s donation, ‘Hodie effusum est venenum in ecclesia dei, in curia caesaris’, Zathey, ‘Pieśń o Wiklefie i jej zapomniana 15 

190 Paweł Kras

the end of the Apostolic church (the true Church only),18 the involvement of Antichrist as well as the agency of the Pope Silvester who usurped the power not from Christ but from Constantine.19 The last verse of the second part of the song summarizes the effect of the donation of Constantine on the Christian community (and after him all the laics were led astray).20 Concentrating on Wyclif ’s interpretation of the donation of Constantine Gałka felt fully legitimized to compare Wyclif to the Apostles: with him at first (or at least) the truth about the Church has been revealed; with him the history of the ‘true’ Apostolic church is resumed. We may assume that he was inspired here by the Bohemian Hussite elites who called Wyclif a doctor evangelicus,21 but such inspiration was by no means inevitable: A scholar of Gałka’s niveau22 was perfectly capable to convey a multilayered message open for any king of very fine exegetical interpretation. In the last part of the song (four stanzas) the struggle of the ‘new’ apostolic church with the church of Antichrist is announced and praised with the final prayer directed at Christ: he has to bestow his faithful with priests who would lead the laics to the truth (Christ), who would overpower Antichrist melodia’, p. 173. That story gained much popularity among medieval critics of clergy’s wealth and provided clear evidence of the Church corruption for various religious movements. The angel’s voice was usually interpreted as a divine intervention which predicted the violation of Christ’s law and the decline of the Apostolic Church. Gonnet, ‘La Donazione di Constantino presso gli eretici medioevali’, pp. 17–29; Molnár, A Challenge to Constantinianism; on the origins of the legend of Constantine’s donation see my overview: Kras, ‘Donacja Konstantyna – legenda w służbie polityki papieskiej’, pp. 7–32. 18  According to Wyclif, the true history of the Church is the history of the evangelical period. See Farr, John Wycliffe as Legal Reformer, p. 56. 19  Farr, John Wycliffe as Legal Reformer, p. 52. 20  This verse too is in accord with Wyclif ’s reasoning on the matter. As Farr, John Wycliffe as Legal Reformer, p.  54, formulated it: ‘The Constantinian endowment, then, introduced several factors into the church: the concept of jurisdiction, ecclesiastical possessions, and the creation of the papacy with its hierarchical authority. These elements prompted, or at least allowed for, the institutionalization of the Roman church. All shifted the allegiance of Christians away from the scriptural precepts of Christ’s law. Men relied more and more on their attempts to absolutize human traditions.’ 21  On the image of Wyclif among Lollards and Hussites see von Nolcken, ‘Another Kind of Saint’, pp. 429–43; On the fascination for Wyclif among the Hussites, Šmahel, ‘“Doctor evangelicus super omnes evangelistas”’, pp. 26–34; Kras, ‘Idolum haereticorum’, pp. 211–21. 22  Gałka made a very impressive career at Cracow University, in the year 1439 he was appointed to the St Florian chapter; he gained a seat which was reserved only for the most distinguished professors of the university. See on this Kras, ‘Wyclif ’s Tradition in Fifteenth Century Poland’, p. 200.

The Vernacular Eulogy of John Wyclif 191

and open the way of salvation for the people. Here without doubt Wyclif ’s concept of the community of faithful and its quest is referred to. Was the song produced only for a single person and should therefore be treated as an incidental product of Gałka’s experiments with the Polish vernacular? Or does it bear witness to some intensive literary activity of its author who appreciated the use of the vernacular as a means of religious communication? The text shows a set of complex interwoven meaning and boasts high artistic values. Producing the song on Wyclif Gałka knew well how to use rhythms and how to adapt the textual composition to the melody of a popular anti-Hussite song Omnes attendite, animadvertite or some other well known song with the same tune.23 It looks that his work on the song was carefully planned and painstakingly conducted. The addressee of the song is according to the first two lines the lay community in general (not only nobles) speaking both Polish and/or German (it is not known however if there was a German written version of the song) as well as other languages. Nevertheless, as already noted above this statement should not be taken literary: All the nations are the intended receiver of the message because of its character as evangelical truth. The song stresses the dis­ tress of lay people and ‘poor successors’ of Constantine, i.e. the Roman emperors of his age. In another words, Gałka points out that the worldly Church is to be blamed if the secular lords are not doing well (by whatever means). Then a remedy is offered: if the endowment of the Church with material goods became the root of all evil, Christ’s Church should be restored by the total rejection of its endowments (which would implicitly mean that the situation of secular governance will be improved too at once). The Church needs new priests who might replace ‘imperial priests’. Their replacement by Christ’s priests should be accomplished by a spiritual combat waged by the Word of Jesus. Gałka does not incite the followers of Christ’s Church to take arms and wage war against false priests as did Bohemian Hussites. He believes that the preaching of pure Christ’s words, deprived of any modifications or interpretations, will be a perfect weapon to demonstrate the c­ orruption of

The melody of the Latin song Omnes attendite, animadvertite was frequently used in the anti-Hussite polemical texts. Alongside Omnes attendite and the Song on Wyclif six different verses are known from the second half of the fifteenth century which adopted the same melody. The oldest included two Latin carols, the first Imber nunc coelitus recorded in 1459 and the second Mira dei charitas from 1477 which is based on the Czech religious song Divna milost’ Božie. Kolbuszewski, Herezja kanonika Jędrzeja Gałki, pp. 63–65. Włodarski, ‘Andrzeja Gałki z Dobczyna tzw. “Pieśń o Wiklefie”’, pp. XXXVI–VII.

23 

192 Paweł Kras

the modern Church and defeat the false priests. The same belief the leaders of the Bohemian Reformation shared; some of them like Jakoubek of Stříbro or Jan of Příbram watched with increasing horror how quick their movement went out of hand. The song conveys a clear message to the audience. A message, reduced at the basic essentials which could be easily apprehended by any recipient: The primary objective of Gałka’s song is to alarm the faithful about the deplorable situation of their Church corrupted by false priests who do not serve Christ. That was a message with which the Bohemian Hussites started. In Hussite Bohemia, vernacular texts served as means of religious communication, supporting the busy preaching of Hussite priests. Vernacular verses, songs, prayers, sermons, or even short biblical commentaries were produced in a great number and widely circulated throughout the whole period of the Bohemian Reformation. They were used to teach the people some basic elements of Christian theology and ethics, opposing and counterbalancing the teaching of the Roman Church.24 At the same time a number of vernacular writings became instruments of religious propaganda, unveiling the corruption of the Roman Church and demonstrating that only the program of the Hussite Reformation implements the Holy Scripture.25 Among them the translations of Wyclif ’s ecclesiological works took a prominent place.26 There is no doubt that Gałka’s song on Wyclif was inspired by the Hussite production of vernacular texts; to his contemporaries too that close interrelation looked obvious. Unfortunately there is no vernacular song extant from among the production of Bohemian Reformation which would show the same or similar topic as the song of Gałka. The songs we know are transmitted in much later manuscripts; they nevertheless were indeed sung on the streets in the times of public upheaval as contemporary witnesses reported.27 Several of the songs extant are devoted to the formulation of basic argumentative arsenal concerning the problem of the communion under both kinds or the basics of Christian teaching (Decalogue). There are striking formal similarities between the song of Gałka and several of these compositions. Especially the song written

Rychterová, ‘Theology Goes to the Vernaculars’, pp. 231–49; Rychterová, ‘The Vernacular Theology of Jan Hus’, pp. 170–213. 25  Fudge, The Magnificent Ride, pp. 178–225; Šmahel, Husitské Čechy, pp. 369–81; Šmahel, Die Hussitische Revolution, iii, pp. 1782–1818. 26  See on this Dekarli, ‘Translating Political Theology into Vernacular’ in this volume. 27  See on this Perett, ‘Vernacular Songs as “Oral Pamphlets”’, pp. 371–91. 24 

The Vernacular Eulogy of John Wyclif 193

by the Hussite Priest Jan Čapek to instruct the audience on the Decalogue bears very similar features: at first the audience is called upon to pay attention and the theme announced (fours stanzas), then the commandments are enumerated and shortly explained in ten stanzas; the last two stanzas contain a prayer: God might help his faithful who ‘follow his truth’.28 The metre is quite similar too if not identical – the song was probably intended to be sung to the same tune which we know from Omnes attendite, animadvertite. The Context The copy of Gałka’s letter to the unknown feudal lord is currently preserved in the Archive of the Archdiocese of Wrocław. In unknown circumstances Gałka’s letter was handed to Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki, and on 11 July 1449 its copy was sent to Bishop Piotr Nowak of Wrocław. The Wrocław manuscript, however, does not include the vernacular song on Wyclif which was originally attached by Andrzej Gałka. On the Wrocław copy of Gałka’s letter, just below the Latin commentary on the donation of Constantine, it is noted that the song was not attached as it was written in the Polish vernacular. Luckily, a copy of Pieśń o Wiklefie with musical notes has been preserved in the collection of Matthias Flaccius Illyricus, and is deposited in the Herzog August Bibliothek, MS Helmst. 306.29 The letter to the unnamed lord looks to be part of some coherent strategy which Gałka employed to publicize his confrontation with Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki, and to rally Polish nobles to stand by him. The recipient of Gałka’s letter has not been identified yet. Most frequently, Piotr Szafraniec (d. 1456), Cracow sub-chamberlain, has been proposed as the addressee

The song was edited several times. For an edition with a commentary see Výbor z české literatury doby husitské, i, ed. by Havránek, Hrabák, and Daňhelka, pp. 300–02. 29  The vernacular text of Pieśń o Wiklefie was transcribed in the sixteenth century by Matthias Flaccius Illyricus ‘ex vetustissimo exemplari’, and is currently preserved in Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, MS Helmst. 306, on the back side of its front cover. Dobrovský, Czech philologist and historian of literature, was the first who found the manuscript with Gałka’s vernacular eulogy in one of codices which belonged to Matthias Flaccius Illyricus. Janusz Zathey argues that in c.  1540s–1560s the vernacular eulogy was transcribed by Illyricus from the fifteenth-century manuscript which belonged to Heinrich Token, canon of Magdeburg chapter and professor at the University of Rostock. Zathey, ‘Gdzie jest rękopis “Pieśni o Wiklefie?”’, p. 146, pp. 149–53; Zathey ‘Pieśń o Wiklefie i jej zapomniana melodia’, pp. 171–87. 28 

194 Paweł Kras

by the research.30 He was a man of great prestige, and belonged to one of the wealthiest and mightiest noble clans in fifteenth-century Poland. His grandfather Piotr the Elder (d.  1437) took the highest positions of the palatine of Cracow and Sandomierz, and belonged to the close advisors of King Ladislaus II Jagiełło. In addition, Piotr’s permanent conflicts with Bishop Oleśnicki, so extensively covered by Jan Długosz in the Annals of the Polish Kingdom, made him a suitable person to act as Gałka’s plenipotentiary and protector. It is however possible that the letter was intended for a collective addressee. In that case it should be treated as a polemical text by the research; as an instrument of religious propaganda. Its objectives would then have been to promote Wyclif ’s doctrine among Polish nobility. Gałka expected that the recipient or recipients of his letter would present his grievances to the Polish king and act as his protector (protectors). To prove his innocence he proposed to publicly discuss Wyclif ’s teaching. It looks that Gałka felt confident that during the audience with the king he could purge himself from any charges of heresy and, at the same time, unveil the abuses of the clergy. Furthermore, he believed that his arguments would encourage the king and the nobles to take control over the Polish Church and to introduce necessary reforms. First of all, he wished that the king would suppress the political power of the clergy and secularize ecclesiastical properties. Much to Gałka’s frustration all these expectations were misplaced. We may ask how could it happen that one of the most promising masters of Cracow university31 with well-established position put his career at risk by

Stanisław Kolbuszewski had no doubts that Piotr Szafraniec was the recipient of Gałka’s letter. He argued that due to a long conflict with Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki of Cracow, Szafraniec might be much interested in Wyclif ’s ideas; Kolbuszewski, Herezja kanonika, pp. 45–47. See also Kras, Husyci w piętnastowiecznej Polsce, pp. 194–98. 31  Gałka was first of all a scholar and a university don. He spent a quarter of century at the University of Cracow which he had entered in the autumn 1420 as a student of arts. Within only two years, the shortest period prescribed by the university regulations, he obtained the baccalaureate. Three years later, in 1425, he was granted a Master of Arts degree and probably started his studies at one of the higher faculties in Cracow. Then, for almost thirty years, he was working at the University of Cracow without being in any way suspected of heresy or disobedience. During his studies in Cracow he was ordained priest. He did not earn any degree from the higher faculty but enjoyed great prestige among his university colleagues and students. Twice, in 1436 and in 1441 he was elected Dean of the Faculty of Arts. When in spring 1449 Gałka was accused of heresy and put on trial, he was a respected professor at the age of fifty. Kras, ‘Kariera uniwersytecka Andrzeja Gałki z Dobczyna’, pp. 247–64. 30 

The Vernacular Eulogy of John Wyclif 195

studying forbidden writings of Wyclif and producing anticlerical texts in the vernacular. How could it happen that one of the guardians in the nominalist stronghold of anti-Wycliffite and anti-Hussite propaganda was converted in this rather spectacular way? From the point of view of the bishop of Cracow it surely was an embarassing issue. It seems that the university despite its nominalistic fervour housed at least one truly independent thinker who was as it seems convinced by pure theological and philosophical argument found in restricted books he was obliged to read to be able to polemize with them. He was ready to stake his life on it. In contrast to the great popularity of Wyclif ’s ideas in Bohemia, in fifteenth-century Poland, the doctrine of the doctor evangelicus attracted only few adherents.32 First writings of Wyclif were brought to Poland by students who had read and copied them at Prague. Some treatises came to Cracow with Bohemian professors, who were interested in discussing Wyclif ’s philosophical and theological teachings. The inflow of Wyclif ’s works to Cracow was possible for a fairly long time. It was only after the condemnation of his articles at the council of Constance in April 1415 that his writings were considered suspicious and put under surveillance. There is no doubt that Wyclif ’s works were available at Cracow University in the first half of the fifteenth century and Cracow professors lectured on them.33 Not all Wyclif ’s writings available at Cracow in that period are known; only few of them are preserved in the fifteenth century manuscripts of the Biblioteka Jagiellońska. The oldest of them is MS  848 which comprises four philosophical writings of Wyclif (De ideis, De universalibus, De compositione hominis, De tempore).34 That manuscript belonged to Štĕpán of Pálečz, Bohemian scholar, first a great admirer of Wyclif ’s doctrine and later one of its most furious opponents.35 His manuscript had been produced in Prague; some of the texts were copied

Hudson, ‘From Oxford to Prague’, pp.  642–57. The availability of Wyclif ’s writings in Hussite Bohemia is discussed in Hudson, ‘The Hussite Catalogues of Wyclif ’s Works’, pp. 401–16. 33  Kras, ‘Recepcja pism Johna Wyclifa’, pp. 241–49. 34  Kras, Husyci, p.  76; Kras, ‘Recepcja pism Johna Wyclifa’, p.  243; see also Thomson, The Latin Writings of John Wyclif, pp. 21–24, pp. 32–33, p. 36. 35  After the condemnation of Jan Hus, Štĕpán could not return to Prague. That is why he accepted the invitation to settle in Poland and was offered a professorship at the University of Cracow. Palacz, ‘Stefan Palecz’, pp. 93–124. Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen, pp. 58– 59; see also the recent collection of Czech studies M. Jan Hus a M. Štĕpán z Pálče, ed. by Kuchyňka. 32 

196 Paweł Kras

from it later. One of such copies of Wyclif ’s De universalibus was made before 1449 (now Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 1855, fols 86r–125v).36 Due to fragmentary evidence it is hard to assess the scale of Gałka’s knowledge of Wyclif ’s teachings. According to his own declarations, he accepted Wyclif ’s logic and adopted the realist concept of universals. As far as his ecclesiastical views are concerned, he shared Wyclif ’s criticism of clerical abuses which originated from the donation of Constantine. It has been suggested that if he had the five works of Wyclif, mentioned in his letters, he would also have learnt Wyclif ’s radical ideas including his concept of the Church as a community of predestinated and his denial of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. In his writings, however, he did not make any reference to them.37 The search of his apartment took place at the time when he was staying in the Cistercian monastery of Mogiła near Cracow, doing a half year of penance for his earlier offence. Thanks to the extensive reports sent by Jan Elgot, Cracow Vicar General, to Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki, the circumstances of the ransacking are well-known. It was ordered after one of his friends had delivered one of his manuscripts to Jan Elgot. In his report to Bishop Oleśnicki Elgot comments that the whistleblower was horrified by its contents. After a rapid examination of this manuscript the Cracow Vicar General was no less shocked and immediately commissioned the search of Gałka’s apartment, located in the house of Jan Teschnar, a Cracow councillor. That action provided Jan Elgot with more shocking findings, which shed light on the Gałka’s secret activities. In his letter to Bishop Oleśnicki Elgot reported on numerous writings of John Wyclif and ‘an English friend of Wyclif ’ (Anglicanus, complex Wycklifi), usually identified with Hussite radical Peter Payne. Some of those works were annotated with Gałka’s comments. Furthermore, on some manuscripts Elgot spotted the names of some Polish lords, whom Master Andrzej intended to offer those writings. Three were identified by the research as Andrzej of Tęczyn (d. 1461),38 Łukasz Górka (d. 1475), in

Kras, ‘Recepcja pism Johna Wyclifa’, p. 242. Kras, ‘Wyclif ’s Tradtion’, pp. 196–203. 38  Andrzej of Tęczyn (Tęczyński) belonged to one of the most powerful and prestigious aristocratic clans in medieval Poland. Since 1427 he studied at Cracow University and at the same time started working in the royal chancery. Andrzej did not make such a splendid career like his older brother Jan, who became Cracow palatine and castellan. Kurtyka, Tęczyńscy, pp. 553–54, p. 571. His dramatic death at the hands of angry burgers of Cracow on 16 July 1461 inspired an anonymous author to write the vernacular ‘Verse on the Death of Andrzej 36  37 

The Vernacular Eulogy of John Wyclif 197

1447/8 Starost General (royal official) of Greater Poland and from 1449 Palatine (governor of province) of the Poznań province,39 and aforementioned Piotr Szafraniec, Subchamberlain of Cracow.40 All of them were men of great power and prestige who kept high positions in the royal administration and opposed the party of the Cracow bishop.41 It remains intriguing to speculate what was the level of literacy of the three lords to whom Gałka intended to offer some of his writings. Were they able to read those texts in Latin, or rather in the Polish vernacular? In this group only Andrzej Tęczyński, who in 1427 entered the University of Cracow, had a higher education. Recently Jerzy Sperka has argued that Piotr Szafraniec possessed adequate abilities to read such texts.42 But there is no doubt that all of them might have been interested in Wyclif ’s arguments which challenged the political superiority of the Church and its privileges. In the aforementioned letter to the bishop of Cracow, Jan Elgot reports on a number of vernacular songs and other vernacular texts confiscated in Gałka’s apartment. Elgot had no doubt that his former university colleague planned to distribute these writings among nobles and they might have provided them with arguments against the clergy, their temporal possessions and privileges. We may spot a significant difference to the media policy of the Hussite leadership. In Bohemia, the vernacular songs had to help to arouse the mob in the streets, not to help to convince the power holders. Hussite reformers however translated some of the less difficult Wyclif ’s ecclesiastical works to reach this effect. They simplified them and filled them with own urgent messages of the day as may be demonstrated on the Czech translation Tęczyński’ (Wiersz o zabiciu Andrzeja Tęczyńskiego). The critical edition of this is published in Chrestomatia staropolska, ed. by Wydra and Rzepka, pp. 290–91. For further analysis of this verse see Nowak-Dłużewski, Okolicznościowa poezja polityczna w Polsce, pp. 81–83. 39  In 1438 Łukasz Górka was appointed Poznań sub-chamberlain, and three years later earned a prestigious position of palatine of Poznań. In 1440s he opposed the policy of Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki and his party. Garbacik, ‘Górka (z Górki) Łukasz h. Łodzia’, pp. 408–09. 40  Sperka, Szafrańcowie herbu Stary Koń, pp. 356–91. 41  Kras, ‘Hussitism and the Polish Gentry’, pp.  192–97. On political opposition against the party of Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki see Gawęda, Możnowładztwo małopolskie w XIV i pierwszej połowie XV wieku. A detailed study on the leading role of the Szafraniec family in the political opposition against the party of Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki is offered by Sperka, ‘Działalność polityczna Piotra i Jana Szafrańców w okresie rządów Władysława Jagiełły’, pp. 181–90. 42  Gałka’s notes demonstrate that Piotr Szafraniec was man of some literacy. It is worth noting that he was a smart politician and his successful land investments testify to his economic skills. Sperka, Szafrańcowie, p. 379.

198 Paweł Kras

of Dialogus,43 but they did not shy away from lengthy expositions. The question why Gałka did not act in the same way cannot be answered satisfactorily. Nothing is known about the circulation of Wyclif ’s works outside the University. As far as we know, none of them did ever become an instrument of religious propaganda outside a network of university readership. There was no mob in the streets of Cracow ready to sing mocking songs about greedy prelates and/or a community of believers ready to sing songs about their own collective creed. That means the function of Gałka’s song on Wyclif stays somehow elusive. A song of this type has to be performed by a collective to unfold its potential. Gałka probably did not expect the addressee of his letter will sing the song together with other like-minded lords; for them the Latin exposition preceding the song was intended. The song was intended for and in the same time represented a community which existed idealiter – at least for the time being. Senior Cracow churchmen were afraid that the vernacular texts had been produced to disseminate anti-ecclesiastical ideas among the laity. According to them, Gałka was not only a Wycliffite, but also a dangerous rebel who planned to incite the laity into rebellion against the clergy.44 In the period of growing tensions over ecclesiastical jurisdiction and tithe payment his activity was treated as an explosive which might fuel the conflict with the nobles. That is why the Cracow Vicar General started a procedure to put Gałka on trial and asked the papal inquisitor to assist his actions.45 The heresy of a respected Cracow professor cast a shadow on the orthodoxy of the whole university.46 That’s why regardless of the earlier friendships, Gałka was condemned by the professors, who termed him ‘a black sheep’ who tried to corrupt the university flock. In the university record book someone inserted above the note of Gałka’s registration a malicious comment that he was the worst heretic.47 The dramatic escape of Gałka from Poland to Silesia demonstrated his isolation and lack of confidence in the protection of any Polish lords.

See on this Dekarli, ‘Translating Political Theology into Vernacular’, in this volume. Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti, i/i, ed. by Sokołowski, p. 69. 45  For more detailed examination of the controversy between master Andrzej of Dobczyn and Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki of Cracow see Kras, ‘“Pastor gregis dominici et doctrina pestifera”’, pp. 639–53. 46  Codex diplomaticus universitatis studii generalis Cracoviensis, ii, ed.  by Stenzel, p.  105, p. 110, p. 112. 47  Statuta nec non liber promotionum, p. 17. 43  44 

The Vernacular Eulogy of John Wyclif 199

Gałka reasonably calculated his chances facing direct confrontation with the powerful bishop of Cracow as poor. By his escape he bowed to the superiority of Zbigniew Oleśnicki and recognized weakness of his potential supporters. Considerably safe in his exile he tried to reverse the course. On the one hand, he obstructed the inquisitorial procedure launched by the Bishop to bring him to Cracow for a heresy trial; at the same time he confronted the accusations against him disseminated in Silesia by the bishop and the professors. On the other hand he resumed his efforts to promote Wyclif ’s doctrine among some Polish nobles, looking for their support in his conflict with Oleśnicki. On 11 July 1449 Oleśnicki sent his second letter to Bishop Piotr Nowak of Wrocław; three copies of Gałka’s letters from 23 June 1449 were attached to that letter to convince Bishop Nowak that Gałka was a dangerous man, a heretic and rebel, who should be immediately arrested and delivered to the Cracow bishop as soon as possible. This neverthelles never happened; the heretic stayed in Silesia.48 But Oleśnicki only partly failed: Gałka was effectively silenced. Vernacular Heterodoxy in Poland Apart from Gałka’s activity, little is known about the production and circulation of anticlerical texts in fifteenth-century Poland. Outside Cracow the access to Wycliffite or Hussite texts was limited and the circulation of such works was strictly supervised by bishops and senior churchmen. In the fifteenth-century legislation of Polish provincial or diocesan synods, the ownership of suspicious writings remained along with the administration of Eucharist under two kinds for the laity a characteristic feature of adherence to heresy. Polish bishops and their officials were particularly sensible about

Von Breslau, ii/ii, ed. by Klose, p. 22. See also Urban, Studia nad dziejami diecezji wrocławskiej w pierwszej połowie XV wieku, p. 279. The efforts of Bishop Oleśnicki to secure the arrest of Master Andrzej in Silesia and bring him to Cracow proved futile. For some time Gałka stayed in Gógówek with Duke Bolko V. Later, as František Michálek Bartoš and František Šmahel have argued, he possibbly moved to Tabor, where in 1451 he held a debate with Enea Silvio Piccolomini. In the letter to Cardinal Juan Carvajal, Piccolomini reported the discussion on the administration of the Eucharist sub utraque and the donation of Constantine, he had with a certain Johannes Galechus, who had recently escaped from Poland. It seems nevertheless farfetched to identify this Galechus with Andrzej of Dobczyn called Gałka. In 1452 Gałka was granted the parish living in Podvéki. See Bartoš, ‘Osudy polského husity v Táboře a v Čechách’, pp. 111–14; Šmahel, Husitská revoluce, iv, p. 132. 48 

200 Paweł Kras

a possible circulation of books published in Hussite Bohemia. In the antiHussite regulations of the provincial synod of Wieluń and Kalisz from 1420, it was strictly forbidden to keep any Czech books. In order to prevent the transfer of Hussite writings into Poland, special commissions were established in each diocese to interrogate Poles returning from Bohemia.49 Upon the visitations of parishes church officials were required to search out and inspect any suspicious books, in particular the writings of John Wyclif, Jan Hus, and Jerome of Prague. The owners of such books were to be treated as suspects of heresy, arrested and interrogated about their beliefs.50 Recent research has confirmed that the Hussite doctrine was disseminated in Poland mostly by means of sermons and oral instruction.51 Hussite books played a secondary role and did not become an instrument of wide-scale propaganda of new religious ideas. The episcopal registers, which remain the best source of information about heresy suspects, record a limited circulation of unlicensed books within the communities of Polish Hussites.52 A significant number of Polish Hussites had some personal experience of the Bohemian Reformation. In the period of the Hussite revolution (1419–37) thousands of Poles visited Bohemia and got in touch with advocates of the Hussite program. They had a chance to listen to Hussite preachers, talk to members of Hussite communities, and observe dramatic socio-religious transformations in the country. Such encounters left an unforgettable imprint upon lives of some of the visitors. After return to Poland some of them started to spread Hussite doctrine and religious practice both in public and in private. Most of them operated in Greater Poland and Cuyavia. Small communities of Polish Hussites were established in the noble land-estates and their functioning was possible as long as local lords were able to protect them against inquisitorial prosecution.53 Both in Greater Poland and in Cuyavia Hussite communities were formed in small private towns, where the noble manor house and a parish church were located. Such centers were established by the Zbąski family in Zbąszyń and by the Kębłowski family

Statuty wieluńsko-kaliskie Mikołaja Trąby z 1420 roku, ed. by Fijałek and Vetulani, p. 96. Acta capitulorum Cracoviensis et Plocensis selecta (1438–1523, 1438–1525), ed.  by Ulanowski, p. 31; Ordo visitationis z początku XV wieku, ed. by Librowski, pp. 201–02. 51  See my overview of the problem Kras, ‘Hussites in Fifteenth-Century Poland’, pp. 177–89. 52  Potkowski, Książka rękopiśmienna w kulturze polski średniowiecznej, pp. 68–72. 53  Kras, ‘Hussitism and the Polish Nobility’, pp. 184–89. 49  50 

The Vernacular Eulogy of John Wyclif 201

in Kębłowo (Kiebłowo) in Greater Poland,54 or by the Leszczyc family in Pakość in Cuyavia.55 The circulation of religious texts in those communities looks to be very limited. Bishops’ registers from fifteenth-century Polish dioceses record a number of priests, who did have some suspicious books and used them in the liturgical service for the Utraquists. For example, in April 1442 parish priest Chwałek of Szamotuły was summoned to appear in the Poznań consistory and present his missal, penitentiary, and collections of sermons.56 Two years earlier vicar Nicholas from Niepruszewo was reported to have argued that any layman, who lived an exemplary life, might consecrate the Eucharist and ordain priests. The investigation into that case revealed that Nicholas had found such theses in a certain sacramentary, originating probably from Hussite Bohemia.57 Most suspicious writings were brought either by Poles returning from Bohemia or by Czechs visiting Poland as Hussite preachers or just merchants. Some Polish advocates of the Hussite doctrine had strong links with Bohemia which were not interrupted by wars and bans on travels. They travelled to Bohemia and even sent their children to study in Prague. Such close contacts were reported in particular for some Cuyavian families.58 There is some evidence to argue that among Hussite books imported from Bohemia there were Czech translations of the Bible, sermons, songs, poems, and pamphlets.59 In the 1450s and 1460s such books probably circulated within the Hussite communities in Cuyavia. In the town of Pakość, located at the border between Cuyavia and Greater Poland, some Czechs worked on the Polish translation of the Bible commissioned by the Queenwidow Sophia of Holszany. The community of Pakość is of particular interest here, as it remains one of the best examples of lay literacy in fifteenth-century Poland. Pakość was a small but fast-growing town favourably located at the crossroads of two international trade routes. In the first half of the fifteenth century the town became an important regional market-place and profited Kras, Husyci, pp. 116–29. Kras, Husyci, pp. 141–47; Szweda and Szweda, ‘Z dziejów husytyzmu’, pp. 43–46. 56  Acta capitulorum nec non iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum selecta, ii, ed.  by Ulanowski, p.  13, p. 16, p. 18; here no. 1137, p. 531. 57  Acta capitulorum nec non iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum selecta, ii, ed. by Ulanowski, no. 1107, p. 521; further comments on both cases in Kras, Husyci, p. 86. 58  Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti, i/ii, ed.  by Szujski, pp.  347–48: Dodatek, Rzeczy kościelne, no. 4; see also Kras, Husyci, pp. 135–36. 59  On more details see Kras, ‘“Libri suspecti, libri prohibiti”’, pp. 195–226. 54  55 

202 Paweł Kras

from the busy trade exchange which connected Bohemia and Germany with the Teutonic State in Prussia and Lithuania.60 The records of a heresy trial in 1455 provide testimonies about Vicar Priest Stanisław who was a man of great learning and interest in book studies. In his collection of books he had Latin, Polish, and Czech writings. Some of these texts were bilingual Latin-Polish or Czech-Polish. For example, he possessed some fragments of the Gospels in the Polish vernacular which comprised the vernacular copy of the Gospels and the Apostolic Letters.61 In addition, in his collection of Polish religious books Stanisław had two unidentified vernacular writings: One started with the words ‘Panye Boze’ (‘Lord God’) and the other with ‘Poczantek to ma’ (‘The beginning is the following’).62 It may be assumed that Stanisław as a rector of the local parish school used such books for grammar classes. This is confirmed by the testimonies of two witnesses who claimed that they had been taught to read Polish and Czech texts at school. The parish school in Pakość became a place where books were copied and translated into the Polish vernacular. Among such translators a certain Albert, a doorkeeper of Stanisław’s house, was named. Stanisław of Pakość had great confidence in Albert who had a key to his library and could use it at any time. It was also reported that Stanisław was visited in Pakość by some strangers. One of them was named as scolaris de Bohemia, who spent rather a long time in Stanisław’s house. The purpose of his visit remains unknown, but his participation in the Czech-Polish translations might have been natural.63 The heresy trial of Vicar Priest Stanisław of Pakość gives us interesting insights into the functioning of an exceptional small dissident community in Cuyavia where some religious writings, in Latin as well as in vernacular Polish and Czech, were collected and circulated among lay readers. But the community found its end: The activity of Stanisław of Pakość was denounced to the local ecclesiastical officials just a couple of years after Gałka had escaped from Cracow to avoid a heresy trial for his interest in Wyclif ’s doctrine. At first

Kabaciński, ‘W czasach staropolskich (do roku 1772)’, pp. 75–89. Potkowski, Książka rękopiśmienna, pp.  215–16; Wiesiołowski, ‘O możnowładczych protektorach husytyzmu słów kilka’, pp. 84–85. 62  A particular attention of ecclesiastical visitors who had access to Stanisław’s library was drawn by a book with images (liber cum picturis) which might be identified either with an illuminated Bible or rather with a prayer book produced in Hussite Bohemia. Acta capitulorum nec non iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum selecta, ii, ed. by Ulanowski, no. 524, p. 199. 63  Kras, Wyclliffite and Hussite writings, pp. 218–20. 60  61 

The Vernacular Eulogy of John Wyclif 203

glance, these two cases look different but a close examination reveals some striking similarities. It looks that, like Stanisław of Pakość, Gałka worked hard to have a circle of lay adherrents with whom he could discuss his ecclesiastical ideas. Both men realized the role of vernacular texts as means of religious training and promotion of dissent doctrine. And last but not least the fates of both prove that in the middle of the fifteenth century the production of Polish religious texts remained limited and strictly controlled by the ecclesiastical authorities. It was only in the last quarter of that century, as the busy production of vernacular songs and verses by Blessed Władysław of Gielniów and a group of Franciscan Observant poets successfully challenged the superiority of Latin textual culture and made the Polish vernacular an important means of religious communication.64 In Bohemia the Hussite reformation accelerated the production of religious literature in Czech vernacular immensely. In Poland the Bohemian Reformation was pulling events in the opposite direction. It caused a control mania which was indeed quite efficient. Religious and theological thinking in the respective vernacular needed several decades more to develop in Poland and when it did, it happened in strictly orthodox manner.

64 

Wydra, Władysław z Gielniowa, p. 107.

VERNACULAR VITASPATRUM IN THE RELIGIOUS POLEMIC BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND UTRAQUISTS IN BOHEMIA, AROUND THE YEAR 1500* Jakub Sichálek

T

wo Czech prose translations of the medieval bestseller Vitaspatrum1 are in existence today: one, the work of an anonymous author (or authors) was probably produced in the second half, or towards the end, of the fourteenth century,2 and the other by a prolific man of letters, Řehoř Hrubý of Jelení, at the beginning of the sixteenth century. Research into the latter, is complicated by the fact that there are not as yet any published editions of this text. Nevertheless, we know who the author was and we know the approximate date of his translation of Vitaspatrum, and we know when the surviving copies were made. Author Řehoř Hrubý of Jelení (c. 1460–c. 1514) Řehoř’s biographical data remain so fragmentary that, for the most part, we have to settle for plausible assumptions about his life. We have to rely on

* An earlier version of this essay was presented to the International Medieval Congress in Leeds in June 2012. I am indebted for valuable comments on it to Pavlína Rychterová, Roger Ellis, and Ota Halama. My thanks go to Bořek Neškudla for making an unpublished essay available to me and for suggestions and advice. All translations are the author’s, and they are not literal. 1  For a basic characteristic of this Latin text corpus, see e.g. Williams, ‘Vitas patrum’, cols 1765–66; Williams and Hoffmann, ‘Vitaspatrum’, cols 449–52. 2  Cf.  the short article Životy sv. Otců (Lives of the Holy Fathers), in a canonical handbook on the history of Czech literature (Lehár, ‘Životy sv. Otců’). See Smetánka, ‘O staročeských Životech sv. Otců’; Staročeské Životy svatých Otcův, ed. by Smetánka; Černý, ‘Staročeské Životy svatých Otců’; Flajšhans, ‘Staročeské texty v nových vydáních’, pp. 228–37; Šimek, ‘Staročeské Životy svatých Otcův’; Menšík, ‘Staročeské Životy svatých Otcův’; Spina, ‘Neuere Ausgaben zur älteren čechischen Literatur’, pp. 456–58. Pursuing a New Order, Volume II: Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian R ­ eformation, ed. by Pavlína Rychterová with the collaboration of Julian Ecker TMT 17.2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 205–231 ©  DOI 10.1484/M.TMT-EB.5.116603

FHG

206 Jakub Sichálek

such indirect autobiographical clues as we can find in his works and other contemporary texts.3 Řehoř Hrubý of Jelení, a country gentleman, probably lived between 1460 and 1514. In the last twenty years of his life, mostly in Prague, he produced a number of literary works. Řehoř probably made a living as a professional scribe or illustrator.4 The body of his work consists of texts written in Czech, predominantly translations; in Latin we have only fragmentary correspondence relating to studia humanitatis ac litterarum. He translated from Latin into Czech mainly shorter texts (or parts of larger works) of late Classical, Patristic, late Medieval, and Humanist authors. His translation of Erasmus’s Moriae encomium (The Praise of Folly) is the earliest translation of this famous work into a vernacular language and the first attested reception of Erasmus in Bohemia. It dates from 1512 and it is based on the second edition of Moria from 1511.5 Most of Řehoř’s translations have survived in contemporaneous manuscripts and some in autograph. It is evident from his many annotations to his translations that he had a solid grounding in the Antique aspects of life and institutions. He knew works by many authors, older and of his time, Czech and foreign, writing in Latin and Czech, Hussites (Utraquists), and Catholics. Řehoř also kept in touch (as evidenced by the extant Latin correspondence) with leading Czech men of letters, scholars, and high-ranking royal officials, and had a good overview of the latest Latin publications, as evidenced by his early translation of Erasmus.6 He must have had a relatively The first attempted critical study of Řehoř was Truhlář, Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava II., pp. 69–72, pp. 163–79. Later accounts are in Pražák, Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení; Pražák, ‘Hrubý z Jelení, Řehoř’; with the latest summarization (in part indebted to Truhlář) completing and correcting previous scholarship by Neškudla, ‘Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení a takzvaný národní humanismus’; cf. also Boldan and others, The Reception of Antiquity in Bohemian Book Culture from the Beginning of Printing until 1547, pp. 98–99. 4  We do not know whether Řehoř held any office – Truhlář rules it out (see Truhlář, Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava II., p. 69). Neškudla notes a reference in one of Řehoř’s early translations (from 1497, printed in 1501), which witnesses to some official engagement (see Neškudla, ‘Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení a takzvaný národní humanismus’, p. 729, no. 2). Pražák, Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení, p. 29, cites another Czech man of letters, Viktorin of Všehrdy, Řehoř’s near contemporary, as referring indirectly to Řehoř when he talks of those ‘not occupied with any provincial or municipal judicial proceedings and […] not under any community or private obligation.’ 5  Miller, ‘Introduction’, pp. 36–37, correcting older conjectures of Czech scholars, in particular Pražák; cf. Hejnic, ‘Erasmus Rotterdamský a české země v druhém desetiletí 16. století’. 6  See also Pražák, ‘Místo Řehoře Hrubého ve vývoji českého humanismu’, pp. 37–38, Pražák, Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení, pp. 74–75, praising the breadth of knowledge of Řehoř and his readiness to translate contemporary works. 3 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 207

extensive library because we know that he procured and exchanged books. We know of no concrete book (manuscript or print) that we could associate with Řehoř as its owner. In addition to his translation of Moria, Řehoř translated into Czech a number of Latin works of the Late Middle Ages and the early Humanist era: Petrarch’s De remediis utriusque fortunae; Petrarch’s collection of polemical letters against the Avignon papacy, Epistolae sine nomine; the Italian humanist Laurentius (Lorenzo) Valla’s De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio (Discourse on the Forgery of the Alleged Donation of Constantine); Charon, a work by the Neapolitan Humanist Iovanus Pontanus (Giovanni Pontano), from whom he translated five further works; and more. Some of these translations reflect Řehoř’s critical stand against the Roman Church. In addition, he translated several brief works by the Early Fathers ( John Chrysostom, Basilius, Gregorius Magnus) and Laelius, a selection from Cicero’s Paradoxa. Řehoř used Cicero’s Pro imperio Gnaei Pompei for a short tractate Napomenutí Pražanům (Exhortation to the Inhabitants of Prague) of 1513, sparked by the current political situation in the Kingdom of Bohemia.7 Řehoř also translated into Czech a Latin disputation over Communion in both kinds in which its author, Prague University Master Václav Písecký, Řehoř’s younger contemporary and preceptor of his son Zikmund, defends the Utraquist creed in a literary dispute with a Bologna Dominican monk.8 Řehoř’s authorship is manifested most clearly in the Czech paratextual material (comments, annotations, glosses, dedicatory prefaces) with which he sometimes supplemented his translations adapted to the needs of their addressee and to his own preoccupations.9 Among the dedicatees we find Mikuláš of Černčice (d. 1511), a scribe and ennobled burgher in the town of Louny in northwest Bohemia;10 a Czech Roman Catholic noble, High

7  Pražák, Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení, pp. 62–73, pp. 139–47; cf. Kopecký, ‘Die Moraltendenz in der Tschechischen Literatur der Renaissance’, pp.  322–23; a Kopecký, Český humanismus, pp. 59–60. 8  Neškudla presented recently a critical revised chronology of Řehoř’s literary output (Neškudla, ‘Řehoř Hrubý z  Jelení a takzvaný národní humanismus’, pp.  730–31, pp.  736–39; cf.  also Neškudla, ‘Obtíže přechodu od rukopisu k  tištěné knize na příkladu díla Řehoře Hrubého z Jelení’). As for the translation of Vitaspatrum, Neškudla’s observations are plausible in part only, and Neškudla’s inclusion of Vitaspatrum in the chronology of Řehoř’s translations is incorrect. 9  A good characteristic of the content and motivation of Řehoř’s own texts and hence his opinions was given by Neškudla, ‘Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení a takzvaný národní humanismus’, pp. 732–36. 10  See further Vaniš, ‘Mikuláš z Černčic’. Pražák, Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení, p. 29 surmises that he was Řehoř’s compatriot.

208 Jakub Sichálek

­ hancellor of the Kingdom of Bohemia, Ladislav of Šternberk, protector of C the Czech Franciscan Observants, who also ordered richly decorated parchment manuscripts in Czech for them (such as Life of Saint Francis); and the Utraquist priest Jíra, of whom we know only, remarkably, that Řehoř’s contemporary Viktorin of Všehrdy (Victorinus Cornelius Chrudimensis) dedicated to Jíra his Czech translation of a work of John Chrysostom, De reparatione lapsi.11 This Viktorin addressed Jíra as parish priest, and commissioner of his translation. One of Řehoř’s autograph translation collections contains some general dedicatory turns of phrase, though without an actual addressee. We can only guess where Řehoř received his Latin education.12 He provided his son Zikmund (Sigismundus Gelenius, 1497–1554) with a well-rounded Humanist education in Italy. Zikmund later became, in Humanist scholarly circles, much more famous than his father, worked in the printing house of Johannes Froben in Basel, and collaborated with Erasmus of Rotterdam.13 However, we have no direct evidence that Zikmund influenced his father’s literary work. We can also argue for links between Řehoř and the Humanist-oriented Václav Písecký, author of the first Czech Všehrd (c. 1460–1520) was a lawyer, former dean of Prague’s Faculty of Arts, and deputy supreme scribe of the Kingdom of Bohemia. Between 1494 and 1501 he translated into Czech the Latin version of three works of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Cyprian, published in print in 1501 together with Řehoř’s translation of another work of Chrysostom. On Všehrd, traditionally seen as the central figure of literary life at the end of the fifteenth century who conceived Czech (or national) Humanism, see Truhlář, Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava  II., p.  163; Pražák, Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení, pp.  26–29, pp.  74–76; and passim. Všehrd’s preface to his Czech translation of Chrysostom’s De reparatione lapsi has been regarded as a manifesto of Czech national humanism (see Pražák, ibid.; Kopecký, Český humanismus, p. 50; contra, Fernández Couceiro, Český utrakvistický humanismus v literárním díle Mikuláše Konáče z Hodiškova, p. 18, and Fernández Couceiro, ‘Národní humanismus v diskuzi’, and Vaculínová, ‘K diskuzi o humanismu’. For the unsubstantiated view of Všehrd as editor of Řehoř’s early translations, see Truhlář, Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava II., p. 78; Pražák, Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení, p. 79; cf. Neškudla, ‘Obtíže přechodu od rukopisu k tištěné knize na příkladu díla Řehoře Hrubého z Jelení’. 12  Pace Jireček (Rukověť k  dějinám literatury české do konce 18. věku, p.  261) that Řehoř ‘received education in part at home and in part abroad but did not obtain an academic title’ and Kopecký (Český humanismus, p. 71) that Řehoř was ‘self-taught’. Cf. also Truhlář, Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava  II., p.  69, and Pražák, ‘Hrubého překlad Erasmovy Chvály bláznovství’, p. 4. 13  For the extensive secondary literature on Zikmund Hrubý of Jelení as learned corrector of Classic texts and lexicographer, see e.g. Petitmengin, ‘Un ami de Melanchton’, Vanek, ‘Der Philologe und Übersetzer Zikmund Hrubý z Jelení, gen. Gelenius (1497–1554)’, and Vaculínová, ‘Zikmund Hrubý z Jelení a jeho život v Basileji’. 11 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 209

translation from Greek,14 since the latter accompanied the young Zikmund to Italy in 1509. Řehoř’s translations date from about 1497–1513, and most of them (almost twenty) are extant in three autograph manuscripts (two of them extensive collections, mostly short texts) written in 1511–13. Concerning the texts in the collections, we do not know whether they were made before 1510 or when they were added by the translator to the collections. The coincidence between the time when Řehoř wrote the extant translation manuscripts and Zikmund’s studies in Italy is suggestive. Since Řehoř’s manuscript collections from those years (including the translation of Vitaspatrum) contain as a rule dedicatory notes, the coincidence is explained by supposing that Řehoř made money for his son’s Italian sojourn by doing translations for influential dedicatees, and creating the autograph manuscript translation collections.15 Possibly, though, Řehoř’s translating activity (including the need to comment on the translated texts) was stimulated after 1509 by his son’s stay in the Humanist-oriented Italian milieu. Nonetheless, correspondence between father and son which doubtless existed has not apparently survived.16 Řehoř’s manuscripts still need art-historical research into the highquality illuminated initials which the autographs contain. As importantly, the texts, and their copies, urgently require detailed work on their textual ­relationships. For example, a text in Prague, NKČR, MS XVII H 13 (fol. 1) thought to be from a lost treatise on beatitude, condemning war, turns out to be merely a fragment of Řehoř’s preface to his translation from Cicero’s Laelius, whose full text we find in MS XVII D 38 (fol. 418v).17

Cf. Keipert, ‘Tschechisch, Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch’. Truhlář, Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava II., pp. 166–67, p. 177; cautiously followed by Pražák, ‘Místo Řehoře Hrubého ve vývoji českého humanismu’, p. 46, and Neškudla,’Řehoř Hrubý z  Jelení a takzvaný národní humanismus’, p.  739. Neškudla points out other possible causes of Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum, ‘Obtíže přechodu od rukopisu k tištěné knize na příkladu díla Řehoře Hrubého z Jelení’ (however, Neškudla unwittingly mistook the making of the translation with that of one of the manuscripts). 16  Truhlář, Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava  II., p.  165, thinks that first Písecký and after his death Zikmund sent books to Řehoř from Italy. However Písecký did not know Erasmus and his Praise of Folly, and he died in autumn 1511 in Venice (Pražák ‘Místo Řehoře Hrubého ve vývoji českého humanismu’, p. 45). J. Kyrášek’s suggestion that Řehoř translated into Czech Erasmus’s Moria at the suggestion of his son Zikmund (Kyrášek, ‘Doslov’, p. 111) is also unsubstantiated. 17  For the mistaken claim, see Truhlář, Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava  II., p.  168; cf.  also Truhlář, Katalog českých rukopisů c.  k. veřejné a univerzitní 14  15 

210 Jakub Sichálek

Vitaspatrum, to draw to our main text, is Řehoř’s most extensive work. Paradoxically, very little attention has been paid to this translation, for Czech scholars focused on those translations by Řehoř that could document his interest in secular themes and his rightful place among Humanist authors. Nor did they work with all extant manuscripts of his translation of Vitaspatrum. With one exception, no study has noted that Řehoř’s preface to the translation of Vitaspatrum exists in two differing versions.18 This dual version of the preface establishes that the same translation served two different denominations, two different dogmatic groups. Řehoř only had to change the content of the preface to his translation to engage a different readership. The double intention of Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum clearly follows from the way the text refers to the proto-Christian ideal shared to a degree by all Christians regardless of denomination, and acknowledges directly the specific situation of Bohemia at the turn of the sixteenth century. The Political, Social, Religious, and Cultural Context19 The Lands of the Crown of Bohemia (i.e. Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Upper and Lower Lusatia, Egerland) were governed at the turn of the sixteenth century by a single ruler from what was then a powerful Catholic dynasty, the Jagiellons, Vladislav II (ruled 1471–1516), who also took the Hungarian throne in 1490. In both kingdoms, Bohemian and Hungarian, the ruler shared power with representatives of the Estates, in particular the landed gentry. The ruler’s residence was Buda because he attached more importance to Hungary. In Bohemia, where Řehoř lived and where his translation of Vitaspatrum was copied, two official Christian churches coexisted officially, minority Catholic and majority Utraquist, both with their internal administrations. In 1485 the Catholics and the Utraquists agreed on a religious truce meant to minimize the recurrent conflicts between them.

knihovny, p. 128; and Pražák, ‘Místo Řehoře Hrubého ve vývoji českého humanismu’, p. 34, p. 43. 18  For this exception, see Smetánka, ‘O staročeských Životech sv. Otců’, p. 97. 19  For a general overview of this topic, see e.g. Přehled dějin Československa, i/i, ed. by Janáček and Marsina, pp. 521–54; Eberhard, Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen 1478–1530, pp. 9–119; David, Finding the Middle Way, pp. XI‒XVIII, pp. 18–44; Čornej and Bartlová, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, vi, pp.  403–558; Tischler, ‘Böhmische Judengemeinden 1348–1519’; Macek, Víra a zbožnost jagellonského věku.

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 211

In a completely illegitimate position were various sects and a special offshoot of the Czech reformation, the so-called Unity of the Brethren, which, at the turn of the sixteenth century, was going through a far-reaching internal rebirth and ceased to shut itself off from the outside world, especially the world of education.20 The number of the Unity members increased and a great many of them moved from the country to towns, which soon led to repressions by the ruler and some high-ranking Catholic nobles. An evident religious subjectivism was then typical of Bohemian society as a whole.21 Of the many other religious developments in this period we might also note a fashionable practice among Catholic aristocrats, the founding of monasteries of Franciscan Observants; and, a consequence of the national conflicts of the period, the founding of a monastery pro puris Bohemis Bechyně in southern Bohemia in 1490, to which was addressed one of the copies of the Czech Vitaspatrum (discussed more fully below). The turn of the sixteenth century witnessed an easing of national (German-Czech) tensions within the Bohemian Observant Vicariate. Nevertheless, the Utraquist church levelled criticism at the monastic orders, the Franciscans being a particular thorn in its side.22 Řehoř was an Utraquist but he dedicated the translation to a Catholic noble and, by extension, to the Franciscans. The advancement of the Estates’ power and the weakening of the ruler’s position resulted in economic rivalry, and political (Estates) disputes between the royal towns and the nobles escalated; the denominational differences (for example, between the Utraquist and Catholic towns) took a back seat. The non-denominational perspective seems to be evident in the participation of intellectuals from the ranks of the gentry or burghers commenting on current

A century later, one of the leading intellectuals of the European Modern Age, Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius) would come from their ranks. 21  Naturally, this brief description cannot address the issue of confessional identity of the members of Czech society, who often oscillated between more radical or more moderate and more or less conscious denominational or supra-denominational concepts of Christianity, including sympathies for the Unity of the Brethren, but sometimes viewed their denomination pragmatically or converted to another creed. We know for example that Řehoř’s wife was Catholic and he was Utraquist, and although he claims that he never pressured her to convert, she did convert because she was ‘endowed with reason and loved her soul and had heard the Holy Scripture from priests’ (Prague, NKČR, MS XVII D 38, fol. 125r). 22  On the Czech Franciscans cf.  Hlaváček, Die böhmischen Franziskaner im ausgehenden Mittelalter; cf. Hlaváček, ‘“Errores quorumdam Bernhardinorum”’, trans. by David, pp. 119– 26; Hlaváček, ‘Bohemian Franciscans between Orthodoxy and Nonconformity at the Turn of the Middle Ages’, trans. by David, pp. 167–89. 20 

212 Jakub Sichálek

affairs and assuming the role of public intellectuals, as it were, influenced by the spirit of Christian Humanism and Irenism. One of these was clearly Řehoř Hrubý of Jelení, who commented on a number of events of current concern in the autograph codex he dedicated to the Prague Old Town Council. By the turn of the sixteenth century Czech society was a mixed entity not only in denominational, but also in ethnic and linguistic terms. Compared with the situation one hundred years earlier – the result of the Hussite wars and nationalist tensions – the German population had dwindled and most of the Czech territory, including Prague, was Czech in ethnic and linguistic terms. Latin, now less important for administration and literary production, remained the language of higher education. Czech was used in writing across a broad genre and functional spectrum and its importance was declared publicly: following a resolution of the Czech Land Diet passed in 1495 all entries in the tabulae terrae (the registers of landed property) were to be made in Czech, the Land Court officiated solely in Czech after 1500, and the documents of the Royal Office were drafted in Czech. Only in some areas of ­Bohemia with predominantly German populations (along today’s borders with Austria, Germany, and Poland), was German dominant or in competition with Czech. We then assume or have documented German-Czech bilingualism in a part of the population and, in a minority of intellectuals, Latin-German-Czech trilingualism.23 The trilingual (Czech-German-Latin) nature of Czech literary production and scholarship is reflected more in the manuscripts than in print production. Book printing in Bohemia was dominated by Czech, though Latin and German books constituted a sizeable minority. Demand for Latin and German publications was satisfied in multilingual Bohemia by imports from foreign printers as part of a well-organized trade.24 Dominance of vernacular Czech print production seems to be specific to Bohemia in comparison with neighbouring Germany where Latin production outstrips German production.25 The wider functional use of Czech was caused by literacy of a greater part of the population and, in the case of book printing, by simple economics:

On German-Czech bilingualism see in particular Skála, ‘Die Entwicklung der Sprachgrenze in Böhmen von 1300 bis etwa 1650’; the study comprises a map showing the German-Czech situation in Bohemia. 24  See Šimeček and Hetzer, Geschichte des Buchhandels in Tschechien und in der Slowakei, pp. 10–11. 25  Cf.  a brief discussion which ignores the economic causes, see Galle, Hodie nullus – cras maximus, p. 215. 23 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 213

Czech printers producing Latin books could not compete with the foreign neighbours in terms of quality or price.26 As early as the first half of the fifteenth century Czech had acquired a status comparable, at least in part, with Latin. At that time, in the context of the reformist movement, there was a growing need to be understood by the Czech population, including the clergy, who often had no, or only poor, command of Latin. The whole Bible was translated into Czech several times (by the end of the fifteenth century there were four translations  – the fourth printed in 1488 and again in 1489).27 Besides the Bible, a number of Latin works were translated into Czech from the mid-fourteenth century, usable for both preaching and reading aloud or silently. Czech became the tool of religious polemic and reform and was also used in the liturgy. The turn of the sixteenth century then brought about, in addition to the  reception of e­ arlier translations (copied ot disseminated in  print), a number of new translations of texts earlier translated into Czech with others newly translated, particularly translations of Humanist Latin works. The patrons, translators, and printers were naturally receptive to the trends, including older widely-received works (Guido de Colonna’s Historia destructionis Troiae, Pseudo-Burley’s De vita et moribus philosophorum, Jacobus de Voragine’s Legenda aurea, Vitaspatrum), alongside the latest publications (works of Erasmus). It is easier to see at the turn of the sixteenth century than in the previous period the literary patronage and the translating (or more broadly, literary) activities of individuals who are no longer hidden under a veil of anonymity as they largely were a century earlier. In addition, original Latin literature was read, primarily poetry consciously echoing classical Latin metrical forms. One cannot identify a single common tendency even in the vernacularization process. This is caused by the marked decentralization and subjectivization of literary activities, which are on the one hand related to the development of literacy and, on the other, related to the denominational demands seeking support that was transmitted in writing and not orally. Řehoř was no cloistered intellectual. We find Latin incunabula that he translated into Czech in libraries of his contemporaries. Furthermore, the For detailed studies of the history of Bohemian print production and literary life around 1500 see studies and books by P.  Voit, cf.  e.g. Voit, Český knihtisk mezi pozdní gotikou a renesancí, i; Voit, ‘Mikuláš Konáč z Hodíškova’. 27  For translations of the Bible and biblical books into Old Czech, see Sichálek, ‘European Background’. 26 

214 Jakub Sichálek

works of Erasmus of Rotterdam were received by Catholics, Utraquists, as well as by followers of the Unity of the Brethren. Thus, the interest in Řehoř was not exceptional. The number of his translations is remarkable as is the fact that he made with them integrated manuscript collections and dedicated them to prominent personalities, including the ruler, and important institutions. From the perspective of diachronic linguistics and history of Czech, the turn of the sixteenth century is a transient period between old and new Czech or Hussite (post-Hussite) Czech and Humanist Czech.28 No attention has yet been given to the language of Řehoř Hrubý of Jelení and the language of his translation of Vitaspatrum. Řehoř’s Translation of Vitaspatrum Most probably Řehoř translated Vitaspatrum to commission: two extant manuscripts of his translation have a dedicatory preface penned by him, which will receive attention later. The translation was made before 1512 because in his comments on the translation of The Praise of Folly Řehoř mentions that he had already translated Vitaspatrum.29 In one of the extant manuscripts of Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum the year 1508 is given in the explicit as the date of the translation.30 We have no reason not to accept this date. The Manuscript Transmission Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum is transmitted in three manuscripts, all from the second decade of the sixteeth century:

Cf. esp. Vykypělová, Wege zum Neutschechischen, esp. pp. 35–55; for the characteristics of Czech of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Šlosar and others, Spisovný jazyk v dějinách české společnosti, pp. 63–90; Vintr, Das Tschechische, pp. 155–66. 29  Prague, NKČR, MS  XVII D 38, fol.  496r. Cf.  Truhlář, Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava II., p. 177, no. 4; and Pražák, ‘Místo Řehoře Hrubého ve vývoji českého humanismu’, p. 46, and Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení, pp. 15–16 (the latter misdating the translation of Moriae encomium to 1510/11, and of Řehoř’s Vitaspatrum to before 1510; see also following). Hejnic, ‘Erasmus Rotterdamský a české země v druhém desetiletí 16. století’, p. 214; Kolár, ‘Erasmovské recepce v české literatuře předbělohorské doby’, p. 238; Neškudla, ‘Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení a takzvaný národní humanismus’, p. 739 – place the translation of the Moria after 1513. 30  Prague, Strahov, MS  DB II 3, fol.  296rb. On this manuscript see Flajšhans, ‘Z  knihovny Strahovské’, p. 333; Smetánka, ‘O staročeských Životech sv. Otců’, p. 96; Mágr, ‘K rukopisům povídky o Barlaamu a Josafatovi’, p. 103. 28 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 215

1. Prague, Královská kanonie premonstrátů na Strahově (Royal Canonry of Premonstratensians at Strahov), MS DB II 3, paper, 338 fols; former provenance of the manuscript is unknown; according to a colophon on fol.  296rb, the translation was finished on Saint Clement’s Day [23 November] 1508, which provides a clear terminus post quem for the drafting of the copy; the manuscript is written in two columns, the text is decorated simply; in some folios, in particular in the beginning of the manuscript, the paper is physically damaged, crumbled, etc.31 The entire manuscript is written in Czech and by a single scribe (not Řehoř). In addition to Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum (fols 1ra–296rb), the manuscript contains (fols  296rb–334vb) the later-fourteenth century Czech translation by Thomas of Štítné of the Legend of Barlaam and Josaphat, and (fols  335ra–36va) an index and table of contents;32 the manuscript coincidence of Vitaspatrum and Barlaam and Josaphat evidenced in this manuscript is common.33 This Codex is an intentionally composed whole. It brings together two extensive popular texts with shared monastic and ascetic interests, and a shared interest specifically in the ideals of early monasticism. The association of Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum with the older translation of Barlaam and Josaphat in modernized language was made independently of Řehoř Hrubý of Jelení; Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum included in this manuscript is a copy, though the text was copied with Řehoř’s dedicatory preface. 2. Prague, NKČR, MS XVII C 19, paper, 289 fols, of south Bohemian provenance, was most likely in the possession of the Třeboň monastery, from where it went to the Krumlov Jesuit College (it was owned by the College in the eighteenth century as evidenced by a note on fol. 1r).34 This manuscript contains only the Czech translation of Vitaspatrum,

See also the description of this manuscript, and digital version, on [accessed on 10 June 2015]. 32  Thomas of Štítné (c. 1331/5–c 1401/9) was a layman who composed (i.e. translated and compiled) in Czech Latin theological and catechetical works. For more details see Rychterová and Sichálek, ‘Lost and Found in Translation’. 33  On their co-existence in later Medieval Latin, French, and German manuscripts, see Klein, ‘Frühchristliche Eremiten im Spätmittelalter und in der Reformationszeit’, p. 688; Grossel, ‘Le roman de Barlaam et Josaphat et les translations romanes des Vitae Patrum’; Kössinger, ‘Barlaam und Josaphat deutsch’. 34  Cf. Truhlář, Katalog českých rukopisů c. k. veřejné a univerzitní knihovny, p. 37, no. 97. See also the description of this manuscript, with digital version, on [accessed on 13 December 2015]. 31 

216 Jakub Sichálek

imperfect. An inscription on fol.  289v indicates that the manuscript was finished on Friday before the second Sunday in Lent [22 February] 1516. The manuscript presently wants the first, longest part, though since it begins with the second book (or ‘part’ – pars); the possibility exists, as happens with other long works, that the four parts were divided into two for purposes of binding (no such copy of part One has so far come to light). The manuscript is written in two columns, only fol. 1r is decorated with a colored initial with the decoration. 3. Prague, NKČR, MS XVII A 2, parchment, 365 fols, contains only the Czech translation of Vitaspatrum (according to a note on fol. 365va, the manuscript was completed on Saint Ludmila’s Day [15 September] 1516). The Codex is lavishly decorated with 428 pictures.35 Its patron was a Czech noble, High Chancellor of the Kingdom of Bohemia, Ladislav of Šternberk. It is likely that the patron dedicated it as a gift to a Franciscan convent.36 The title page features a full-page illumination, the stigmatization of Saint Francis, conceived as a votive image, and ascribed to the so-called Master of the Litoměřice Gradual; in the right corner of the picture is the Šternberk family coat of arms, on the left a depiction of the kneeling patron. These surviving manuscripts of Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum contain an identical text, with typical scribal variants.37 None can be regarded as Řehoř’s autograph or, probably, even a protograph.38 No direct filiation can be identified in them. They were written soon after the translation and date to about the same time. All three were evidently written after the death of Řehoř, i.e. after 1514 (the two paper manuscripts MSS DB II 3 and XVII C 19 could possibly See also the description of this manuscript, with digital version, on [accessed on 10 June 2015]. 36  Hejnová, ‘Životy svatých otců a Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení’. Cf. Truhlář, Katalog českých rukopisů c. k. veřejné a univerzitní knihovny, p. 2, no. 2; Urbánková, Rukopisy a vzácné tisky pražské Universitní knihovny, pp.  22–23. The preface addresses the patron, Count Šternberk, as a strong supporter and ‘great lover of the brethren of the order of Saint Francis and other monastic orders’ (Prague, NKČR, MS XVII A 2, fol. 1ra). 37  Previously, MS XVII A 2 and MS XVII C 19 were considered Řehoř’s autographs; but the two manuscripts differ paleographically, orthographically, in marking punctuation, and linguistically (morphologically). The two manuscripts also differ in these respects from the autographs of Řehoř. 38  For this term see Lixačev, Тěkstologija: na matěriale russkoj litěratury X.‒XVII. vv.; Lixačev, Těkstologija: kratkij očerk, p. 28: ‘“Protograph” is a text to which a text being studied relates directly or through a few copies.’ 35 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 217

be dated more precisely from the watermarks of the paper used for each). This tells us that the Czech text of Vitaspatrum was a subject of immediate interest, and may have developed in ways Řehoř’ could not have envisaged.39 The Genesis of the Translation Řehoř’s translation is not related to the Old Czech translation of Vitaspatrum, which is roughly a century earlier, although its manuscripts were still in circulation at the end of the fifteenth century. There was interest in the text of Vitaspatrum, but clearly the circles for which Řehoř translated Vitaspatrum and which could not/did not wish to use the Latin text were not aware of any earlier translation.40 Řehoř translated from some Latin incunable or old printed version of Vitaspatrum, of which a great many were published in Europe, beginning with a Nürnberg print of Anton Koberger (Koburger) from 1478.41 The text ­corpus of Vitaspatrum is divided in these prints into four parts, the most extensive being pars prima and the shortest pars tertia, with an addendum following pars quarta and titled Opusculum de virtutum laude et effectu (in Řehoř’s translation: Essay on the Virtues and their Acts or Effects). The division into four parts is reflected exactly in Řehoř’s translation. In addition, Latin

Unsurprising in a text widely received in the German-speaking area. For a parallel, see the Czech compilation Řeči a naučení pohanských mudrců (extant in four manuscripts from early sixteenth century), largely based on Petrarch’s De remediis utriusque fortunae (Nedvědová, ‘Ediční poznámka’, pp. 170–71; cf. Pelán, ‘Petrarkův spis “De remediis” a jeho česká recepce’). Unlike the Czech translation of Vitaspatrum, the manuscript reception of the Řeči was soon complemented by its print dissemination. 40  Similarly, the Latin Vitaspatrum and vernacular adaptations often appear in early prints in the neighbouring countries, both adapted and copied. Cf. e.g. Brückner, ‘Das alternative Väterleben’; Kunze and others, ‘Information und innere Formung’. 41  Vitaspatrum printed by Koberger, Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Digitale Bibliothek, Rar. 464; cf.  Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, M50876, online: [accessed on 10 June 2015] (this print is digitalized on: [accessed on 10 June 2015]). SchulzFlügel, ‘Praefatio’, p.  231. Much fuller information is needed about early prints of the Vitaspatrum in Czech libraries. There is no central register of Latin non-Bohemian prints kept in Czech libraries. (At any rate, no Latin print of Vitaspatrum was published at that time in the Czech Lands.) The catalogues of incunabula of the largest Czech collections (e.g. Šimáková, Vrchotka and others, Katalog prvotisků, pp.  205–06; Voit, Katalog prvotisků, pp.  779–81) include a number of incunabular copies of Latin Vitaspatrum. Bindings or marginal notes show that some were in Bohemia by the turn of the sixteenth century. 39 

218 Jakub Sichálek

prints sometimes contain indexes. One of the Czech manuscripts of Řehoř’s version contains one but it is not certain whether it was penned by Řehoř.42 Comparison even of the title of the final part of the Latin source text (Opusculum de virtutum laude et effectu) with the rendering by Řehoř (Essay about the virtues and their acts or effects) shows that Řehoř concentrated on the comprehensibility of the translation, did not translate word for word and resorted to paraphases to convey well the range of meaning of the Latin terms according to his knowledge and the degree of certainty he felt. This tendency can be traced in other translations by Řehoř who seldom settles for a literal translation. Řehoř does not knowingly deviate from the Latin source text of Vitaspatrum, nor paraphrase the source text, nor conflate it with other texts; on the contrary, he follows the Latin source text faithfully in terms of composition and content but does not approach it mechanically and does not translate it word for word. Only exceptionally does Řehoř insert into a translation his own comments and explanatory notes. These are not differentiated from the source texts in the extant manuscripts, graphically or otherwise (e.g. by an introductory sentence):43 Vitaspatrum, Koberger, 1478, fol. CIIIIv

MS DB II 3, fol. 126va MS XVII A 2, fol. 156ra (MS XVII C 19 wants this passage, because the manuscript contains an incomplete text of Vitaspatrum, as mentioned above)

Incipit prefatio in vitam sancti Johannis Eleymonis episcopi Alexandrini: alias Elemosinarii appellati.

Here begins the Preface to the Life of Saint John Eleymon, Patriarch of Alexandria, who is also known as Elemosinarius, that is John the Almsgiver or John the Merciful, whose body was sent by the Turkish Sultan to the Hungarians, who venerate it greatly and believe that the prosperity of their land depends on the host of Saint John’s good deeds worthy of God’s reward.

Prague, Strahov, MS DB II 3, fols 335ra–36va. In all quotations from Latin and Czech abbreviations are silently expanded; capitalization and punctuation is modern.

42  43 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 219

The need to maintain the content of the text on a par with the reader’s information grounding, for example by explaning the meanings of Greek or Latin names, appears in other translations by Řehoř. In the incipit to the third part of Vitaspatrum, in keeping with the drive to provide information or teaching that we find in most of his texts, Řehoř adds information about the author of the source material. Vitaspatrum, Koberger, 1478, fol. CCXIv

MS DB II 3, fol. 260rb

Incipit tercia pars libri Vitaspatrum, videlicet de regula vel conversatione Egyptiorum monachorum et eorum qui degunt apud Palestinam vel Mesopothamiam.

Here begins the third part of the books about the lives of the Holy Fathers, namely the life styles and the deeds of the Egyptian monks and those who inhabit Palestine or Mesopotamia.

MS XVII A 2, fol. 321va MS XVII C 19, fol. 212ra Here begins the third part of the books about the lives of the Holy Fathers, namely the life styles and the deeds of the Egyptian monks and those who inhabit Palestine or Mesopotamia. The author of the following part is a famous man, Sulpicius Severus, who was learned, had a good command of cultivated Latin and wrote in an elegant style about the life of Saint Martin in a very fine book. He wrote other things for the benefit and use of the Church.

These two examples of augmentation may be pointing in different directions. The first probably originates with Řehoř. The second could have originated (most probably did?) with the exemplar of A 2 and C 19, in which case DB II 3, matching the Latin, better reflects Řehoř’s original translation. The scribe of the exemplar could have then added the note. Or Řehoř himself did it, as an instance of second thoughts. That this latter assumption is probably correct – that Řehoř revised for another reader his text, probably originally written for the Utraquist priest Jíra − is confirmed by an analysis of the translator’s preface. This is contained in MS XVII A 2 and MS DB II 3 (MS XVII C 19 lacks the preface). Řehoř’s Preface to the Translation of Vitaspatrum The translator’s preface has survived in two different, substantially modified versions which provide much information about the addressees for whom Řehoř intended his translation, and about the author’s political and religious

220 Jakub Sichálek

convictions and their propagation: MS DB II 3 was dedicated to Jíra, an Utraquist priest from the ranks of the well-to-do clergy, and MS XVII A 2 was dedicated to Count Šternberk, High Chancellor of the Kingdom of Bohemia. The mention of Erasmus and Pontanus in the preface to MS XVII A 2, and the absence of those names in the preface to MS DB II 3 supports the assumption that the preface addressed to Count Šternberk (MS XVII A 2) is later, dating from around 1512,44 and that it was created by rewriting the preface addressed to Jíra (MS DB II 3), evidently written soon after 1508, when Řehoř finished the translation of Vitaspatrum. Yet we cannot decide with certainty whether Řehoř translated on the initiative of this Utraquist priest and only later used the translation for Count Šternberk, or whether he started the translation knowing that he would dedicate it to both addressees after it was finished, to both denominational groups, or whether its genesis was in fact different.45 At any rate, it is necessary to credit the preface to MS DB II 3 with primacy as this is in keeping with Řehoř’s creed, and as it clearly follows from the amplifications in MS XVII A 2, e.g.: 1. We […] live among people and […] (MS DB II 3) We  […] live among people and associate with them and  […] (MS XVII A 2) 2. […] to be good in town […] […] to be good according to Christian goodness in town […] 3. Woe to us […] Woe to the multitude of us […] 4. […] Christian teachers write. […] Christian teachers write with ultimate truth and exquisitely embroidered loquacity. 5. […] to scarlet. […] to the purest and best scarlet. 6. This […] can be seen in these books […] This […] can be seen or founds in these books […]46

This is when Řehoř translated Erasmus’s Moria and it is the first attested reception of Erasmus in Bohemia. 45  Earlier scholars associated Řehoř’s Vitaspatrum exclusively with Count Šternberk. MS  XVII A 2 dedicated to Šternberk contains in the preface and the text of Vitaspatrum several linguistic corruptions while MS  DB II 3 offers what is clearly a more correct and original reading. 46  1.) […] mezi lidmi […] bydlejíce (MS DB II 3) × […] mezi lidmi […] bydlejíce a s nimi obcujíce (MS XVII A 2); 2.) […] býti dokonale dobrým v městě […] × […] býti dokonale dobrým vedlé 44 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 221

These amplifications, motivated stylistically by a desire for greater clarity of the message, cannot have originated with a scribe other than Řehoř himself, because in the text of the translation of Vitaspatrum in MS XVII A 2 such amplification does not appear. I consider both prefaces authentic compositions of Řehoř. Strikingly, Řehoř names himself in the preface in MS XVII A 2, which is more formal (given the addressee’s social standing) and features typical dedicatory turns of phrase: To a very mighty Lord of noble rank, Ladislav of Šternberk and at Bechyně, High Chancellor of the Kingdom of Bohemia, Řehoř Hrubý of  Jelení reports for service and wishes him every happiness! (MS XVII A 2, fol. 1ra)47

The preface to MS DB II 3 is conceived less formally, Řehoř is not directly named here although the writer’s person is highlighted as against MS XVII A 2 (I italicize the significant passage): Here you have, Priest Jíra, a virtuous man especially dear to me in the Lord, Lives of the Holy Fathers, flower, fruit, and fragrance of the First Holy Church, the most illustrious men living in sainthood. I would like to formulate in this place, with regard to myself and to those who are like myself, the following […] (MS DB II 3, fol. 1ra)48

An almost identical passage appears in MS XVII A 2, fol. 1ra (I italicize the different content): For in it [i.e. in this book] you have, Your Grace, máte Vaše Milosti, Lives of the Holy Fathers, flower, fruit, and fragrance of the First Holy Church, the most illustrious men living in sainthood. I  would like to formulate in this place, with regard to myself and to the present-day Christians, the following […]49

dobroty křesťanské […]; 3.) Ach, běda nám bude […] × Ach, běda nám mnohým bude […]; 4.) […] učitelé křesťanští píší. × […] učitelé křesťanští píší s velikú pravdú a výmluvností náramně ozdobnú. 5.) […] k šarlatu. × […] k najčiščiemu a najlepšiemu šarlatu. 6.) To […] muože viděno býti v těchto kniehách […] × To […] muože viděno býti nebo shledáno v těchto kniehách […]. 47  ‘Vysoce urozenému a mnoho mocnému pánu, panu Ladslavovi z Šternberka a na Bechyni, najvyšiemu královstvie Českého kancléři, Řehoř Hrubý z Jelenie, službu svú s žádostí všeho dobrého vzkazuje!’   The phrase report for service (‘službu vzkazovat’) used in the dedication is a common general polite formula frequent in the contemporary correspondence and it does not mean anything like ‘confirmation of the completion of an order’, as some might misunderstand it. 48  ‘Teď máš, kněže Jíro, ctný a mně v Pánu Bohu zvláště milý, Otcuov svatých životy, nébrž oné prvnie cierkve svaté květ, ovoce a vuoni, totiž v svatosti pokojné muže najznamenitějšie. Líbí mi se tuto hledě k sobě a k podobným mně takto mluviti[…]’. 49  ‘Neb v nich máte, Vaše Milost, pane milostivý, Otcuov svatých životy, nébrž oné prvnie Cierkve svaté květ, ovoce a vuoni, totiž v svatosti pokojné muže najznamenitějšie. Líbí mi se tuto hledě k sobě a k nynějším křesťanóm takto mluviti[…]’.

222 Jakub Sichálek

We can therefore conclude that in the case of MS XVII A 2 Řehoř edited his earlier translation and inserted new material, all this in view of the addressee of the collection. This approach bears witness to Řehoř’s interest in the resulting text: Řehoř devoted more attention to his translation than he claims in the preface. The Ideology of the Translation In the preface Řehoř describes directly his translating method and the circumstances in which this translation was made: I translated the sense rather than the words and this is done in the same way by the best translators. If I blundered somewhere and made an elementary mistake, I beg the learned Czechs to forgive me such errors and my insufficiency, particularly when they learn that I translated this rather extensive book quickly in a short time. It is Quintilian who says of such hurried translations that ‘one who translates hurriedly cannot translate well but it can be a good hurried work’. Also, in places the original Latin was far from good, clumsy and discordant, and therefore the Czech translation cannot be, as would be fitting, good, let alone ornate, seeing that I rushed the work (MS DB II 3, fol. 1ra; MS XVII A 2, fol. 1rb)50

This passage is interesting for a number of reasons. It starts from the traditional dichotomy between translating verbum e verbo (‘word-for-word principle’) versus sensum de sensu (‘sense-for-sense principle’), which had been known from the deliberations of Cicero or Horace, and later of Jerome or Boethius.51 Therefore, Řehoř tends, like Všehrd, to translate according to sense.52 It also uses the modesty topos: Řehoř’s expressed humilitas features ‘O tomto pak mém přeložení toto pravím, že sem v něm mnohem viece hleděl smyslu nežli slov; a to i najdospělejší činievají překladači. Pad-li sem pak kde, třebas i dětinsky, nechť mi učení Čechové odpustie, toto při tom a mú nedospělost vědúce, že sem tyto dosti veliké kniehy v krátkém času spěšně přeložil. O kterémž přeložení spěšném toto Quintilianus smyslí: že spěšně překládaje nemuože žádný právě dobře přeložiti, avšak dobré to přeloženie muože býti vedlé té spěšnosti. A také někde z latiny nedobré, nébrž z jakés nemotorné kobčiny dobrá, totiž dobře a pořádně zpravená, nemohla udělána býti, zvláště v tak krátkém času, čeština, nadto pak ozdobná.’ 51  Všehrd characterizes similarly the optimum rendition of the source text, citing Horace and Jerome, in the preface to his translation of Chrysostom (cf.  Kopecký, Český humanismus, p. 51). See also Schwarz, Schriften; Copeland, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics and Translation. 52  In the preface to the translation of Erasmus Řehoř also explains, ‘In this translation of mine I endeavour to interpret its sense or meaning rather than the words and their astute, skilful and ornate sequence’ (Prague, NKČR, MS XVII D 38, fol. 127vb). 50 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 223

regularly in translators’ prologues and it is repeated in prefaces to his other translations. Then, there is a somewhat surprising (and, as yet, unsourced) quotation that Řehoř ascribes to Quintilian. Reference to ‘a translation made quickly in next to no time’ is also found in the preface to Řehoř’s translation of Petrarch (printed in 1501). Lastly, the Czech, which I have translated ‘clumsy and discordant’ to describe the language of the Latin source, is a very vivid expression; Řehoř speaks of nemotorná kobčina (koba means ‘raven’, so that nemotorná kobčina can be translated as ‘ponderous croaking of raven/ cacophonous croaking’). This suggests a general Humanist contempt for non-classical Latin because of its inferior auditory quality.53 It also suggests that for Řehoř a Latin text exists principally as/to be read aloud. The picture suggested by these details has ample confirmation in footnotes to the printed editions and if we confront the cited passage from Řehoř’s preface with his other texts, we will find more motif connections as follows from the parallels added in the footnotes and his work on the translation of Erasmus’s Moria. As for the translating methods and techniques, Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum essentially corresponds to his other translations. Řehoř focused on the readers − more, for example, than Viktorin of Všehrdy.54 He even added notes to some of his translations to instruct the readers, how to come to terms with their literary structure, how to understand irony, and the like.55 He also advised readers on the actual reading since he was aware that the correct interpretation of the text depended on accurate reading of it (he also spoke of a reader’s ‘contemplation’ of the text). He used and explained a special system of signs used to mark passages and help the readers to understand it; lastly, he described explicitly the intentions of the translator of the text. Řehoř’s autographs as a rule distinguished his additions from the translated text. In brief, Řehoř endeavoured to form a readers’ community to guarantee an appropriate reception of his translations.56 In the preface to Vitaspatrum − evidently in response to the different religious situations of the two addressees of his translation − Řehoř concentrated on adapting the material to their wants.

Řehoř characterizes the Latin of the ‘Thomists and Scottists’ in the commentary on his translation of Erasmus’s Moria in the same terms (MS XVII D 38, fol. 491vb). 54  Compare the above examples of augmentation of the Vitaspatrum. 55  This applies to particularly to works such as Erasmus’s Encomia, Pontanus’s Charon, and Valla’s Declamatio. 56  For further comment on this point than is here possible, see Neškudla,’ Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení a takzvaný národní humanismus’, pp. 737–38. 53 

224 Jakub Sichálek

Most of the extant manuscripts of Řehoř’s translations, we do not know, to what extent we can regard them as final or authorized texts.57 For example, two autograph copies of the one translation, of Cicero’s Laelius, exist, a small-format MS XVII H 13 in one column, a much larger and more carefully written MS XVII D 38 in two columns, but no one has compared the two versions of this text to determine their relations. Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum provides compelling evidence that he revised his translation for the new addressee. We are unable to offer any characterization of Řehoř’s translation work valid en général.58 Externally and internally, the works of Řehoř represent a relatively disparate set: autographs, prints, unauthorized copies, individual translations, text files, translations with annotations, commentaries, prefaces, or translations without such para-textual additions; Latin names in them are sometimes translated consistently and sometimes not. As for Řehoř’s translating skills, M. Kopecký notes perceptively that Řehoř ‘has a sense for stylistic dynamics he accomplishes not only by abridging long compound sentences but sometimes also with interrogative sentences or clauses of exclamation where in the original there are [verbs in the] indicative’.59 The Ideology of the Preface It seems surprising that Utraquist Řehoř Hrubý of  Jelení dedicated his translation of Vitaspatrum to an Utraquist priest and a Catholic nobleman, the latter moreover patron of an Order, the Franciscan Observants, who were as a rule sharply criticized by Řehoř’s Utraquist contemporaries (e.g. Václav Suggest cutting Luther, when he was not pressed for time, prepared his documents (educational, polemics, letters, etc.) thoroughly (draft, fair copy respecting a carefully arranged structure, see Wolf, Martin Luther, pp. 112–13. Cf. also below in footnote 74 a mention of extant autographs of translations of H. Haller. 58  Cf. Straka, ‘Jos. Kramář: Překlad Ciceronova Laelia, pořízený od Řehoře Hrubého z Jelení’; Fluss, ‘Zur alttschechischen Cicero-Übersetzung des Řehoř Hrubý von Jelení’; Pražák, ‘Místo Řehoře Hrubého ve vývoji českého humanismu’, pp.  40–42; Pražák, Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení, pp. 79–81; Kopecký, ‘Emil Pražák, “Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení”’, p. 171; Kolár, ‘Překlad Řehoře Hrubého z  Erasmových Adagií’. The latest scholar who attempted to characterize Řehoř’s translating method was Neškudla,’Řehoř Hrubý z  Jelení a takzvaný národní humanismus’, p. 746. Cf. also Hanuš, ‘Hr. Hanuš besprach diesmal…’, pp. 97–98; Levý, České teorie překladu, p. 24, versus Kopecký, Literární dílo Mikuláše Konáče z Hodiškova, p. 187. A deeper inductive analysis is still needed. 59  Kopecký, ‘Emil Pražák, “Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení”’, p. 172.

57 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 225

Koranda). We know that Řehoř was a tolerant Utraquist and the religious climate in Bohemia at the turn of the sixteenth century was very favourable to such tolerance. Moreover, the Bechyně Observant monastery for which Šternberk had evidently commissioned the manuscript was Czech.60 Yet we may wonder whether and how the double dedication of the translation was reflected in the content of the preface. In the preface addressed both to priest Jíra (MS DB II 3) and to the Count Šternberk (MS XVII A 2), it is shown from what positions the translator interpreted Vitaspatrum and how he read it. In MS DB II 3 Řehoř presents himself as on a social and religious level with Jíra, since, like Řehoř, he was an upholder of the Utraquist creed.61 On the other hand, Count Šternberk was both a high-ranking nobleman and a Catholic; what was in place when addressing Jíra and ‘those who are like myself ’, would have been quite out of place in a dedicatory preface for Šternberk, in social and denominational terms. This is why the preface of the Šternberk version addresses ‘all contemporary Christians’. Both prefaces make much of a comparison between the spiritual life of the Desert Fathers, and the spiritual efforts of their present ‘very last followers, bad, wretched, and weak’. According to Řehoř, the Holy Fathers proved their virtues by living in the desert. They were ‘God’s knights’. Ruined by town life, we cannot ever imitate them. Since we sinners live surrounded by sinners, we are unable to practise the true Christian virtues, to achieve the perfection of the Desert Fathers. They lived in the desert as they found it impossible to live a true Christian life in towns. The town is a place of earthly delights and temptations. ‘If we do not try to change this situation’, says Řehoř, ‘then woe to us!’ This first-person plural reference, frequently used by Řehoř, is itself ambivalent (in the one manuscript it conveys the meaning ‘Utraquists’, in the other, ‘present-day Christians’), even though comparison between the current situation and that of early Christianity remains identical in both prefaces. But within this basic structure different denominational and ideological motifs appear, particularly significant when Řehoř turns his attention to present-day monastic observance.

On this point, see also Neškudla, ‘Obtíže přechodu od rukopisu k tištěné knize na příkladu díla Řehoře Hrubého z Jelení’, p. 7. 61  I understand Řehoř’s formulation ‘those who are like myself ’ (k podobným mně) as ‘those who share my beliefs’ not ‘those who share my sinfulness’. 60 

226 Jakub Sichálek

Řehoř first warns the reader of both prefaces not to judge according to the practices of current monastic orders the former holy monks of the early ‘holy and golden church’: Prague, Strahov, MS DB II 3, fol. 1rb

Prague, NKČR, MS XVII A 2, fol. 1rb–va

In those days there was not as much iniquity among the Christians and particularly among the monks as today and no one protested against Christ’s holy blood being passed to laymen in a chalice, whereas today’s monks refuse this blasphemously. In those days all laymen received reverentially Christ’s body and blood, yea, those holy monks did this more often than others because they were closer to perfection in spiritual terms. And this lay holy Communion in both kinds appears in many passages in this book.62

In those days there was not among the Christians and particularly among the monks and hermits so much transgression or weakening – I do not want to say outright deviation from the right path by means of diverse myths and superstitions – as appears in spiritual matters today, which many of the early Christian teachers and many of today’s scholars, such as Erasmus and Pontanus and others condemn and reject rightly.63

In MS  DB II 3, whose preface particularly endorses lay communion under both kinds, the relevant passages mentioning the communion are ­rubricated. In the place of this Utraquist understanding the preface to MS XVII A 2 offers an understanding compatible with Catholicism as enunciated by modern reform-minded thinkers like Erasmus and Pontanus, allowing more ­traditional Catholic readers to conclude it is criticising the ‘diverse myths and supers­ titions’ of the Reformers. At the same time, it could also be supporting an attack on present-day monks and hermits, and the ceremonies and superstitions of their Church.64 62  ‘Nebylo jest ještě tehdaž takového mezi křesťany, a zvláště mezi mnichy, jakéž jest již nynie, lotrovstvie, ani sou se krvi Kristově posvátné, lajkóm z kalicha rozdávané, protivili, jako to rouhavě činie nynější mnišie. Neb sou všickni tehdaž ještě lajkové pod obojí zpuosobou tělo a krev Kristovu posvátně přijímali – a tito svatí mnišie častějie nežli jiní to činievali jakožto dokonalejší. A to pod obojí zpuosobou lajkóv přijímanie té velebné svátosti světle se na mnohých miestech v těchto knihách okazuje.’ 63  ‘Nebylo ještě tehdaž takového mezi křesťany, a zvláště mezi mnichy a pústeníky, jakéz se již nalézá nynie v věcech křesťanských, buďto porušenie, buďto oslabenie – nechci řieci zavedenie pobonky a pověrami mnohými. Kteréz i první učitelé křesťanští, i nynějšie mnozí učení, jako Erazmus a Pontanus i jiní hyzdie a právě hanějí.’ 64  Cf. the comment in the translation of Moria (Prague, NKČR, MS XVII D 38, fol. 472ra–b) on myths and superstitions in the Roman Church, ‘which they [Catholics] preserve in their false religion at the instigation of their blind clerics; […] so that the priests can then live in […] wealth and pleasure’. Řehoř then recalls the Czech Utraquist authors who similarly criticized superstitions and false creeds.

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 227

After this brief divergence the two prefaces rejoin: in both we learn that ‘in those days almost all the monks were laymen whereas today, most of them are priests’. It is priesthood, then, implicitly, which is the reason for the monks’ depravity.65 Apart from ordination, another reason for the corruption of the monks is their devotion to worldly life. Unlike their holy predecessors they live in towns enjoying gluttony and other opulence and yet they don’t know when they are well off, and run away from the monasteries. ‘Today’s monks are to the early monks like a rag to the loveliest royal purple and as excrement to nutmeg flower.’66 The criticism of worldly life of the contemporary Christians and in particular, the clergy, thus leads to a radical re-interpretation of the idea of God’s elect, which traditional Catholics, now as then, would find difficult to accept: one can call a monk anyone who leads a virtuous life; monastic regulations are not necessary; and ordination is harmful since the greatest depravity is found among priests. Řehoř’s need to dissociate the early Christian monks from the present institutions and membership of the Roman Church goes hand-in-hand with Utraquist criticism of the monks, in particular the Mendicants. Understandably, Řehoř places the emphasis on personal piety and not on privileged institutional status. His translation of Vitaspatrum has two functions: 1) historical, teaching about the lives of the early monks; 2) formative, stemming from the exemplary character of the early monks for today’s Christians. Instead of the two prefaces we could more accurately speak of two versions of one preface. Řehoř’s Ideology of Vitaspatrum in Historical Context Some central motifs in Řehoř’s preface can be found in older and contemporaneous Bohemian literature with a reformist charge. Characteristic is the negative image of the town. Pushed to its extreme by Petr Chelčický (d. c. 1460), an even more mysterious figure in Czech history than Řehoř, the

Only in Prague, NKČR, MS XVII A 2, fol. 1va, Řehoř weakens this reproach by adding: ‘I do not and cannot condemn it if they [these monks and priests] are orderly and good.’ (‘Ačkoli i toho nehyzdím ani hyzditi mohu, když sú řádní a dobří.’) 66  ‘Takž veď sou tito nynější [mniši] k  oněmno podobni jako lajno k  muškátovému květu, nebo jako mrzký tapart k šarlatu.’ 65 

228 Jakub Sichálek

town is a tool of Antichrist and controlled by him: the source and scene of all vices and mortal sins.67 However, Řehoř did not condemn the town so vehemently. He was aware of its temptations and he knew (like most of his contemporary Utraquist writers, for example, Jan Bechyňka, d.  c.  1507), that not even monks and priests are unable to resist these temptations.68 Rather, the ideal of the early Christian community was not associated with the town. By contrast, the efforts for a revival of the religious life and the desire to put it into practice in an ascetic form close to the ideal of evangelical poverty practised in the early church were associated with eremitic life which was alive in Bohemia right then, at the turn of the sixteenth century, and not only as a result of the arrival of the Minims (the Ordo Fratrum Minimorum). We also know from 1521 of temporary hermitages of Premonstratensians at the Strahov monastery in Prague.69 A number of hermitages are also documented in south Bohemian forests; they were inhabited by individuals or small communities professing the creed of the Minims, of Utraquism or of the non-conformist sect Unity of the Brethren.70 We know that the Minims were active in southern Bohemia as preachers and we have direct evidence that one of their communities possessed a modest library and a Czech text: Belial latine et bohemice (by Jakub de Theramo).71 Likewise, documented surnames like Hermit, Eremita, and the like may imply that some important individuals called for a return to the spirituality of the Fathers and led, at least for a certain period, ascetic and hermitic lives as the Fathers had done. It is a striking characteristic of the German lands how the reception of Vitaspatrum, especially in vernacular translations and versions, disentangles itself in the Late Middle Ages from the monastic milieu and reaches the lay public through preaching and other forms of catechesis, as well as book dissemination.72 In some cases, the translation is addressed directly to the religious lay community.73 The 1467 translation of Vitaspatrum by the Austrian Carthusian Heinrich Haller (d.  1487/8) was originally intended for

See Šmahel, ‘Antiideál města v díle Petra Chelčického’. Bechyňka, ‘Praga mistica’, ed. by Rejchrtová, pp. 41–42. 69  Flegl, ‘Skalní poustevny ve Strahovské zahradě’. 70  Fröhlich, ‘Poustevníci a poustevny na jihu Čech’; Mihola, ‘Poustevníci versus reformace’. 71  Truhlář, ‘K dějinám poustevníků na Výtoně’, p. 322. 72  Klein, ‘Frühchristliche Eremiten im Spätmittelalter und in der Reformationszeit’; Brückner, ‘Das alternative Väterleben’. 73  Staubach, ‘Reform aus der Tradition’, pp. 189–90. 67  68 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 229

lay brethren but copies can be found in the possession of some burghers and their wives, physicians, and aristocrats.74 The Czech reception of Řehoř’s translation appears at first sight different. The content of MS DB II 3 (Vitaspatrum and Barlaam and Josaphat) is closely related to the ideals of the early monasticism and the monastic tradition, but we do not know who ordered it and we know nothing about its provenance and ownership; the document noting its possession by the Premonstratensians of Strahov is of a later date. MS XVII C 19, it is thought, was once kept in south Bohemia (perhaps at the Augustinian monastery in Třeboň)75 in association with the south Bohemian noble Rožmberk family, whose members helped to bring the Minim order to Bohemia and became its patrons in their domain.76 MS XVII A 2 is dedicated to the supporter of the Franciscan Observant order. Are we to associate the Czech vernacular reception of Vitaspatrum exclusively with the monastic communities accenting a return to the early church and ascetic life? I do not think so. Řehoř certainly did not simply address, through the Utraquist priest Jíra, on whose initiative he evidently produced his translation, the monks or the reformed orders, but rather all Utraquist brothers and, more broadly, all Christians for whom the spiritual discipline of the early Christian hermits can be a model. Equally, Řehoř did not omit in his translation more exotic or erotic passages or miraculous elements. Concerning the miraculous moments in the stories about the lives of the Fathers, Řehoř stressed in the preface to Jíra the overall helpfulness and usefulness of other parts of the narrative. In the preface for Šternberk he highlighted the fact that a number of miracles are described in the Bible. And he added in both prefaces that, all that does not run contrary to the Christian faith and the Holy Scripture is acceptable. […] Yes, God always works miracles through His Saints, but He worked the most miracles when He founded and multiplied through the Apostles and all the Saints His Christian Church as we can see in this very book. (MS XVII A 2, fol. 1vb)77

Kunze and others, ‘Information und innere Formung’, p. 132. On Haller’s translations, see Bauer, ‘Einleitung’, pp. 70–71. 75  Truhlář, Katalog českých rukopisů c. k. veřejné a univerzitní knihovny, p. 37, no. 97. 76  Mihola, ‘Poustevníci versus reformace’, pp. 27–28. 77  ‘Mně tuto ani jinde, což proti vieře křesťanské a Písmuom svatým nenie, všecko jest snesitedlné. […] Jistě divný jest Buoh vždycky v svatých svých, ale tehdaž byl najdivnější, když jest skrze apoštoly a jiné svaté zakládal a rozmnožoval cierkev křesťanskú, jakož se to v těchto knihách vidí.’ 74 

230 Jakub Sichálek

Utraquist priest Jíra and other clergymen could also use the Czech translation of Vitaspatrum for preaching. MS DB II 3 contains at the beginning of the manuscript a number of rubricated passages and marginal glosses in red indicating a theme or motif treated there: Joy (‘Radost’, fol. 12va); Manycheus heretic (‘Manycheus kacíř’, fol. 15va); musician (‘fajfar’, fol. 18va); Magistrate (‘Rychtář’, fol. 19ra); Trader (‘Kupec’, fol. 19va); heretic (‘kacíř’, fol. 22vb); true faith (‘pravá víra’, fol. 23ra); (spiritual) weapons to use against Devils (‘výzbroj proti ďáblům’, fol. 23rb), etc.78 Ornately decorated MS XVII A 2 contains a number of illuminations of attractive moments from the stories: for example, on fol.  17r the introductory illumination is supplemented by the story of Abbot Ammon, ‘who killed a dragon and converted thieves to God’, along with a number of other dragons in the border; it contains no marginal notes or other alterations of the text. Here it seems as if the story is as important as any teaching a reader might draw from it. Conclusion Řehoř’s translation of Vitaspatrum was to serve and probably did serve for the spiritual education of the members of both denominations. To one Řehoř offered the Fathers as Holy predecessors of the Utraquist creed, to the other an example of the Holy life and moderate criticism of the profligate Church of the day, following the example of Erasmus of Rotterdam. The two confessional prefaces by Řehoř give a good account of the reasons why Vitaspatrum was one of the most frequently translated works of the Late Middle Ages. The dual dedication of the same text to both official denominations in the Kingdom of Bohemia was not an anomaly at the turn of the fifteenth century as might seem at first sight: Pasionál (Czech adaptation of the Latin Legenda aurea) was similarly disseminated in print in 1495 in two versions, one intended for the Catholics and the other for the Utraquists. The two versions differed in their unerstanding of the early Refomers Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague (the Catholic version wants references to both in the Index, and similarly lacks the added appendix on their life and martyrdom in the Utraquist version).79

The notes in the margin only appear on the first fifty folios. Kališnický Pasionál z roku 1495, ed.  by Tobolka; cf.  Kyas, ‘K staročeskému Passionálu’, p. 154; and also Boldan and others, The Reception of Antiquity in Bohemian Book Culture from the Beginning of Printing until 1547, pp. 97–98.

78  79 

Vernacular Vitaspatrum 231

Bestsellers like the vernacular adaptations of Legenda aurea or Vitaspatrum were received in Bohemia at the turn of the sixteenth century both by Catholic and Utraquist Parties; they were welcomed by both for their presumed historical validity, their dogmatic qualities (as an example for the present), and their religious and practical functions (in the parallel case of the Pasionál, functions of catechetis and spiritual formation) – as contemplative reading – in the case of Vitaspatrum and Pasionál. For that matter, a representative manuscript (Vitaspatrum, MS  XVII A 2) could have a symbolic function (a gift dedicated to a Franciscan convent in Bechyně). Recontextualization did not require rewriting of the text: adaptation of the Czech translation of Legenda aurea or Vitaspatrum to a dogmatic purpose, their ‘confessionalization’, did not consist in interventions in the text but in general passages that put the work into a relevant dogmatic context (Vitaspatrum), or involved additions on the macro-composition plane (Pasionál). In the first case a modern Humanist approach to the original drove the ­enterprise; in the other, the underlying reasons were economic.

THE NIKOLSBURG ANABAPTISTS AND THEIR GERMAN-LANGUAGE APOLOGIAS * Jiří Černý

The Reformation in Nikolsburg

I

n this article the literary activity of the Anabaptists on the territory of South Moravia during the sixteenth century will be analyzed. The Anabaptists were German-speaking religious refugees temporarily accepted by the landlords in the area and representing a specific religious community disconnected from the other communities in the area. The dynamic of their literary production was strongly influenced by their specific geo-political position. The character of the vernacular literary production of this group as well as the building of its textual network and the dynamic of its encounter with its environment stands at the centre of this study. Nikolsburg lay in a German-speaking area, on the border with, and in constant contact with, Lower Austria; the proportion of the German-speaking population in Moravia in the first half of the sixteenth century is estimated at 15 percent.1 The Liechtenstein family ruled over the Moravian castle and town of Nikolsburg/Mikulov from 1249.2 In 1524, both castle and town came under the joint administration of two lords, Leonhard I and his nephew Johannes VI. The family seats of the other two branches of the dynasty were Steyereck and Feldsberg/Valtice, both part of Austria at this

*   This work was supported by the student project IGA (no. FF_2013_088) of the Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic. 1  On the basis of his research into names, drawing in particular on the 1414 rent-roll, Ernst Schwarz did not hesitate to describe the town of Nikolsburg and its surroundings as being entirely German-speaking. Schwarz, Volkstumsgeschichte der Sudetenländer, ii, pp.  129–92, esp. p. 161; Boháč, ‘Národnostní poměry v zemích České koruny v době předhusitské a do třicetileté války’, p. 129. 2  I prefer the use of place names in German because it matches that in the pamphlets. In addition, these German versions seemed to be common in evangelical communities in South Moravia.

Pursuing a New Order, Volume II: Late Medieval Vernacularization and the Bohemian ­Reformation, ed. by Pavlína Rychterová with the collaboration of Julian Ecker TMT 17.2 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), pp. 233–263 © DOI 10.1484/M.TMT-EB.5.116604

FHG

234 Jiří Černý

time. The Liechtensteins were vassals of both Ferdinand of Habsburg and Louis of Jagiello. In 1525 the eldest member of the dynasty, Hartmann  I, swore fealty on behalf of the whole family to the Archduke of Austria and also to the King of Bohemia.3 Like most German-speaking regions in the country, Nikolsburg remained faithful to the old religion during the Hussite wars, and the Liechtenstein estates suffered considerable damage during the fifteenth century, which had still not been rectified by the early sixteenth century. And so the Liechtensteins were glad to accept the Anabaptists who fled there from Austria in the mid-1520s.4 In Moravia, relative religious freedom prevailed; the Moravian estates were in fact more religiously tolerant than in Bohemia. In the lands of the Bohemian crown, where two confessions (Catholic and Utraquist) were officially recognized, and where the Unity of Bohemian Brethren (Unitas Fratrum) was also active, the Reformation in the sixteenth century was not regarded as something completely new. The power of the Utraquist church was not as great in Moravia as in Bohemia, but by contrast the members of the Bohemian Brethren were of considerable importance. The Catholic Church had economic problems to deal with, and consequently was heavily dependent on the estates. The King was equally dependent on the estates, and so he could not punish them because of their faith, and even had to appoint non-Catholic members of the nobility to important offices. Moravia is therefore often seen as a ‘promised land’ for religious refugees.5 The preface to the first text written in Moravia in the community of Nikolsburg, the Entschuldigung (Apology) of Johannes Spittelmaier, the first known protestant preacher in Nikolsburg, indicates that the Liechtenstein lords had already inclined towards the evangelical faith before March 1524. In addition to Spittelmaier, who can be ranked among the supporters of Martin Luther, Oswald Glaidt was also active in the town; his views were at first influenced by Huldrich Zwingli. The elder of the two lords of the Nikolsburg castle was probably baptized in 1526 by the third

3  Falke, Geschichte des fürstlichen Hauses Liechtenstein, ii, pp. 3–50, pp. 80–81; Feyfar, Die erlauchten Herren auf Nikolsburg, pp. 31–77; Svoboda and others, Mikulov. 4  Pánek, ‘Moravští novokřtěnci’, p.  247; on the term Anabaptist see Diekmannshenke, Die Schlagwörter der Radikalen der Reformationszeit, pp.  323–31; Stayer, ‘Introduction’, pp. XVII–XVIII. 5  Pánek, ‘Moravští novokřtěnci’; Mezník, ‘Tolerance na Moravě v 16. století’, pp.  76–85; Macek, Víra a zbožnost jagellonského věku, pp. 385–416.

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 235

of our p­ reachers, Balthasar Hubmaier, a representative of the radical Reformation who had been driven out of Waldshut in Further Austria and persecuted by Ferdinand I. Hubmaier must have arrived in Nikolsburg in the early summer of 1526, and soon won over the other two preachers to his teachings. Together with him the printer Simprecht Sorg-Froschauer also settled in the town.6 While Spittelmaier’s work was still printed in Vienna, Sorg-­Froschauer printed two works by Glaidt and sixteen by Hubmaier.7 However, it remains slightly unclear how Hubmaier learned about Moravia. He was most probably informed about Nikolsburg by Spittelmaier, his former student in Ingolstadt, who may well have arranged for Hubmaier to be received by the secular authorities.8 Strategies of Identification I: We Germans The texts produced by the Nikolsburg Reformers were written exclusively in German. Sorg-Froschauer’s printing shop, which operated in Nikolsburg in 1526/7, was the only one in the territory of Bohemia and Moravia producing only German works. This does not mean that the preachers did not have a sufficient command of Latin; on the contrary, their writings show a good knowledge not only of Latin but also of Greek and Hebrew. Spittelmaier’s Entschuldigung,9 to start there, is responding to attacks by the Franciscan monks in neighbouring Feldsberg. Spittelmaier claims that he wants to defend himself in German, and that a Latin version of this German tract will then follow.10 By turning first to German, Spittelmaier showed

6  Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, pp. 398–435; Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, pp. 34–43; Zeman, The Anabaptists and the Czech Brethren in Moravia 1526– 1628, pp. 82–176; Möhl, ‘Die Herren von Liechtenstein und die Wiedertäufer in Mähren’, pp.  123–33; Rothkegel, ‘Von der Schönen Madonna zum Scheiterhaufen’; Rothkegel, ‘Anabaptism in Moravia and Silesia’, pp.  165–72; Glaidt, Hubmaier, Spittelmaier, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, pp. 129–53. 7  Zeman, The Anabaptists and the Czech Brethren in Moravia 1526–1628, p.  84; Voit, Encyklopedie knihy, i, p.  288, p.  591; Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed.  by Laube and others, pp. 766–67. 8  Rothkegel, ‘Von der Schönen Madonna zum Scheiterhaufen’, p. 61; Rothkegel, ‘Anabaptism in Moravia and Silesia’, p. 169. 9  Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, pp. 9–67. 10  Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 32.

236 Jiří Černý

his preference for this language, but treated Latin as being equally valid, since he promised a Latin follow-up text, which, however, seems to have never been published, for no copy of it is to be found anywhere. The Bible is paraphrased or quoted in German throughout, except when Spittelmaier addresses the Franciscans and threatens them with Isaiah 33.  1.11 In this case he used Latin with a German translation, most likely to emphasize the threat and to make it clear to readers that he was speaking to representatives of the Roman Church. Apart from these two sentences, Latin does not appear, but in his seventh article he explains the Greek term metanoeite, of which he says, ‘das ist nach vnser sprach oder zungen pessert euch’ (‘this means in our language or tongue “improve yourselves.”’).12 While Spittelmaier uses a Latin quotation when speaking to his opponents from the Roman camp, for his own supporters he provides, and explains, a Greek term. Thus the monks are addressed in the official language of the church of the old faith and branded as its representatives; the members of the Reformed camp, by contrast, have a Bible text in the original language interpreted for them.13 Although the pamphlet bears witness to a regional dispute, it was presumably intended for the broader German-speaking area. This would tally with the fact that the main text was addressed to all those who loved God’s Word. In the foreword, however, Spittelmaier specifies that the apologia is directed first of all to the Lords Leonhard and Hans of Liechtenstein and only then to all people who believe in Christ. At the end, he identifies himself with the congregation in Nikolsburg, saying that he has preached the Gospel and the articles contained in his pamphlet to the assembled faithful there, but that he wants to justify himself before all people.14 Spittelmaier thus in all probability was addressing the entire German-speaking public, and understood the Liechtensteins and the faithful in Nikolsburg as a prominent part of this group. However, the promised re-issuing of the pamphlet in Latin implies that Spittel-

Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 22. 12  Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 54. 13  The question remains to what extent Johannes Spittelmaier understood Hebrew, and whether in any case the printer would have been able to print the Hebrew version of Isaiah 33. 1. 14  Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, pp. 10–14, p. 66. 11 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 237

maier was also reckoning with other readers who did not feel that the original pamphlet was addressed to them because of the choice of the German language. The planned Latin version would have served to disseminate Spittelmaier’s ideas among the Czech-speaking public (although only among the educated people with a good knowledge of Latin). However, its main purpose would have been to make this southern Moravian dispute part of contemporary theological debate. Martin Luther, for example, acted in the same way when writing his letters. When writing to scholars, he used Latin, but otherwise he turned to German.15 Even before Hubmaier’s arrival in Moravia, Oswald Glaidt had compiled a report on a meeting of clergy and nobility with evangelical learnings, which took place in Austerlitz/Slavkov on 14 March 1526 (Handlung [Report on Disputation], foreword dated 29 March 1526). The report was written in German, but, according to Glaidt, the disputation took place in Latin, and its results were also recorded in Latin.16 The adjective evangelisch (‘evangelical’) is used only in the foreword, as a generic term both for the Behem (‘Bohemians’) or behaimische Priester (‘Bohemian priests’) and for the party represented by Oswald Glaidt, and which he refers to simply as ‘we’. He explains how the ‘Bohemians’ are also referred to as adherents of Communion under both kinds, which corresponded to the practice in the lands of the Bohemian crown at that time, for the Calixtines or Utraquists themselves used these terms to refer to themselves, to distinguish themselves from the adherents of Rome, the ‘Romans’.17 The representatives of Glaidt’s party were sent to Austerlitz by Martin Göschl, a leading representative of the Nikolsburg Reformation movement, who is described in the text as vnser Nicolspurger (‘our Nikolsburg [bishop]’).18 Glaidt drew up his report with the intention of translating into German the seven articles that were agreed on at the assembly and explaining them to the ignorant. However, the Utraquists were certainly not among the readers at whom the work was aimed. Not only did Glaidt make it clear which party he belonged to and express

Arndt and Brandt, Luther und die deutsche Sprache, p. 28. Oswald Glaidt, ‘Handlung yetz den. xiiii. tag Marcy dis. xxvi. iars’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others. Martin Rothkegel speaks of a meeting of the Catholic and Utraquist clergy, with the articles that they produced being radically Reformed in character. Rothkegel, ‘Anabaptism in Moravia and Silesia’, pp. 166–67. 17  Macek, Víra a zbožnost jagellonského věku, pp. 41–42, p. 160, pp. 288–89. 18  Oswald Glaidt, ‘Handlung yetz den. xiiii. tag Marcy dis. xxvi. iars’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 70. 15  16 

238 Jiří Černý

his surprise that the Utraquists were incapable of working with the Bible. The main thrust of the tract was to show the concessions made by the Utraquists and the extent to which they had come closer to Glaidt’s party during the Disputation. When in his opening passage Glaidt laments that human plans often fail and people have to follow a new road,19 he already seems to be regretting the failure of the negotiations. This would indicate that he was not interested in recording in writing a compromise reached with the Utraquist party, but in showing where the Utraquists were mistaken. For if the results of the Disputation had been adhered to, Utraquism would have had to mutate into the faith of Glaidt and Göschl, which raises the question of how much fiction found its way into the report. At all events, the vernacular was chosen as the language in which technical issues were explained and made comprehensible. The fact that the vernacular in this case was German is understandable, as it was the mother tongue of Glaidt (who had first been active in Leoben) and Göschl (who was born in the German-language enclave of Iglau/Jihlava),20 and it was clearly expected that the readership would be primarily German-speaking. Furthermore, German seemed to be the identifying factor of the group opposed to the Utraquists. In other words: if you spoke German, in this case you would not have Utraquist leanings. By means of the language, therefore, the readers would identify themselves with the group that figured in the text as ‘we’. At the same time it is made clear that the author had mastered Latin and Greek. An empty space is left in the text, in which the Greek term for Eucharist was evidently to be filled in by hand, and the Latin version of I Timothy 3. 2 is used in the argument.21 Glaidt used languages in the same way in his Ent­ schuldigung, written in 1527, in which he used Greek to correct the Latin text of the New Testament when dealing with the sacraments.22 The different uses of the biblical languages by Spittelmaier and Glaidt may, on the one hand, have been intended to show that the translation of Oswald Glaidt, ‘Handlung yetz den. xiiii. tag Marcy dis. xxvi. iars’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 70. 20  Schwarz, Volkstumsgeschichte der Sudetenländer, ii, pp. 192–240; Zeman, The Anabaptists and the Czech Brethren in Moravia 1526–1628, pp.  181–87; Rothkegel, ‘Anabaptism in Moravia and Silesia’, p. 166. 21  Oswald Glaidt, ‘Handlung yetz den. xiiii. tag Marcy dis. xxvi. iars’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 82, p. 86. 22  Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 763. 19 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 239

the passages from Scripture into German was an accurate one. The authors were presenting themselves to their audience as people whose knowledge of languages ensured a true and faithful translation of Holy Scripture into the vernacular. On the other hand, they may have been reacting to the requirements formulated by Martin Luther. At the end of Luther’s pamphlet Von Anbeten des Sakraments des heiligen Leichnams Christi (The Adoration of the Sacrament of Christ’s Body, 1523) the Bohemian Brethren are called on to pay more attention to learning languages and no longer hold foreign languages in contempt. According to Luther, the Unity of Brethren should have preachers educated in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, since those lacking a good knowledge of these languages and relying solely on their mother tongue were bound to make mistakes when interpreting Scripture. For Luther, the three biblical languages were an extremely useful help in the correct understanding of Scripture.23 He repeated this a year later in his pamphlet An die Ratsherren aller Städte deutsches Lands (To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany). Here, he explains that Hebrew and Greek are two holy languages, because God has chosen them to speak to the faithful. They alone have ensured that the Word has been passed down in its original form. Through the translation of the Bible into other languages, these languages have also become holy. Latin no longer has the traditional primacy of one of the three holy languages of the Bible, but becomes simply one of the languages into which the original text has been transferred. However, it is acknowledged that Latin, as the language of the Roman Empire together with Greek, has enabled the Gospel to spread to distant regions. According to Luther, history shows the consequences of a neglect of Hebrew and Greek. Already in post-apostolic times, faith and the Word of God had been obscured due to a lack of knowledge of them. In the monasteries and universities the neglect of these languages had even led to Latin and German being deformed, but still being taught in their corrupted form. It was the re-acquired knowledge of languages in Luther’s time that had shed a fresh light.24 Spittelmaier and Glaidt no doubt wanted to see themselves as representatives of this new generation praised by Luther, while at the same time legitimizing themselves as evangelical preachers. D. Martin Luthers Werke, xi, pp. 455–56. D. Martin Luthers Werke, xv, pp. 9–53, esp. pp. 36–42, p. 51. Cf. Beutel, In dem Anfang war das Wort, pp. 280–88.

23  24 

240 Jiří Černý

Strategies of Identification II: The Bohemians It was not only Oswald Glaidt who reported on the ‘Bohemians’ (i.e. Utraquists); Balthasar Hubmaier was also familiar with them.25 While still in Waldshut he wrote Ein Gespräch auf Zwinglis Taufbüchlein (Dialogue with Zwingli’s Baptism Book), and when in Nikolsburg, he added a foreword and conclusion and had it printed there. In the third part he inveighs against Zwingli, using as an example the ‘Bohemians’, who allow children to receive the Lord’s Supper.26 The preface to both editions of another of his treatises, Der Lehrer Urteil (Old and New Teachers on Believers Baptism), in which Hubmaier writes to Martin Göschl, begins as follows: Ewer gnad ist fast wol bewyst der alt jrrsal, so etlich von der zeyt Cyprianj bißher aus vnwissenhayt gebraucht. Nämlich das sy die jungen khinder auch zů dem Sacrament (wie mans genennt) des brots vnd weins gefieret, wölcher doch im wort gotes khaynen grund hat. Derhalb die selben khain ander beschönung, noch entschuldigung irer thaten fürwenden, dann das wir Teütschen vnsere khinder auch tauffen. Auff solchs jnen wol gebüre die jren, mit dem Sacrament zů speysen vnd trencken, die weyl doch der Tauf vnd die Brotbrechung eben zwů gleich Ceremonien seyend, im Newen Testament von Christo auffgesetzet. (Your Grace is well knowledgeable about the ancient error which many from the time of Cyprian until today have practiced out of ignorance. Namely, that they led young children also to the sacrament (as they called it) of bread and wine, which nevertheless has no basis in the Word of God. These bring forward no other justification or excuse for their deeds than that we Germans also baptize our children. On such a basis they think it fitting to give their children to eat and to drink of the sacrament since baptism and the breaking of bread are two like ceremonies, having been instituted in the New Testament by Christ.)27

In addition, he was clearly also familiar with the Picards, and in Grund und Ursache (The Ground and Reason), in keeping with the usual practice in the Bohemian lands, he even describes them as ‘Brothers’. Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed.  by Westin and Bergsten, p.  334, cf.  also p.  350; Macek, Víra a zbožnost jagellonského věku, pp.  288–89; Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, pp. 423–30. 26  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 199, cf. also p. 351. 27  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 227, cf. also p. 241; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, pp.  246–47. In the Gespräch, on the other 25 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 241

In this passage Hubmaier was attempting to distance himself evidently once again from the Utraquists, for he used the same characteristics for them as in the Gespräch. It can be assumed that Göschl, through his career as a leading clergyman in Moravia, knew exactly who was being referred to. In opposition to them are the Teütschen, also ‘Germans’. However, it should be noted that this term was adopted from the Utraquists, for in his preface Hubmaier reproduces the argument of the opposing party. The term would not have been intended primarily for the Anabaptists, since they rejected infant baptism, but Hubmaier still saw himself as part of this group. Further on in his reflections he even says that ‘etlich auß den vnseren’ (‘many in our midst’) hold that faith is instilled in people, whereas he supports Paul’s view (Romans 10. 17) that faith comes from hearing.28 From this it follows that the term ‘Germans’ was used to opposition to the expression ‘Bohemians’, and referred to all faith groups whose origin lay in the German lands. Hubmaier had no objection to being described as a ‘German’, but made it clear that the group was not a homogeneous one. Similarly, Luther, in his Von Anbeten des Sakraments, distinguishes between the beliefs of the Bohemian Brethren and the ‘Germans’. Luther feels obliged to show ‘wie wyr deutschen glewben und wie auch tzu glewben ist nach dem Euangelio’ (‘how we Germans believe and how it should be believed according to the Gospel’). In addition, he recommends that the Brethren read further in Philipp Melanchthon’s work what ‘unßer glawbe sey’ (‘our faith is’). In this case the term ‘Germans’ is used in a much narrower sense than is usual with Luther, for the Unity of Brethren is compared simply with the evangelicals in Wittenberg.29 It can therefore be assumed that the term was seen as relating to Martin Luther and Wittenberg. In spite of his different views from Luther, Hubmaier would hardly have been worried by being categorized under the ‘Germans’, since he would in any case not have been considered a Lutheran,30 but he himself saw a clear connection between the Reformation in Nikolsburg and the events in the German heartland of the Empire. This is shown by the foreword to Hubmaier’s Einfaltiger Unterricht (A Simple Instruction), in which the name of the town Nikolsburg

hand, he describes the addressees of Zwingli’s tract on baptism as the Germans (Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 170). 28  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 228; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 247. 29  D. Martin Luthers Werke, xi, pp. 431–32. 30  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 279.

242 Jiří Černý

is explained. Nikolsburg is similar to Nicopolis, which is Emmaus; thus Spittelmaier and Glaidt correspond to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24. Just as Christ appeared in Emmaus, so has the Word of God, whose source is to be found with Frederick the Wise and Martin Luther, taken the road to Nikolsburg. Leonhard of Liechtenstein is requested to help the spread of the Word in his domains, like other princes.31 In the foreword to his Eine christliche Lehrtafel (A Christian Catechism), once again addressed to Martin Göschl, Hubmaier numbers himself and Göschl among the ‘teütsche Nation’ (‘German nation’), to which the Word of God was first clearly revealed in his lifetime, as ‘ours’; later he refers to all those ‘so die Historien teütscher Nation, wie sy zů Christenlichem glauben khümen sein solt, gelesen haben’ (‘who have read the history of the German nation how it is said to have come to Christian faith’).32 The term ‘German nation’ makes its appearance in the second half of the fifteenth century, especially in connection with the Gravamina nationis Germanicae (Grievances of the German Nation) and with humanism. The Gravamina narrowed down the broader concept of a nation participating in a council to a particular nation, so that the natio Germanica became predominantly ‘zur deutschen Sprachgemeinschaft bzw. zum politischen Reichsverband’ (‘the German language community or the political national federation in the Empire’).33 A different emphasis was used by Martin Luther, who included the phrase in the title of his tract An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation (To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation), published in 1520.34 However, as both Heinz Thomas and Caspar Hirschi have stressed, Luther only included the highest level of the estates in his concept of the ‘German nation’, in other words the princes and bishops, since these were territorial rulers, whereas neither the burghers nor the farmers nor Luther himself belonged to this group. Furthermore, Luther virtually never used this term, preferring expressions such as deutsch(en) land(e), or die deutschen (the German land(s), the Germans).35 As is already evident in the 1520 pamphlet, with Luther the

Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, pp. 288–89. Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed.  by Westin and Bergsten, pp.  309–10; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 344. 33  Hirschi, Wettkampf der Nationen, pp. 135–56, quotation p. 143; cf. Thomas, ‘Die Deutsche Nation und Martin Luther’, pp. 426–54. 34  D. Martin Luthers Werke, vi, pp. 381–469. 35  Thomas, ‘Die Deutsche Nation und Martin Luther’, pp. 448–54; Hirschi, Wettkampf der Nationen, pp. 417–19. 31  32 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 243

term ‘nation’ referred only to the estates of the Empire, while the ‘German lands’ related to all social classes. When Luther addressed the ‘German land’ as a theologian, then, as Caspar Hirschi demonstrates, he usually meant the ecclesiastical province or the Roman-German Empire, while the ‘Germans’ were mostly a group with a common language and a common destiny.36 When in the twenty-third article of his tract to Christian nobility Luther characterized the ‘German nation’ as ‘die von edler natur, bestendig unnd treu in aller historien gelobt sein’ (‘praised in all history for its nobility, its constancy, and fidelity’),37 he was therefore evidently referring to the estates. By contrast, Hubmaier used this term as a synonym for Luther’s ‘German land’, for in his letter of dedication to the Eine christliche Lehrtafel he dealt with the Christianization of the Roman-German Empire.38 When Glaidt referred to the opposing party in the Austerlitz Disputation as ‘Bohemians’, he was most probably using the division into religious groups usual in the country, which evidently worked with the dichotomy of ‘Bohemians’ and ‘Germans’. Judging from the views expressed in the text and from the way the Utraquists are described, he was certainly revealing himself as a representative of Zwingli’s teaching, and so one whom Hubmaier would classify in the category of ‘we Germans’. But for Glaidt it seems to be unnecessary to state explicitly which party he belongs to, as this is clear from the beginning. This identification with the group of ‘the Germans’ can only have occurred by means of the language. It seems that Glaidt is able to dispense with explicitly opposing ‘Bohemians’ and ‘Germans’ because he will be automatically recognized by his readers as a representative of the German Reformation through his choice of his mother tongue. One should not over-generalize, but Glaidt may well have counted on the choice of language as a pointer to the confessional standpoint of the writer, too, which would here certainly correspond to the confession of the group he was addressing. Hubmaier referred to the role of the vernacular particularly in relation to the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, and baptism.39 Already during the Disputation in Zürich in 1523 he called for priests to proclaim God’s Word during the Mass, in the vernacular and out loud: ‘Wie den Latinern die meß latinisch Hirschi, Wettkampf der Nationen, pp. 417–18. D. Martin Luthers Werke, vi, p. 453. 38  In line with this, Hubmaier does not mention Cyril and Methodius. 39  Windhorst, ‘Das Gedächtnis des Leidens Christi und Pflichtzeichen brüderlicher Liebe’; Windhorst, Täuferisches Taufverständnis. 36  37 

244 Jiří Černý

sol gelesen werden, also den Walhen wälsch, den Tütschen tütsch; dann on zwyfel Christus nit caliquutisch mit sinen jungeren ob dem nachtmal geredet hatt, sunder lut unnd verstentlich’ (‘As the mass should be read in Latin to the Latins, also in French to the French, in German to the Germans, then doubtless Christ did not speak Calcuttish with his disciples at the Last Supper but rather aloud and understandably’).40 And while still a minister in Waldshut he wrote in his tract Etliche Schlussreden vom Unterricht der Messe (Several Theses Concerning the Mass) in 1525: Das Nachtmal Christi ist ain wider gedechtnüß seins leydens vnd ain verkündung seins thods, bis er wider zů vns kombt. […] Darauß volgt, das sollich nachtmal mit erdichtem namen ain meß genent wirtt, vnnd on grund aller geschrifft. Auch darbey das man sollich nachtmal nit inn vnuerstendigen zungen wie bißher halten soll, sonder nach der sprach ains yeden lands. Ob wol nun die Teütsch meß, wie man sy nent, noch nit bey diser volkummenhait ist, wie es Christus eingesetzt hat, ye doch ist sy vmb ain hohen staffel der selbigen neher dann die Stummend gemurmelt meß, bisher gehalten. (The Supper of Christ is a commemoration of his suffering and a proclamation of his death until he comes to us again. […] From this it follows that the Supper is called ‘mass’ by an invented name without any basis in Scripture. In addition, one should not hold this Supper in incomprehensible tongues as it has been done until now, but in the language of each country. Although the German mass, as it is called, is not yet at the level of perfection instituted by Christ, it is still a large step nearer to that than the unintelligibly mumbled masses held until now.)41

His criticism of infant baptism denounced the fact that the newborn child was asked in Latin whether he renounced the devil, and that the godparents were supposed to answer in German for him. However, anyone expecting that Hubmaier to adopt a sensitive approach to the issue of bilingualism in the country that he fled to – after all, he had called for the Lord’s Supper to be celebrated in the language of each country – would be disappointed. Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, ii, ed. by Egli and Finsler, p. 787; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p.  28. According to Pipkin and Yoder, Calcutta was ‘a standard symbol for the exotic or alien’ (p. 28, no. 15). I suppose to the contrary the expression caliquutisch could be attributed to the Latin calignosus and would translate it as ‘obscurely’. Alternatively, it refers to the town of Calicut in South India, which Vasco da Gama reached in 1498 pursuing the spice trade. 41  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 102; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, pp. 74–75. 40 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 245

Hubmaier, like his fellow activists in Nikolsburg, never touched on the subject of the Czech language. Only one Latin work of Hubmaier is known, the Axiomata from the year 1524, transmitted also in a German version.42 In his Kurze Entschuldigung (Brief Apology), Hubmaier stresses that he has already argued in both his Latin and his German printed works and sermons that people should be obedient to the authorities.43 But the Axiomata does not deal with this question, and so Hubmaier was evidently not referring to a specific work, but rather to his activity in the Latin scholarly culture and in particular to his critical examination of it. Strategies of Identification III: The Bible Translated Although nearly all of Hubmaier’s writings were thus composed in German, they could not have been written without the knowledge of Latin and in some cases of Greek and Hebrew as well. Already in his pamphlet Von der christlichen Taufe (On the Christian Baptism of Believers, 1525) he reflects on the use of these languages. While he does not reject the use of the original version when interpreting passages difficult to understand, he warns that this may obscure the Scriptures.44 But it is not until Von der Freiheit des Willens (Freedom of the Will I), one of his last works, that he makes use of Greek and Hebrew.45 With Latin it is different: according to Hubmaier, without the knowledge of Latin a person automatically cannot be a good pastor. In Eine Christliche Lehrtafel he reminds himself and Göschl of their office as examiners, in which they had ‘etlich vil Pfaffen vnd Mönch gmacht, wölhe all vber einen hauffen, nit gewißt, die wenigsten Epistel Paulj zů uerteütschen, ja nit recht lesen’ (‘created a good number of priests and monks who, taken all together, were unable to translate the least of Paul’s epistles into German, or even read it correctly’).46

Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, pp. 85–94. Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 277. 44  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, pp. 120–21, p. 157; Windhorst, Täuferisches Taufverständnis, pp.  44–46. Chatfield, Balthasar Hubmaier and the Clarity of Scripture, pp. 114–32; Rothkegel, ‘Das Verständnis der Heiligen Schrift bei den Täufern in Mähren’, p. 182. 45  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed.  by Westin and Bergsten, pp.  382–83; Chatfield, Balthasar Hubmaier and the Clarity of Scripture, p. 4, p. 280. 46  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 308; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 342. Cf. Rothkegel, ‘Das Verständnis der Heiligen Schrift bei den Täufern in Mähren’, p. 182. 42  43 

246 Jiří Černý

Hubmaier takes the principle of sola scriptura very seriously; in Walter Klaassen’s view he is in fact more radical in his application of it than Luther or Zwingli. Klaassen further emphasizes that Hubmaier was convinced that human reason in a healthy state would allow of only one interpretation of important Bible passages, for the Word was clear.47 Nevertheless, such an interpretation implies meticulous, and indeed philological, work in Hubmaier’s writings, in which the individual words and grammatical categories are important.48 In the Gespräch, in particular, Hubmaier criticizes Zwingli’s translation of the Scriptures into German. He is especially annoyed by Zwingli’s rendering of Mark 10. 14, correcting the subordinate clause ‘Jro ist das reych Gottes’ (‘Theirs is the kingdom of God’) to ‘Sölicher ist das reych Gottes’ (‘Of such is the kingdom of God’), and admonishing the translator for his misdemeanour: Du waist, Zwingle, das die Hailig Schrifft ain solche ganntze, zůsamen gesetzte, Warhafftige, vnnfeelbare, ewige, vnntödliche red ist, das daruon nit zergeen mag noch verwandelt werdenn das aller wenigst Bůchsteblenn oder Titelen. […] Wann durch zůsetzung eins einigen Bůchsteblens machest du Christo sein gantz Euangelium vntüchtig, tadelhafftig, krafftloß vnd vnuolkummen, als vil an dir ist. (You know, Zwingle, that the Holy Scripture is such a whole, consistent, genuine, infallible, eternal, immortal Word that cannot wear away nor can the smallest letter or the smallest point be changed, […]  For through the addition of one single letter you make Christ’s whole gospel invalid, blameworthy, impotent, and imperfect, as much as is in you.)49

It annoys him that Zwingli’s teaching on baptism is based on this (in his view) erroneous translation. He also objects that, as a result of the way Zwingli deals with the Bible, evangelical priests can be accused – as the Klaassen, ‘Speaking in Simplicity’, p.  141, pp.  143–44; Rothkegel, ‘Das Verständnis der Heiligen Schrift bei den Täufern in Mähren’, pp.  180–83. The way in which Hubmaier’s hermeneutics developed is shown by Chatfield, Balthasar Hubmaier and the Clarity of Scripture. 48  Cf. Rothkegel, ‘Von der Schönen Madonna zum Scheiterhaufen’, p. 62. Apart from this, Hubmaier is accustomed to operating with linguistic terms, such as in his tract Das andere Büchlein von der Freiwilligkeit (Freedom of the Will II). In the Gespräch he refers to his knowledge of the Donat and the terms used in logic. Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 190, p. 412. 49  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed.  by Westin and Bergsten, pp.  164–214, quotation pp. 210–11; cf. pp. 264–65; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 229. 47 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 247

Roman church has done in snide comments he quotes and criticizes – of falsifying Scripture.50 In Hubmaier’s view, everything in Scripture is to be understood in its literal meaning. In the Gespräch he reproaches Zwingli: ‘Liesssts du bey dem ainfeltigen verstand der wort bleiben, wann Christus hat ainfaltigklich geredt, so belibe vil vnratt vermitten.’ (‘Had you left it with the simple understanding of the words which Christ had spoken, then much mischief would have been avoided.’)51 Granted, there are passages in the Bible not completely comprehensible. But taken as a whole, the Bible is clear, because the obscure passages can be explained through others that are clear. As Graeme R. Chatfield shows, at the end of his time in Nikolsburg Hubmaier distinguished various categories of Bible passage that had to be taken into account for a correct interpretation of Scripture; but Scripture itself as the source of truth remains unified.52 Furthermore, according to Hubmaier, a passage will become clear if the linguistic context is carefully examined. Apart from this, the order of the individual words is important. With enumerations, in particular, what comes first should have priority. In Hubmaier’s opinion, for example, it can be proved from Mark 16. 16 that people must first believe before they can be baptized. Finally, he asserts that what is not commanded in the Bible is forbidden.53 Hubmaier uses terms and quotations from the original biblical languages differently from Spittelmaier and Glaidt. He is not just concerned with

50  See e.g. Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed.  by Westin and Bergsten, p.  184; Windhorst, Täuferisches Taufverständnis, p.  45. Windhorst demonstrates, however, that Hubmaier’s translations are not always perfect (p. 81). 51  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 212; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 231. Hubmaier criticizes Zwingli for performing tricks with the Word: Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 120, p. 197. 52  Chatfield, Balthasar Hubmaier and the Clarity of Scripture, esp. pp. 275–333, pp. 363–64. 53  He had already commented on the relationship between the obscure and clear passages in the Bible in his Axiomata. In Von der christlichen Taufe der Gläubigen he states that the obscure passages can be explained with the help of the text in its original language, which is unnecessary with the clear passages. The context plays an important role in his tract Einfältiger Unterricht, as does the word order in e.g. Von der christlichen Taufe der Gläubigen or Der Lehrer Urteil. He writes on commanding and forbidding in Scripture in e.g. Von der Kindertaufe (Dialogue with Oecolampad on Infant Baptism), where he specifies that his rules would relate to the worship of God and the salvation of souls. Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 89, p. 92, pp. 120–21, pp. 146–51, p. 238, p. 261, pp. 290–97. Cf. Klaassen, ‘Speaking in Simplicity’, pp. 143–47; Windhorst, Täuferisches Taufverständnis, pp. 58–62, pp. 80–82, pp. 93–97; Chatfield, Balthasar Hubmaier and the Clarity of Scripture, esp. pp. 102–05, pp. 131–33, pp. 187–92, pp. 330–33.

248 Jiří Černý

showing that he has a good command of these languages. His theology is based on his work with the Word; one cannot imagine his treatises without his analysis and interpretation of the Latin or rather Greek and Hebrew texts. Furthermore, he believes that through his interpretation and translation of the biblical texts he will be able to convince his opponents that their judgements are false: a single word can overthrow the entire argument of his opponent. This is no doubt also the reason why he sets so much store by his doctor’s title, for he is no mere runaway monk but a university professor. Hubmaier clearly sees his writings as part of the scholarly culture of his day; he intends them as a contribution to the debate about the new direction in faith. He therefore has no qualms about engaging polemically in his treatises with the church authorities and with contemporaries such as Erasmus of Rotterdam or Martin Luther. While this polemic takes place in Hubmaier’s writings in German, its starting-point is predominantly works written in Latin. Strategies of Identification IV: Simple and Genuine Speech in Vernacular Although it is by no means easy to read Hubmaier’s writings, he wants to write ‘ainfeltigklich’ (‘in simplicity’).54 As has been shown above, it is his wish that arguments should be textually self-evident. At the beginning and during the course of his fictitious dialogue with Johannes Oekolampad and other theologians from Basel in Von der Kindertaufe, Hubmaier calls on Oekolampad to arm himself with clear and lucid Scripture. Here, according to Hubmaier, is to be found the truth that cannot be overcome either by embellished, rhetorically polished speech or by the remarks of respected figures. The dialogue is arranged in such a way that the Basel theologians are unable to present any quotations from the Bible except for Mark 10. 14 in Zwingli’s translation, which Hubmaier tears to shreds as in the Gespräch. Since his own assertions teem with Bible passages, he is able to conclude the debate: Kurtzumb. Jch lasse euch all hochgeleert sein, vnnd ir seyts, aber ich hab geredt in der ainfaltigkhait. Vnnd mein red mag also sein, vnnd wirt also sein, vnnd můß also sein, dann des Zimmer mans Son, der nye in khain schůl gangen ist, hat mich also haissen reden, vnd mir solhs zeschreiben mit seiner zimmer axt selbs die feder darzů gehauen.

The various aspects of simple speech have been elaborated by Klaassen, and have mostly been discussed in the previous paragraph: Klaassen, ‘Speaking in Simplicity’.

54 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 249 (In short. I let all of you be highly educated, and you are; but I have spoken in simplicity. My speech should and will and must be like that because the carpenter’s Son, who never went to any school, has commanded me to speak in this way and to write such [things] with the pen he himself cut with the carpenter’s axe of his.)55

Speaking in simplicity means arguing with Christ’s words. The more Hubmaier’s own remarks correspond with the words of Christ, the better. This is why, in the preface to the Gespräch addressed to the Lords of Liechtenstein, he reports that he wanted to hold a disputation on infant baptism with Zwingli in Zürich, where both should back up their opinions ‘mit teütschen, hellenn, klaren, ainfeltigen schrifften’ (‘in German, with bright, clear, and simple writing’):56 by schrifften he means ‘Bible passages’. Furthermore, he wants the quotations from Scripture to be in German. This means that the German language has a reciprocal relationship with the attributes ‘bright’, ‘clear’, and ‘simple’; it guarantees that God’s word is clearly to be heard. Although Hubmaier does not reject Latin in itself, he usually connects speaking in Latin with the Mass, where Latin is murmured and not understood. In the first section of his pamphlet Von dem christlichen Bann (On the Christian Ban), again, he describes the transferral of God’s power to Jesus Christ and the Church, and its return into the hands of the Father, concluding with the following words: ‘Jst das nun nit ainfeltigklich, haitter vnd teütsch geredt, so kan noch waiß ich nit teütscher davon reden’ (‘If that is not said with simplicity, clearly, and in German, so I do not know how it could be said in better German’).57 This quotation demonstrates that Hubmaier regarded speaking simply and speaking in German as the same, since while in the first part of the sentence there are three attributes, in the second part only ‘in German’ remains, Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 269; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 294. In the treatise Von der christlichen Taufe he rejects any form of artifice in explaining the Scriptures (pp. 44–46). 56  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 169; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 172. Cf. Hubmaier’s tract Öffentliche Erbietung (A Public Challenge to All Believers), Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, pp. 104–07. 57  Further on he refers to the fact that he has written Eine Form zu Taufen (A Form for Baptism) and Eine Form des Nachtmahls Christi (A Form for Christ’s Supper), and just as in these treatises he also wants here to explain the ban ‘as simply as possible’. Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 371. Compare the translation in Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 416, ‘If that is not said in simple clear German, then I neither can nor know how to talk German.’ 55 

250 Jiří Černý

which evidently includes the other two. For Hubmaier, therefore, speaking simply is speaking in German. Simplicity is not a bad quality, for by means of it one is delimiting oneself from the culture and usual way of speaking of the old Church. In Luther’s writings, too, the German language is held in high regard, which contrasts with his lower estimation of the German people. As Caspar Hirschi has established, Luther connected German with comprehensible, unencrypted language that was truthful and – as with Hubmaier – free of unnecessary embellishment.58 Luther even denied that his texts were stylistically polished, something for which he criticized the Latin of the humanists.59 Hubmaier could thus, on the one hand, have invoked Luther when calling for people to express themselves simply and in German, while, on the other, Jesus Christ is characterized in his writings as the one who spoke simply, almost coarsely, in his mother tongue, and who presented what he wanted to say clearly.60 Although the Nikolsburg Anabaptists were very much up to date in their use of the vernacular, at the same time they did not want to dispense with the use of the three traditional biblical languages. The escalation of the Reformation debate was accompanied by the establishment of the vernacular. The pamphlets in which this debate was carried out drew people into the process who had hitherto scarcely played any role as addressees of written communication. The preconditions for the huge increase in vernacular writings and in the importance attached to the vernacular had been established since the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, with the sermons of the Franciscans and the Dominicans, and the writings of the German writers of vernacular spirituality like Tauler and Eckhart, of particular importance for Luther. However, it was the call by Erasmus of Rotterdam for the Bible to be translated into the vernacular, and the activity of Martin Luther as writer and translator, in the early sixteenth century, which gave this process its decisive impetus. From then on the question was no longer whether texts should be written in the vernacular, but how writers should use their own mother tongue in order

Hirschi, Wettkampf der Nationen, pp.  426–27; cf.  e.g. Besch, ‘Die Rolle Luthers für die deutsche Sprachgeschichte’, pp. 1732–33. 59  Hirschi, Wettkampf der Nationen, p. 427. 60  See e.g. Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 212, p. 293, p. 295, and also the quotation from the Zürich Disputation above. 58 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 251

to be understood over as wide an area as possible.61 The pamphlets produced in Nikolsburg, especially those by Balthasar Hubmaier, could not have been managed without Latin. It is true that a language consisting of a mixture of Latin and German was a quite common phenomenon at the time,62 but practical bi- or even multilingualism is insufficient to explain the use of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew in Nikolsburg. In my view, Hubmaier was afraid he would lose his aura of an erudite theologian if he did without the traditional learned language completely. This would tally with the assumption that he was not aiming at an especially broad public, but a readership at least partly educated. At the same time he tried to avoid losing the connection with his scholarly contemporaries. Arguably, Hubmaier understood himself as a scholar who wrote in the vernacular because it corresponded to his understanding of the Gospel, and to demonstrate that only a scholar is fitted to interpret the Bible and to proclaim God’s Word. Likewise Spittelmaier and Glaidt, through their use of Latin and Greek quotations, wanted to demonstrate their learning and the fact that they belonged to the evangelical movement. Strategies of Identification V: They Speak Loudly In the Gespräch, Hubmaier accuses the Basel theologians of speaking in too learned and flowery a manner, while he spoke clearly and simply. Simple or clear speech is a theme common to all three Nikolsburg Reformers. In Spittelmaier’s articles he wants to show ‘klerlich’ (‘clearly’) that the preachers have been falsely accused by the Franciscans.63 Glaid’s Handlung is intended to be explanatory in nature, and in his Entschuldigung he makes an effort to summarize his teachings as clearly and succinctly as possible. He evidently chooses this approach because of the common man who is addressed right

Lentner, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache, pp.  197–212; Wolf, Martin Luther, pp.  17–26; Polenz, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, i, pp.  243–71; Solms, ‘Soziokulturelle Voraussetzungen und Sprachraum des Frühneuhochdeutschen’; Besch, ‘Die Rolle Luthers für die deutsche Sprachgeschichte’; Kaufmann, Der Anfang der Reformation, pp. 78–101. 62  Cf. Stolt, Die Sprachmischung in Luthers Tischreden. 63  Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 12. 61 

252 Jiří Černý

at the beginning of the pamphlet as ‘ainfaltig’ (‘simple’).64 In opposition to those who speak and write simply are not only the erudite but also those who speak too much and too loudly: excess of words and excessive volume distinguish the enemies of the writer. It is perhaps surprising that these accusations are made by all three Nikolsburg writers. The dedication of Spittelmaier’s Entschuldigung to the Lords of Liechtenstein was written on 6 March 1524. The militant tone of the title is maintained in the text itself, composed as an admonition to the Observant Franciscans in Feldsberg. Spittelmaier shows himself to be an adherent of the teaching of Martin Luther. Hubmaier’s Kurze Entschuldigung is one of the first texts that he wrote entirely in Moravia and had printed there. In it, the author deals with his career immediately before his arrival in Moravia, and briefly summarizes his teachings. An important feature is his triple admonition to the authorities, which takes up a third of the overall content. Glaidt’s Entschuldigung was also published in the printing house in Nikolsburg; according to the explicit, it was written in January 1527 and printed in the same year. In his pamphlet, in terms of both content and form, Glaidt shows himself to be an adherent of Hubmaier. Later that year, however, he parted ways with Hubmaier and joined the Stäbler-group (‘bearers of the staff ’) led by Hans Hut.65 Hubmaier’s oeuvre is full of references to shouting. In the Gespräch he denounces Zwingli’s sermon as ‘Cantzel geschrey’ (‘pulpit outcry’); the advocates of infant baptism also shout or (in Lehrer Urteil and Grund und Ursache) make a lot of noise.66 In Einfältiger Unterricht the author complains that he is everywhere loudly proclaimed a heretic and a rebel, and the ‘Meeßpfaffen’ (‘masspriests’: Maoziten vnd mäoßpfaffen, in the Christliche Lehrtafel, i.e. idolatrous priests) are shouting that the preachers are not united in faith,67 and, in the Lehrtafel, urging noisy recourse to the saints (which Hubmaier sees as blasphemy).68 In the third part of the pamphlet Das andere Büchlein von der Freiwilligkeit Hubmaier stylizes himself as the figure

The common man is characterized by ignorance of the Scriptures. Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 749, p. 752. 65  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, pp. 270–71; Glaidt, Hubmaier, Spittelmaier, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, pp. 139–43, pp. 146–51. 66  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 178, p. 180, p. 193, p. 212. 67  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 229, p. 242, p. 289, p. 291, p. 334. 68  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 309, p. 319. 64 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 253

of Job, to whom his faithless friends come, scolding him out loud. In Von dem Schwert (On the Sword) he draws a parallel with Jesus Christ, who was loudly attacked and accused, like Hubmaier, by unnamed adherents of Hans Hut.69 Hubmaier begins his Kurze Entschuldigung with the accusations that his opponents have made against him over the past four years: Seydmal ich doch allenthalb verschreyet vnd außgerůefft wird als ein verkünder neüer leeren, jch schennde die můtter Gottes […] vnd in Summa, ich sey der aller böst Lutherisch ertzketzer, den man finden müge. Hörent zů, o jr lieben frommen Christen, wie grosse ding dise zeügen wider mich sagen. Ja, sy reden auch überlaut, jch sey besessenn, hab syben teüfel bey mir, die selben reden auß mir. Jch sey ein Mammaluck. Jch hab brennte creütz vnden an den fersen vnd gayßfůeß. (Since I am everywhere decried and denounced as a proclaimer of new teachings, alleging that I desecrate the mother of God […]. In sum: I am the very worst Lutheran archheretic than one could find. Listen, O you dear pious Christians, what great things these witnesses say against me. Yea, they say unduly loud that I am possessed, that I have seven devils with me who speak out from me. That I am a Mammaluke, that I have crosses branded on my heels and have goat’s feet.)70

Hubmaier describes the message spread by the opposing party as ‘erdicht vnd lugenhafftig vnwarhaiten’ (‘made-up and false lies’), and his opponents as pedlars, who have never heard, taught, or convinced the preachers.71 In Glaidt’s view, his enemies are the blind leading the blind, who shout from the pulpit every Sunday and rail against the Nikolsburg preachers. In Glaidt’s Entschuldigung his opponents are compared to howling wolves baring their teeth, and their sermons are described as ‘unnsinnigs gschray’ (‘senseless shouting’).72 Spittelmaier in his Entschuldigung likewise compares the monks in Feldsburg to howling wolves, shouting out the teaching of the Holy Father and the Church to the ordinary people. They are contrasted to the followers of Jesus, who do not boast of any authority except Christ. The latter protect

Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, pp. 415–31, pp. 434–57. Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 273; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 298. 71  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 279; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 307. 72  Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 751. 69  70 

254 Jiří Černý

their sheep and cry out from the heart that Christ is the Saviour.73 As this passage from Spittelmaier’s Entschuldigung shows, shouting out loud can also have positive connotations, but this only occurs when the verb is used in connection with a Bible text, or when the faithful cry out to God, which, however, must be done in true faith or from the heart.74 Otherwise, instances of speaking out loud have a predominantly negative meaning. Similar reproaches are to be found when the writers are talking about praying or singing in church. Thus Spittelmaier warns against the heathens who think they will only be heard by God when they shout out loud to him. By contrast, he defines prayer as ‘ain hertzliche erhebung des gemuets vnd hertzen zu got’ (‘a heartfelt raising up of the mind and heart to God’): people should only pray to the Lord and call on him in spirit.75 In Hubmaier’s view prayer comes from the heart. And he warns that it must take place without much murmuring and movement of the lips.76 Glaidt much prefers the sighing prayer of a working man to the ‘langs gschnepper, prumlen und murren’ (‘lengthy spouting, muttering, and grumbling’) of the Catholic clerics, in other words, the wolves and bears.77 This comparison corresponds to the phrase ‘Bärenmesse’ (‘bear’s Mass’) coined by Hubmaier for the silent Mass, because it was mumbled and muttered in an incomprehensible way.78 When Spittelmaier criticizes the praying of the heathens, he attacks not only the shouting but also the quantity of words and the length of the speeches. Glaidt adopts a similar stance: he finds this ‘vil wort machen’ (‘making many words’) only among heathens, Pharisees, and monks. The accusation that deceit and lies are concealed in lengthy speech applies not only to prayer, but also to singing and reading in the church, for, according to Spittelmaier, this never comes to an end.79 While Hubmaier does not reject singing and

Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 20, p. 26. 74  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed.  by Westin and Bergsten, p.  275, p.  283, pp.  303–04, p. 308, p. 339, p. 349, p. 386; Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 26, p. 34, p. 54; Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 754. 75  Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 20, pp. 44–48. 76  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 273, cf. also p. 312. 77  Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 756. 78  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 114, p. 162. 79  Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 26; Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, pp. 757–58. 73 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 255

reading in church, he asserts that, like prayer, they must come from the heart and be understood from the heart. He condemns the practice of the church up till his own time, comparing it to the screaming of Baal.80 If we disregard the negative presentation of previous practices, however, the demands of the Nikolsburg preachers do not represent something completely new. Such ideas had already been formulated in the Gospels, as the numerous references to Bible passages in the Reformers’ texts make clear.81 Central to an understanding of why the Nikolsburg Reformers sketch a picture of the enemy as a beast screaming and lying senselessly is Hubmaier’s use of the word geschray. In his Kurze Entschuldigung it occurs in the sense of fama mala: according to Hubmaier, who reproduces the eighteenth Chapter of the book of Genesis, God appeared in Sodom and Gomorrah in order to see whether the inhabitants had sinned as the outcry against them asserted (‘wie das geschray wider sy’).82 Martin Luther uses the same word in his translation of the Pentateuch, but differs the preposition used. In his version, it is ‘eyn geschrey zu Sodom vnd Gomorra’ (‘an outcry in Sodom and Gomorrah’) that moved the Lord to act. Hubmaier’s use of the preposition ‘against’ suggests that in his apologia he sees geschray as a general accusation that is circulating, so that an interpretation in the sense of ‘circulating gossip, rumour’ that the Grimm Brothers’ Dictionary gives for geschray probably comes closest.83 Hubmaier urges the authorities to act according to the biblical model and investigate whether the ‘böß geschray’ (‘evil outcry’) currently circulating against many evangelical preachers was in fact true.84 When the opponents of the Nikolsburg preachers shouted, they were thus spreading a rumour, against which it was necessary to defend oneself. Hubmaier demonstrated ostentatiously at the beginning of his tract how w ­ ide-ranging

Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 274, cf. also p. 321. Arnold Angenendt summarizes what prayer should look like according to the Bible: Angenendt, Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter, pp. 523–34. 82  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 282; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 312; cf. Genesis 18. 20. The word is also used with the same meaning in Von dem christlichen Bann, where I Corinthians 5. 1 is quoted, Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 373. 83  D.  Martin Luthers Werke: Deutsche Bibel, viii, pp.  82–83, quotation p.  82; Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm, v, cols 3751–58. In the Hebrew text, the word used here is za’akah, while in the Vulgate there is simply clamor. The status constructus that occurs in Genesis 18. 20 in the Hebrew, and which is maintained in the Vulgate version, allows the possibility of various interpretations. 84  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 282. 80  81 

256 Jiří Černý

and senseless a rumour can be by drawing up a lengthy catalogue of the accusations against his party and taking it to the point of absurdity, as quoted above. Before he starts listing the accusations, he even protests bitterly that if the talk were true he would have had to impose a death sentence on himself.85 Glaidt, on the other hand, did not try even once to reproduce the lies of his opponents.86 In the view of the Nikolsburg preachers, rumours were fearsome and very wide-ranging. They originated in a region ill-disposed towards the Anabaptists. While, in his preface, Spittelmaier speaks about his opponents in general, further on in the text he refers only to the Franciscan monks. Hubmaier and Glaidt, by contrast, express themselves against all of their adversaries in general. With Glaidt, as with Spittelmaier, those slandering him are clearly characterized as Catholic. They are presented not only as enemies of the Gospel and adherents of the pope, but they ‘[s]chelten und verdammen an scham offentlich auff den canntzlen, auch haimlich in den winckelen, alle die das wort Gottes, das heylig evangelion, predigen, annemen oder darvon reden’ (‘rail at and condemn to shame, both openly in pulpits and secretly in corners, all those who preach or accept the Word of God, the Holy Gospel, or speak of it’).87 Hubmaier simply comments, as we have shown earlier, that he has been the subject of public talk since 1522.88 An examination of the tracts he published up until 1526 shows that his opponents, principally members of papal and Habsburg circles, also included Reformers like Zwingli, with whom he did not shrink from disputing. Those who he said scorned him publicly in the churches also included Anabaptists who did not acknowledge the power of the authorities.89 Rumours thus usually originate in circles where Latin is understood. Their message will be dangerous for those they are targeting when they reach the common man and inform public opinion, which is why they must circulate in the vernacular. This also explains why the pulpit is seen as being particularly harmful, for it is from there that the learned influence laypeople in the vernacular. The preachers could defend themselves against Latin in a disputation, whereas rumours evidently had to be refuted by writing in German, because they circulated in the vernacular. Although there were disputes Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 272. Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 752. 87  Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 749. 88  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 272. 89  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 271, p. 277. 85  86 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 257

between the Nikolsburg Anabaptists and the Utraquists, the latter were not designated as involved in the fabrication of rumours. Nor does the Czech language appear as a medium in which rumours circulated. Hubmaier goes on to say that he is reviled by his opponents not only because of his sermons but also because of his published writings.90 While a rumour can be caused by a printed text, its expression, in the view of the Nikolsburg preachers, remains tied to orality. For while Hubmaier argues using printed treatises, and he and Spittelmaier promise to have their teachings printed, the remarks of their adversaries (which are admittedly only reported by those they are aimed at) remain in the spoken sphere. Rumours thus spread with the help of oral statements and the preachers only learn about them by means of hearsay.91 While their opponents shout, calmer expressions are reserved for the Nikolsburg preachers when they report on their activities. They teach, proclaim, reveal, preach, etc., but they never shout. Such moderated volume is otherwise reserved for biblical figures. Evangelical preachers contrast the length and quantity of what is spoken by their adversaries with the shortness and succinctness of their own texts. It is not for nothing that Hubmaier, in the title of his apologia, describes it as brief. Furthermore, brevity is dealt with as a distinct subject in his text and in that of Glaidt. The Reformers stress that they express themselves clearly and concisely and come quickly to the point.92 For the preachers it is important that their words can be examined at any time and compared with the Bible. For this reason the printed form in which their treatises circulated was itself seen as a kind of anti-rumour, and in addition, it was considered to be particularly effective in countering rumours. What triggered Spittelmaier’s writing of his apologia was the unsuccessful discussion with the guardian of the monastery in Feldsberg and the distortion of Spittelmaier’s words by the monks.93 Glaidt even sees the ­publication of his

Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 277. Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, pp. 30–32; Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 273; Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 752. 92  For example, Hubmaier introduces one of his conclusions with the words: ‘vnd kurtzlich zů beschliessen, damit wir ze land fahren’ (‘and to conclude briefly, so that we can reach the land’), Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 281. 93  Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, pp. 26–32. 90  91 

258 Jiří Černý

article and justification of his position as a way to ‘den schwetzern unnd seel verfierern das maul verstoppen’ (‘shut the mouth of the gossips and seducers of souls’).94 Hubmaier promises to publish his sermons from his Waldshut period in printed form.95 All three – Hubmaier, Glaidt, and Spittelmaier – affirm that what they have published in print they had previously preached. The apologia thus becomes a written repetition of what has been spoken, available as an aid to everyone who wants to scrutinize the teachings preached. Only when something has been written and printed can it be regarded as having the value of evidence in the struggle to disprove a spoken lie. Unlike Spittelmaier, neither Hubmaier nor Glaidt specify their opponents. Hubmaier is very consistent in this respect, for he omits all names of his enemies even when he gives the exact time and place of their misdemeanours. Several people are mentioned by name in his writings, though, as witnesses of his own actions. However, he does not give the names of the councillors, at the negotiations in Konstanz in 1525, who banned Waldhut from maintaining the Protestant faith. He also refuses to mention Zwingli by name, though it is probably Zwingli whom he reports, in an addendum to an earlier treatise, as changing his opinion, imprisoning him in Zurich, and proposing to teach him the true faith by threatening him with the hangman.96 Hubmaier therefore knows the details but omits the names. In so doing, he deliberately negates the way in which a rumour functions. For a fama mala always aims directly at the person it is targeting, while the veracity of what it says is questionable. It is rarely concerned with details and remains on the general level. For these writers it is an honour when they have to suffer because of false accusations. They agree that they are experiencing the same thing as Christ when they are reviled. They would have borne this suffering in silence if the actions of their opponents had not reached a critical point. Spittelmaier has his book printed because the monks have deprived the ordinary believers of the Word.97 In his Kurze Entschuldigung, Hubmaier is concerned that the weak should not be prevented from receiving his teaching, which is the teaching of Christ; he has also been persuaded by good friends (probably, the

Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 752. Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 277. 96  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, pp. 278–80. 97  Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, ed. and trans. by Černý and others, p. 30. 94  95 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 259

Lords of Liechtenstein) to defend his views.98 Glaidt says that he has broken his patient silence with his pamphlet because of the Word of God. If he had remained silent, then the people that he had won for the Gospel would have been led astray from the true faith by bad talk.99 The protection of the ordinary people was clearly a central concern of the Reformers. However, the apologies would seem to have been written in order to avert the accusation that the Nikolsburg preachers were heretics and rabble-rousers. Spittelmaier three times denies the accusation. Hubmaier rebuffs the allegation that he is the worst kind of Lutheran heretic with the words: ‘Jrren mag ich, ich bin ein mensch, aber ein ketzer sein mag ich nit’ (‘I may err, I am a human being – but a heretic I cannot be’).100 Similarly, Glaidt reports that the faithful are advised against going to Nikolsburg, because it is full of heretics.101 Unlike Hubmaier, however, he does not reject the accusation directly, but turns it round by declaring that he would rather be a heretic with Christ than a holy father with the pope.102 Heresy, as Hans-Joachim Diekmannshenke explains, was considered a major transgression against the faith and unity of the Church, and resulted in excommunication and death. In the secular sphere the accusation of heresy had as its counterpart sedition, both seen as a threat to the current order, both applied, for example, to the Peasants’ War. The use of this expression was thus a central element in the struggle against the radicals. It qualified resistance against the authorities as illegitimate, and the death penalty was taken for granted in the sources. This is why sedition played an important role in the transcripts of interrogations of the Anabaptists.103 As part of Ferdinand’s I struggle against the Anabaptists in Bohemia and Moravia he warned the estates that an uprising was being prepared for the spring of 1528, and Hubmaier was one of those condemned because of a charge of sedition.104 Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 270, pp. 272–73, p. 279. Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 752. 100  Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 279; Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. and trans. by Pipkin and Yoder, p. 308. 101  Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 751. 102  Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, ed. by Laube and others, p. 752. 103  Diekmannshenke, Die Schlagwörter der Radikalen der Reformationszeit, pp.  307–23, pp. 331–36; Kéry, ‘Ketzer, Ketzerei’, cols 1720–26. 104  Pánek, ‘Moravští novokřtěnci’, p.  244; Rothkegel, ‘Von der Schönen Madonna zum Scheiterhaufen’, p. 65; Rothkegel, ‘Anabaptism in Moravia and Silesia’, p. 172. 98  99 

260 Jiří Černý

As Heike Johanna Mierau has observed, medieval society placed the fama used in laying charges on the same level as a Gerüft or Gerücht, in other words a legal concept that referred to the call for help of a victim of violence. Rumours were capable of naming a danger and at the same time of serving as a means of restoring order in Christian society. They therefore represented a legitimate starting-point for legal proceedings. In such proceedings the mundus appeared as prosecutor, and the judges functioned as a court of appeal that was supposed to verify the allegations of the fama. However, the fama did not only initiate the court proceedings, but also functioned in the second phase as evidence, whereby it was important in which places and by whom certain statements were made and heard by the witnesses. Strikingly, heresy was classified as a spoken sin, for which the evidence of witnesses was sufficient and no written documents needed to be presented, so that the arguments given during the hearing were sufficient for judgement to be passed.105 The Nikolsburg preachers therefore wrote their apologias primarily as a defence against a serious threat, since they well knew that rumours about them could at any time lead to court proceedings. They therefore described the rumours that circulated about them as false and their enemies as the source of the rumours, for, according to Mierau, a distinction was also made in the courts between the talk of enemies and the declarations of trustworthy people.106 The preachers therefore defined the accusations of their adversaries as geschray, which had a negative connotation from the beginning, since it referred to the pagans, Jews, or wolves. It was also relevant that the writings of the preachers could not be rejected as simply talk. Their writings were intended to destroy any possible accusation in advance, and therefore their aim was to call into question the fama – in their view no divine voice but a human work – and its power to establish a system. Conclusion It is striking that the Nikolsburg Reformers hardly ever referred to the Czech language, not even in connection with infant baptism, although it would have Mierau, ‘Fama als Mittel zur Herstellung von Öffentlichkeit und Gemeinwohl in der Zeit des Konziliarismus’, pp. 237–86; cf. Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm, v, cols  3753–54; Mierau, ‘Exkommunikation und Macht der Öffentlichkeit’, pp.  47–80; Mierau, ‘Gerüchte als Medium der Grenzüberschreitung im Bonifaz-Prozeß’; Lück, ‘Gerüfte’, cols 259–64. 106  Mierau, ‘Gerüchte als Medium der Grenzüberschreitung im Bonifaz-Prozeß’, p. 114. 105 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 261

suited Hubmaier and Glaidt to raise the criticism that the child should have been asked in Czech or have answered in Czech. Even the language of the country in general is not mentioned, as in Hubmaier’s Etliche Schlussreden vom Unterricht der Messe. The vernacular is simply and always German. This to a degree conflicts with the fact that the other confessions specific to Bohemia and Moravia appeared in the pamphlets, and that Hubmaier also dedicated his works to representatives of Utraquism, such as Burian Sobek of Kornice, an important translator of Luther’s writings into Czech.107 Equating the vernacular with German can be explained firstly by the fact that in Nikolsburg Spittelmaier, Glaidt, and Hubmaier had come to a German-speaking area, and did not need to deal with Czech. Apparently, neither Spittelmaier nor Glaidt had to learn Czech, for the audience for their sermons only understood German. When Hubmaier portrayed Leonhard and Johannes of Liechtenstein holding a conversation in German or stipulated in German what the inhabitants of Nikolsburg should say during the Last Supper or baptism, he was in all likelihood respecting the everyday reality of the town. Secondly, the authors of the pamphlets evidently count on having only German readers and listeners. Although Spittelmaier’s apologia has a strong regional character, and seems primarily intended to influence public opinion in the domains of the Liechtensteins and the neighbouring areas, it is at the same time aimed at a far broader public, much less interested in circumstances in Feldsberg and Nikolsburg than in the evangelical faith and criticism of Rome. The expressed intention of writing a follow-up tract in Latin supports the assumption that the pamphlet was intended to have an influence beyond the borders of the Liechtenstein domains. Glaidt’s treatises also most likely counted on two kinds of public: written in German, they were aimed primarily at the German-speaking areas in the lands of the Bohemian crown, which were not influenced by Utraquism and where the German Reformation would sooner or later meet with a response. Hubmaier always wanted to reach a broader public than his readers in Nikolsburg. This is made clear in his Kurze Entschuldigung in particular. It attempts to alter the way the rulers deal with the evangelical preachers through the pressure that public opinion can exert on the authorities: pressure which hoped to secure protection to the Nikolsburg Reformers and the local nobility. For in denouncing rumours as unfounded, the apologias of

107 

Cf. Zeman, The Anabaptists and the Czech Brethren in Moravia 1526–1628, pp. 165–72.

262 Jiří Černý

the Nikolsburg Reformers attempted not only to prevent their authors from being accused of heresy and rebellion, but also to prevent the Liechtensteins from being seen as people who supported heretics. This would tally with the fact that the Lords of Liechtenstein may well have persuaded Hubmaier to write his pamphlet.108 Last but not least, the texts were probably intended to help find potential partners among the estates who were inclined towards the Reformation, in case a charge was laid. But texts written and printed in German could certainly contribute to changes in social manners. Furthermore, Hubmaier’s writings show that he was virtually not interested in a public in Bohemia. He dedicated his works from his Nikolsburg period solely to the Moravian and Silesian rulers, who were at pains to maintain contact with the German Reformation and could no doubt all understand German.109 Regional matters were restricted virtually to the prefaces; in the texts themselves the political and religious situation in the country played almost no role. Nikolsburg did admittedly function as a model, but it could have been replaced by any other location without difficulty. In Hubmaier’s view, it was part of ‘Germany’ and the German Reformation, which was why the preacher felt obliged to be involved in shaping public opinion in the Empire. Thirdly, the lack of interest in the Czech language on the part of the Nikolsburg Reformers could result from the fact that the Bohemians were still regarded as heretics in the early sixteenth century.110 A reference to the second language of the country might well leave a heretical and seditious aftertaste, for an unpleasant odour is attributed to the land by Schedel’s Weltchronik (Nuremberg Chronicle) in 1493.111 Luther himself spoke about the Hussites in extremely negative terms at the beginning of his academic career, pillorying in particular their superbia. For him, the Bohemians represented simply heretics possessed by the devil, and he compared them to Mohammed.112 Admittedly, this changed in the wake of the Leipzig Disputation in 1519. Thomas Kaufmann even supposes, on the basis of the response that Luther’s positive evaluation of Hus met with in contemporary

Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Westin and Bergsten, p. 270. Cf. Rothkegel, ‘Das Verständnis der Heiligen Schrift bei den Täufern in Mähren’, p. 179. 110  Kraus, Husitství v  literatuře, zejména německé, i, pp.  119–203; Macek, Víra a zbožnost jagellonského věku, pp. 32–37. 111  Hartmann Schedel, Weltchronik, intr. and comm. by Füssel, fol. CCXXXr, cf.  fol. CCXXXVIIIr, fol. CCXLIv. 112  Kaufmann, Der Anfang der Reformation, pp. 31–34. 108  109 

The Nikolsburg Anabaptists and German-Language Apologias 263

c­ ommentaries, that the image of Hus outside the theology of the schools could not have been so negative: the increasing number of Reformation pamphlets contributed to the improved image of the Hussites.113 Hubmaier, of course, had received a classical university education and had even been a pupil of Johannes Eck. All three Reformers were staying in a region not associated with the Hussite movement. In not using Czech, Hubmaier may therefore have been trying to avoid being linked with the Hussite revolution and the violence that accompanied it. He could have been afraid that a direct and conciliatory connection with the Utraquists would cause a similar reaction by the authorities to that of George of Saxony after the Leipzig Disputation. The use of Czech during the Mass might also be too reminiscent of the practices of the Utraquists, from whose teachings Hubmaier and Glaidt publicly distanced themselves. These are probably the reasons why Moravia does not appear in the writings of the Nikolsburg Anabaptists as a land where various confessions are to be found alongside one another; they are interested solely in the Liechtenstein domains, where the German Reformation has gained acceptance. Consequently they belong to ‘Germany’ and the adherents of its Reformation are ‘Germans’. Ultimately, for Hubmaier, it was the German language in which it was possible to speak clearly and unambiguously to the masses. The speech should be neither too quiet, so that it would not be reminiscent of the Latin Mass, nor too loud, since shouting implied dishonesty. The German language conveyed the truth; it did not ‘stink’, as might well have been the case with Czech.

113 

Kaufmann, Der Anfang der Reformation, p. 43.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manuscript and Archival Sources Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, MS A X 66 ———, MS E I 9 Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 56 ———, Mk 91 ———, Mk 92 ———, MS R 409 ———, Moravská zemský archiv, NŘ 14 Herrnhut, Universitätsarchiv, MS AB.II.R.1.16.a Jena, Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, MS El. f. 49 Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, MS 346 Kraków, Biblioteka Jagiellońska, MS 421 ———, MS 423 ———, MS 1855 ———, MS 2148 ———, Archiwum Polskiej Prowincji Dominikanów, MS R XV 14 Leipzig, Universitätsbibliothek, MS 602 London, British Museum, MS Arundel 458 Olomouc, Státní Vědecká Knihovna, MS II 135 ———, MS M I 288 Padua, Biblioteca di San Giovanni, MS Pluteo VII Plzeň, Studijní a vědecká knihovna Plzeňského kraje, MS 134 225 Prague, Královská kanonie premonstrátů na Strahově, inv. no. 470/zl.

266 Bibliography

———, MS DB II 3 ———, Knihovna Metropolitní Kapituly, MS A 79/5 ———, MS B 22/2 ———, MS D 50 ———, MS D 119 ———, MS M 29 ———, MS N 7 ———, MS N 58 ———, MS O 10 ———, MS O 50 ———, Knihovna Národního muzea, MS III B 11 ———, MS XII E 3 ———, MS XII F 14 ———, MS XV A 12 ———, MS XVI E 14 ———, Národní knihovna České republiky, MS I D 9 ———, MS I F 18 ———, MS III A 6 ———, MS III B 3 ———, MS III G 10 ———, MS IV F 25 ———, MS IV G 15 ———, MS V G 15 ———, MS VII D 9 ———, MS VIII C 17 ———, MS X C 23 ———, MS X D 11

Bibliography 267

———, MS X H 13 ———, MS XI C 8 ———, MS XIV G 17 ———, MS XVII A 2 ———, MS XVII C 19 ———, MS XVII D 38 ———, MS XVII H 13 ———, MS XX B 9 Stockholm, Kungliga Biblioteket, Codex Holmiensis A 164 Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, MS Theol. 76 XI Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, MS C 188 ———, MS C 261 Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Ottob. Lat. 350 Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, MS Lat. Z. 131 (1719) Vienna, Dominikanerkonvent, MS 35/36 ———, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 1294 ———, Cod. 1337 ———, Cod. 1387 ———, Cod. 1622 ———, Cod. 3513 ———, Cod. 4283 ———, Cod. 4310 ———, Cod. 4343 ———, Cod. 4488 ———, Cod. 4523 ———, Cod. 4875 ———, Cod. 4902

268 Bibliography

———, MS Pal. Lat. 11 561 ———, MS Pal. Lat. 11 794 Wilhering, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. IX 122 Wolfenbüttel, August Bibliothek, MS Helmst. 306 Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, MS I F 237 ———, MS I F 308 ———, MS I Q 87

Primary Sources Acta capitulorum Cracoviensis et Plocensis selecta (1438–1523, 1438–1525), ed.  by Bolesław Ulanowski, Archiwum Komisji Historycznej, 6 (Kraków: Nakładem Akademii Umiejętności, 1891) Acta capitulorum nec non iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum selecta, ed. by Bolesław Ulanowski, 3  vols, Monumenta Medii Aevi Historica Res Gestas Poloniae Illustrantia, 13, 16, 18 (Kraków: Nakładem Akademii Umieje̜tności, 1894–1918), ii: Acta iudiciorum ecclesiasticorum diocesum Gneznensis et Poznaniensis: 1403–1530 (1902) Albertus Magnus, Opera omnia, ed. by Auguste Borgnet and others, 38 vols (Paris: Vivès, 1890–99), xxxv: Secunda pars summae de creaturis, ed. by Auguste Borgnet (1896) Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn, Song on Wyclif, trans. by Michael Mikoś, in Michael Mikoś, Medieval Literature of Poland: An Anthology, Garland Library of Medieval Literature, 82/B (New York: Garland, 1992), pp. 143–45 Balthasar Hubmaier, Schriften, ed. by Gunnar Westin and Torsten Bergsten, Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte, 29: Quellen und Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte: Quellen zur Geschichte der Täufer, 9 (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1962) Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, ed. and trans. by H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder, Classics of the Radical Reformation, 5 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1989)

Bibliography 269

Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed.  by Robert Weber and others, 5th rev. edn (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013) Cantiones bohemicae: Leiche, Lieder und Rufe des 13., 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts, ed.  by Guido Maria Dreves, Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, 1 (Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag, 1886) Chrestomatia staropolska: Teksty do roku 1543 [Old-Polish Chrestomatia: Texts until 1543], ed.  by Wiesław Wydra and Ryszard Rzepka (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1995) Codex diplomaticus universitatis studii generalis Cracoviensis: Continet privilegia et documenta quae res gestas Academiae eiusque beneficia illustrant (Kraków: Sumptibus Universiatis, 1870–1900), ii: Ab Anno 1441 usque ad Annum 1470, ed. by Johannes Stenzel (1873) Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti, ed. by Antoni Sokołowski and others, 3 vols, Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia, 2, 12, 14 (Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności, 1876–94), i: Ex antiquis libris formularum, 2 pts (1876), pt i: 1384–1444, ed.  by Antoni Sokołowski, ii: 1444–1492, ed. by Józef Szujski Commentarius in I–IX capitula tractatus De universalibus Iohannis Wyclif Stephano de Palecz ascriptus, ed. by Ivan J. Müller (Prague: Filosofia, 2009) Conrad Waldhauser, ‘Apologia Konradi in Waldhausen’, in Geschichtsschreiber der hussitischen Bewegung in Böhmen, ed.  by Karl Adolf Constantin Höfler, 3 vols, Fontes Rerum Austriacarum: Scriptores, 1/6/2 (Vienna: Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1856–66), ii (1865), pp. 17–39 ———, ‘Cantiones Vissegradenses’, in Hymnarius Moissiacensis: Das Hymnar der Abtei Mossaic im 10. Jahrhundert, ed.  by Guido Maria Dreves, Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, 2 (Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag, 1888) ———,‘De Christo et suo adversario Antichristo’: Ein polemischer Tractat Johann Wiclif ’s, aus den Handschriften der K.  K. Hofbibliothek zu Wien und der Universitätsbibliothek zu Prag, ed. by Rudolf Buddensieg (Gotha: Perthes, 1880) D.  Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 120  vols (Weimar: Böhlau 1883–2009), 1: Schriften, 73  vols, vi: Schriften 1519/20 (einschl. Predigten, Disputationen) (1888), xi: Predigten und Schriften 1523 (1900), xv: Predigten und Schriften 1524 (1899), 3: Die deutsche

270 Bibliography

Bibel, 12  vols (Weimar: Böhlau, 1906–61), viii: Deutsche Bibel: 5 Bücher Mose 1523/45 (1954) Documenta mag. Joannis Hus, ed.  by František Palacký (Prague: Tempsky, 1869) Glaidt, Hubmaier, Spittelmaier: Tři texty mikulovských novokřtěnců [Glaidt, Hubmaier, Spittelmaier: Three Texts by Anabaptists from Mikulov], ed. and trans. by Jiří Černý and others, Beiträge zur deutschmährischen Literatur, 20 (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2011) Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Evangelia, ed. by Raymond Étaix, Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina, 141 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999) Guillelmi Duranti Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, ed. by Anselme Davril and Timothy M. Thibodeau, 3 vols, Corpus Christianorum: Continuatio Mediaevalis, 140 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995–2000), ii: V–VI (1998) Hec sent Mirabilia Rome quomodo gloriose constructa erat, ed. by Constantin Höfler, in Constantin Höfler, Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1857), pp. 35–52 Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, ed. by Emil Egli and others, 6 vols, Corpus Reformatorum, 88–93 (Berlin and others, 1905–91), ii: Zwinglis Schriften 20-29 (14. Juli 1523–Dez. 1523), ed. by Emil Egli and Georg Finsler (Leipzig: Heinsius, 1908) Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda aurea: Vulgo Historia Lombardica dicta, ed. by Theodor Grässe, 2nd edn (Leipzig: Librariae Arnoldianae, 1850) ———, Sermones de sanctis per anni totius circulum, ed. by Giovanni Battista Somascho (Venezia: Giovanni Battista Somascho, 1573) ———, Sermones dominicales per totum annum, ed.  by Giovanni Battista Somascho (Venezia: Giovanni Battista Somascho, 1579) ———, Sermones quadragesimales, ed.  by Giovanni Battista Somascho (Venezia: Giovanni Battista Somascho, 1575) Jakoubek of Stříbro, Překlad Viklefova Dialogu [Translations of Wyclif ’s Dialogue], ed.  by Milan Svoboda, Sbírka pramenův ku poznání literárního života v Čechách, na Moravě a v Slezsku: Skupina, 1/2/7 (Prague: České Akademie Císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1909)

Bibliography 271

———, Tractatus responsivus, ed. by Samuel Harrison Thomson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1927) Jan Bechyňka, ‘Praga mistica’, ed.  by Noemi Rejchrtová, in Praga mystica: Z dějin české reformace, ed.  by Amedeo Molnár, Acta reformationem Bohemicam illustrantia, 3 (Prague: Kalich, 1984), pp. 35–49 Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila: Vyloženie svatých čtení nedělních [Czech Sunday Postil: Exposition of the Holy Sunday Readings], ed. by Jiří Daňhelka, Magistri Iohannis Hus Opera omnia, 2 (Prague: Academia, 1992) ———, Constantiensia, ed.  by Helena Krmíčková and others, Corpus Christianorum: Continuatio Medievaelis, 274 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016) ———, Leccionarium bipartitum: Pars hiemalis, ed. by Anežka VidmanováSchmidtová, Magistri Iohannis Hus opera omnia, 9 (Prague: Academia, 1988) ———, O církvi [On the Church], ed. by Amedeo Molnár and František M. Dobiáš, Památky staré literatury české, 26 (Prague: Nakladatelstvi Československé Akademie Věd, 1965) ———, Postilla adumbrata, ed.  by Bohumil Ryba, Magistri Iohannis Hus Opera omnia, 13 (Prague: Academia, 1975) ———, Sermones de sanctis, ed. by Václav Flajšhans, Sbírka pramenů českého hnutí náboženského ve XIV. a XV. století: Spisy  M. Jana Husi, 7–8 (Prague: J. R. Vilímek, 1907) ———, Sermones in Bethlehem, 1410–1411, ed. by Václav Flajšhans, 6 parts, Věstník Královské české společnosti nauk (Prague: KČSN, 1938–45), i (1938), iv: Sermones in Capella Bethlehem (1941) ———, Sto listů [Hundred Letters], ed. by Bohumil Ryba, Sloupové pamětní, 8 (Prague: Laichter, 1949) ———, Tractatus de ecclesia, ed.  by Samuel Harrison Thomson (Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Press, 1956) ———, Výklady [Expositions], ed. by Jiří Daňhelka, Magistri Iohannis Hus Opera Omnia, 1 (Prague: Academia, 1975) ———, and Jakoubek of Stříbro, Betlemské texty [Bethlehem Texts], ed.  by Bohumil Ryba, Památky staré literatury české, 11 (Prague: Orbis, 1951)

272 Bibliography

Jenský kodex [The Jena Codex], ed. by Marta Vaculínová and Kamil Boldan, 2 vols (Prague: Gallery, 2009), i: Faksimile [Facsimile], ii: Komentář [Commentary] Jerome of Prague, Quaestiones, Polemica, Epistulae, ed. by František Šmahel and Gabriel Silagi, Corpus Christianorum: Continuatio Medievaelis, 222 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010) Johannes Spittelmaier, ‘Entschuldigung Joannis Spitelmayer’, in Glaidt, Hubmaier, Spittelmaier: Tři texty mikulovských novokřtěnců, ed. and trans. by Jiří Černý and others, Beiträge zur deutschmährischen Literatur, 20 (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2011), pp. 9–67 John Wyclif, Dialogus sive Speculum Ecclesie Militantis, ed.  by Alfred  W. Pollard (London: Wyclif Society, 1886) ———, Miscellanea philosophica, ed.  by Michael Henry Dziewicki, 2  vols (London: Trübner, 1902–05), i (1902) ———, Opus evangelicum, ed.  by Johann Loserth, 2  vols, Wyclif ’s Latin Works, 24–25 (London: Wyclif Society, 1895–96), i (1895) ———, Sermones, ed. by Johann Loserth, 4 vols, Wyclif ’s Latin Works, 11–14 (London: Wyclif Society, 1887–90), i: Super evangelia dominicalia (1887) ———, Summa insolubilium, ed.  by Paul Vincent Spade and Gordon Anthony Wilson, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies (Series), 41 (Birmingham, NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1986) ———, Tractatus de apostasia, ed.  by Michael Henry Dziewicki (London: Trübner for the Wyclif Society, 1889) ———, Tractatus de blasphemia, ed. by Michael Henry Dziewicki (London: Trübner for the Wyclif Society, 1893) ———, Tractatus de civili dominio, ed. by Johann Loserth and Reginald Lane Poole, 4 vols, Latin Works / Johannes Wyclif, 16 (London: Trübner for the Wyclif Society, 1885–1903), ii: Liber secundus, ed. by Johann Loserth (1900) ———, Tractatus de ecclesia, ed. by Johann Loserth (London: Trübner for the Wyclif Society, 1886) ———, Tractatus de potestate papae, ed. by Johann Loserth (London: Trübner for the Wyclif Society, 1907)

Bibliography 273

———, Tractatus de trinitate, ed.  by Allen duPont Breck (Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 1962) ———, Tractatus de universalibus, ed. by Ivan J. Müller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) ———, Trialogus, ed. by Gotthard Lechler (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869) ———, Trialogus, ed.  by Stephen  E. Lahey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) ———, Trialogus cum supplemento trialogi, ed.  by Gotthard  V. Lechler (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869) Kališnický Pasionál z roku 1495 [The Utraquist Passional from the Year 1495], ed. by Zdeněk V. Tobolka, Monumenta Bohemiae typographica, 2 (Prague: self-published print, 1926) Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, ed.  by Walther Lipphardt, 9  vols, Ausgaben deutscher Literatur des XV. bis XVIII. Jahrhunderts: Reihe Drama, 5 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975–90) Ludolph of Saxony, Vita Jesu Christi, ed.  by L.  M. Rigollot, 4  vols (Paris: Victor Palmé and Bruxelles: G. Lebrocquy, 1878), i (1878) M. Jana Husi Korespondence a dokumenty [Correspondence and Documents of Jan Hus], ed.  by Václav Novotný, Sbírka Pramenů Českého hnutí náboženského ve XIV. a XV. století (Prague: Komise pro Vydávání Pramenů Náboženského Hnutí Českého, 1920) Master Nicholas of Dresden: The Old Color and the New: Selected Works Contrasting the Primitive Church and the Roman Church, ed. and trans. by Howard Kaminsky and others, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society: New Series, 55/1 (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1965) Matthias of Janov, Matthiae de Janov dicti Magistri Parisiensis Regularum Veteris et Novi Testamenti: Liber V: De corpore Cristi (editionis volumen VI), ed.  by Jana Nechutová, Veröffentlichungen des Collegium Carolinum, 69 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1993) Mirabilia Romae: E codicibvs Vaticanis emendate, ed. by Gustav Parthey and Heinrich Kiepert (Berlin: F. Nicolai, 1869) Ordo visitationis z początku XV wieku [Ordo visitationis from the Beginning of the Fifteenth Century], ed. by Stanisław Librowski, in Stanisław

274 Bibliography

Librowski, ‘Wizytacje diecezji włocławskiej’, Archiwa, Biblioteki i Muzea Kościelne, 8 (1964), pp. 5–186, and 10 (1965), pp. 33–207, here pp. 201–02 Oswald Glaidt, ‘Entschuldigung’, in Flugschriften vom Bauernkrieg zum Täuferreich (1526-1535), ed. by Adolf Laube and others, 2 vols (Berlin: Akademie, 1992), i, pp. 749–71 ———, ‘Handlung yetz den. xiiii. tag Marcy dis. xxvi. iars’, in Glaidt, Hubmaier, Spittelmaier: Tři texty mikulovských novokřtěnců, ed. and trans. by Jiří Černý and others, Beiträge zur deutschmährischen Literatur, 20 (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 2011), pp. 69–91 Petr Chelčický, Drobné spisy [Minor Works], ed. by Eduard Petrů, Památky staré literatury české, 30 (Prague: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd, 1966) ———, Dva traktáty [Two Treatises], ed.  by Emil Smetánka, Špalíček, 9 (Prague: Reichel, 1932) ———, Siet viery [The Net of Faith], ed. by Jaroslav Boubín, Sbírka pramenů k náboženským dějinám, 3 (Prague: Historický Ústav Akademie věd České republiky, 2012) ———, Spisy z Pařížského sborníku [Works from the Paris Codex], ed.  by Jaroslav Boubín, Sbírka pramenů k náboženským dějinám, 1 (Prague: Historický ústav Akademie věd České republiky, 2008) Polska poezja świecka XV wieku [Polish Secular Poetry of the Fifteenth Century], ed.  by Maciej Włodarski, Biblioteka Narodowa, 1/60 (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowny im. Ossolińskich, 1997) Prameny k synodám strany pražské a táborské (vznik husitské konfesse) v létech 1441–1444 [Sources for Synods of Prague and Tabor Party (Formation of Hussite Confession) in the Years 1441–1444], ed.  by Zdeněk Nejedlý (Prague: Královská česká společnost nauk, 1900) Pražské synody a koncily předhusitské doby [Prague Synods and Councils in Pre-Hussite Times], ed.  by Jaroslav Polc and Zdeňka Hledíková (Prague: Collegium Carolinum, 2002) Protocollum visitationis archidiaconatus Pragensis annis 1379–1382 per Paulum de Janowicz archidiaconum Pragensem, factae, ed.  by Ivan Hlaváček and Zdeňka Hledíková (Prague: Academia, 1973)

Bibliography 275

Quadragesimale Admontense – Quadragesimale admontské, ed.  by Hana Florianová and others, Fontes Latini Bohemorum, 6 (Prague: Oikumené, 2006) Schedel, Hartmann, Weltchronik: Kolorierte Gesamtausgabe von 1493, intr. and comm. by Stephan Füssel (Augsburg: Weltbild, 2004) Stanislaus of Znojmo, Tractatus de universalibus (maior), in John Wyclif, Miscellanea philosophica, ed. by Michael Henry Dziewicki, 2 vols, Wyclif ’s Latin Works, 8 (London: Trübner, 1902–05), ii (1905) pp. 1–151 Staročeské Životy svatých Otcův [Old Czech Lives of the Holy Fathers], ed. by Emil Smetánka (Prague: Česká akademie, 1909) Staročeské zpracování Postily studentů svaté university pražské Konráda Waldhausera [An Old Czech Adaptation of Conrad Waldhauser’s Postils for the Students of Prague University], ed. by František Šimek, Sbírky pramenů českého hnutí náboženského ve XIV a XV století, 20 (Prague: Komise pro vydávání pramenů českého hnutí náboženského ve stol. XIV. a XV., zřízené při České akademii věd a umění, 1947) Statuty wieluńsko-kaliskie Mikołaja Trąby z 1420 roku [The Kalisz-Wieluń Synod Statutes of Mikołaj Trąba from 1420], ed. by Jan Fijałek and Adam Vetulani, Studia i materiały do historii ustawodawstwa synodalnego w Polsce, 4 (Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1951) Tabule staré a nové barvy Mikuláše z Drážďan ve staročeském překladu [Tables of Old and New Colour by Nicholas of Dresden in the Old Czech Translation], ed. by Milada Homolková and Michal Dragoun (Prague: Scriptorium, 2016) The English Works of Wyclif, ed. by Frederic D. Matthew, Early English Text Society: Original Series, 74 (London: Trübner, 1880) Thomas of Cantimpré, Liber de natura rerum: Editio princeps secundum codices manuscriptos, ed. by Helmut Boese (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973) Václav Koranda the Younger, Manualník M. Vácslava Korandy [The Manual of M.  Václav Koranda], ed.  by Josef Truhlář (Prague: Nákl. České Společnosti Nauk, 1888) Vitaspatrum (Nürnberg: Anton Koberger, 1478), Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Digitale Bibliothek, Rar. 464, online: [accessed on 10 June 2015])

276 Bibliography

Von Breslau: Dokumentierte Geschichte und Beschreibung von Breslau in Briefen, ed.  by Samuel Benjamin Klose, 3  vols (Breslau: Korn, 1781–83), ii/ii (1781) Výbor z české literatury doby husitské [From the Czech Literature of the Hussite Period], ed. by Bohuslav Havránek, Josef Hrabák, and Jiří Daňhelka, 2 vols (Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd: Prague, 1963–64), i (1963) Secondary Works Andersson, Roger and Stephan Borgehammar, ‘The Preaching of the Birgittine Friars at Vadstena Abbey (ca 1380-1515)’, Révue Mabillon, 69 (1997), pp. 209–36 Andersson-Schmitt, Margarete and Monica Hedlund, Mittelalterliche Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Uppsala: Katalog über die C-Sammlung, Acta Bibliothecae  R. Universitatis Upsaliensis, 26/1 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990) Angenendt, Arnold, Geschichte der Religiosität im Mittelalter, 4th rev. edn (Darmstadt: WBG, 2009) Arndt, Erwin and Gisela Brandt, Luther und die deutsche Sprache: Wie redet der Deudsche man jnn solchem fall? (Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 1983) Arnold, John H., ‘Benedict of Alignan’s “Tractatus fidei contra diversos errores”: A Neglected Anti-Heresy Treatise of the Thirteenth Century’, Journal of Medieval History (forthcoming) Bartlová, Milena, ‘Der Bildersturm der böhmischen Hussiten: Ein neuer Blick auf eine radikale mittelalterliche Geste’, Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 59 (2010), pp. 27–48 ———, ‘“Prout lucide apparet in tabulis et picturis ipsorum”: Komunikační úloha obrazů a textů v  počátcích husitismu’, Studia mediaevalia Bohemica, 3/2 (2011), pp. 249–74 ———, Skutečná přítomnost: Středověký obraz mezi ikonou a virtuální realitou [The Real Presence: Medieval Picture between Icon and Virtual Reality] (Prague: Argo, 2012) Bartoš, František Michálek, ‘Česká postila Husova v latinském zpracování’ [Czech Postil of Hus in Latin Adaptation], Jihočeský sborník historický, 9 (1936), pp. 69–70

Bibliography 277

———, ‘Domnělá kázání Husova pronesená na Krakovci’ [Hus’s Sermons Supposedly Preached at Krakovec Castle], Jihočeský sborník historický, 17 (1948), p. 107 ———, ‘Husitika a bohemika několika knihoven německých a švýcarských’ [Hussitica and Bohemica from Several German and Swiss Libraries], Věstník Královské české společnosti nauk, 1/5 (1931), pp. 1–92 ———, Husitská revoluce [Hussite Revolution], 2  vols, České dějiny, 2/7 (Prague: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd, 1965–66), i: Doba Žižkova 1415–1426 [The Time of Žižkov 1415–1426] (1965) ———, ‘Husitský Sborník novoříšský’ [Hussite Compilation from Nová Říše], Jihočeský sborník historický, 21/2 (1952), pp. 67–68 ———, ‘Husovo kněžství’ [Hus’s Priesthood], Časopis Národního musea, 98 (1924), pp. 65–72 ———, ‘[Review of ] Jan Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, Praha 1915’, Časopis Matice moravské, 40 (1916), pp. 162–63 ———, Literární činnost M. J. Husi [Literary Activity of M. J. Hus], Sbírka pramenů k poznáni literárního života československého: Skupina, 3: Práce bibliografické, 10 (Prague: Česká akademie věd a umění, 1948) ———, Literární činnost M.  Jakoubka ze Stříbra [Literary Activity of M.  Jakoubek of Stříbro], Sbírka pramenů ku poznání literárního života v Čechách, na Moravě a v Slezsku: Skupina 3/8 (Prague: Česká Akademie Věd a Umění, 1925) ———, ‘M.  Jakoubka ze Stříbra Překlad Viklefova Dialogu’ [M.  Jakoubek of Stříbro’s Translation of Wyclif ’s Dialogue], Český časopis historický, 16 (1910), pp. 421–26 ———, ‘Nové Husovy postily’ [New Hus’s Postils], Časopis Musea Království českého, 89 (1915), pp. 377–78 ———, ‘Osudy polského husity v Táboře a v Čechách’ [The History of Polish Hussite in Tabor and in Bohemia], Jihočeský sbornik historický, (1972), pp. 111–14 ———, Soupis rukopisů Národního musea v Praze: Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum Musaei Nationalis Pragensis [Catalogue of Manuscripts of the National Museum in Prague], 2  vols (Prague: Melantrich, 1926–27) i: Codices Bohemicos complectens (1926), ii: Codices praeter Bohemicos, Orientales, Palaeoslavicos complectens (1927)

278 Bibliography

———, ‘Studie k Husovi a jeho době’ [Studies on Hus and his Time], Časopis Musea Království českého, 89 (1915), pp. 1–8, pp. 273–89 ———, ‘Ze spisovatelských počátků Husových’ [On the Beginnings of Hus as a Writer], Věstník České akademie, 52 (1943), pp. 29–46 ———, and Pavel Spunar, Soupis pramenů k literární činnost M. Jana Husa a M.  Jeronýma Pražského [List of Sources for the Literary Activities of M.  Jan Hus and M.  Jerome of Prague] (Prague: Historický ústav akademie věd České republiky, 1965) Bataillon, Louis-Jacques, ‘Les instruments de travail des prédicateurs au XIIIe siècle’, in Culture et travail intellectuel dans l’Occident médiéval, ed.  by Geneviève Hasenohr and Jean Longère (Paris: CNRS, 1981), pp. 197–209 ———, ‘Sermons rédigés, sermons reportés (XIIIe siècle)’, Medioevo e rinascimento, 3 (1989), pp. 69–86 Bauer, Erika, ‘Einleitung’, in Heinrich Hallers Übersetzung der ‘HieronymusBriefe’, ed. by Erika Bauer, Germanische Bibliothek: 4. Reihe: Neue Folge: Texte (Heidelberg: Winter and Universitätsverlag, 1984), pp. 13–90 Belting, Hans, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image before the Era of Art (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996) Bergsten, Torsten, Balthasar Hubmaier: Seine Stellung zu Reformation und Täufertum 1521-1528, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia historico-ecclesiastica Upsaliensia, 3 (Kassel: Onken, 1961) Bériou, Nicole, ‘La reportation des sermons parisiens à la fin du XIIIe siècle’, Medioevo e rinascimento, 3 (1989), pp. 87–123 ———, ‘Latin and the Vernacular: Some Remarks about Sermons Delivered on Good Friday during the Thirteenth Century’, in Die Deutsche Predigt im Mittelalter: Internationales Symposium am Fachbereich Germanistik der Freien Universität Berlin, vom 3.-6. Oktober 1989, ed.  by Volker Mertens and Hans-Jochen Schiewer (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1992), pp. 268–84 ———, ‘Les sermons latins après 1200’, in The Sermon, ed. by Beverly Mayne Kienzle, Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental, 81–83 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), pp. 263–447 Besch, Werner, ‘Die Rolle Luthers für die deutsche Sprachgeschichte’, in Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache

Bibliography 279

und ihrer Erforschung, ed.  by Werner Besch and others, 4 vols, 2nd rev. edn, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998–2004), ii (2000), pp. 1713–45 Beutel, Albrecht, In dem Anfang war das Wort: Studien zu Luthers Sprachverständnis, Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie, 27 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991) Boháč, Zdeněk, ‘Národnostní poměry v zemích České koruny v době předhusitské až do třicetileté války’ [National Relations in the Lands of the Czech Crown from Pre-Hussite Times to the Thirty Years’ War], in Husitství – Reformace – Renesance: Sborník k 60. narozeninám Františka Šmahela, ed.  by Jaroslav Pánek and others, 3  vols, Práce Historického ústavu ČAV, C: Miscellanea, 9 (Prague: Historický ústav, 1994), i, pp. 123–32 Boháček, Miroslav and František Čáda, Beschreibung der mittelalterlichen Handschriften der wissenschaftlichen Staatsbibliothek von Olmütz, 2  vols, Bausteine zur slavischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte, C: Bibliographie: Neue Folge, 1 (Cologne: Böhlau, 1994–98), i (1994) Boldan, Kamil and others, The Reception of Antiquity in Bohemian Book Culture from the Beginning of Printing until 1547, Europa humanistica, 12: Bohemia and Moravia, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014) Borecký, František, Mistr Jakoubek ze Stříbra [Master Jakoubek of Stříbro], Spisy Kalicha, 2 (Prague: Kalich, 1945) Boubín, Jaroslav, ‘Petr Chelčický a mistři pražské university’ [Petr Chelčický and the Masters of the University of Prague], in Jakoubek ze Stříbra: Texty a jejich působení, ed. by Ota Halama and Pavel Soukup (Prague: Filosofia, 2006), pp. 241–55 Brückner, Wolfgang, ‘Das alternative Väterleben: Zur VitaspatrumRezeption in nachmittelalterlicher Zeit’, in Volkskultur und Heimat: Festschrift für Josef Dünninger zum 80. Geburtstag, ed.  by Dieter Harmening and Erich Wimmer, Quellen und Forschungen zur europäischen Ethnologie, 3 (Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1986), pp. 294–309 Bylina, Stanisław, Wpływy Konrada Waldhausena na ziemiach polskich w drugiej połowie xiv i pierwszej połowie xv wieku [The Influences of Conrad Waldhauser on Polish Lands in the Second Half of the

280 Bibliography

Fourteenth and First Half of the Fifteenth Centuries] (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im Ossolińskich, 1966) Campi, Luigi, ‘Una difesa del determinismo dell’ultimo Wyclif attribuita a Peter Payne’, Rivista di storia della filosofia, 4 (2015), pp. 829–71 ———, ‘Yet Another “Lost” Chapter of Wyclif ’s Summa de ente: Notes on some Puzzling References to Tractatus 13’, Vivarium, 49 (2011), pp. 353–67 Cardelle de Hartmann, Carmen, Lateinische Dialoge 1200–1400: Literaturhistorische Studie und Repertorium, Mittellateinische Studien und Texte, 37 (Leiden: Brill, 2007) Catto, Jeremy  I., ‘Wyclif and Wycliffism in Oxford, 1356–1430’, in The History of the University of Oxford, ed. by Jeremy I. Catto and Ralph Evans, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), pp. 175–261 Cermanová, Pavlína, Čechy na konci věků: Apokalyptické myšlení a vize husitské doby [Bohemia at the End of the World: Apocalyptic Thinking and Visions of the Hussite Period], Edice Každodenní život (Prague: Argo, 2013) Černý, František, ‘Staročeské Životy svatých Otců’ [Review of ‘Old Czech Lives of the Holy Fathers’, ed. by Smetánka], Časopis Matice moravské, 34 (1910), pp. 305–06 Cesalli, Laurent, ‘Propositio in re’, in Mots médiévaux offerts à Ruedi Imbach, ed.  by Iñigo Atucha and others, Textes et études du moyen âge, 57 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), pp. 591–603 Češková, Lenka, ‘“Mirabilia urbis Romae” a “Mirabilia Rome” z rukopisu XIV H 33 Národní knihovny v Praze’ [The ‘Mirabilia urbis Romae’ and the ‘Mirabilia’ Rome in Manuscript  XIV H 33 of the National Library in Prague], in Querite primum regnum Dei: Sborník příspěvků k poctě Jany Nechutové, ed.  by Helena Krmíčková and others (Brno: Matice moravská, 2006), pp. 233–40 Charland, Thomas M., Artes Praedicandi: Contribution à l’histoire de la rhétorique au Moyen Âge, Publication de l’Institut d’Etudes Médiévales, 7 (Ottawa: Inst. d’études médiévales, 1936) Chatfield, Graeme Ross, Balthasar Hubmaier and the Clarity of Scripture: A Critical Reformation Issue, foreword by Diarmaid MacCulloch (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013)

Bibliography 281

Chytil, Karel, Antikrist v  naukách a umění středověku a husitské obrazné antithese [Antichrist in Medieval Doctrine and Art and the Hussite Pictorial Antitheses], Rozpravy České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 59 (Prague: Česká akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 1918) Constable, Giles, ‘The Language of Preaching in the Twelfth Century’, Viator, 25 (1994), pp. 131–52 Copeland, Rita, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics and Translation in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) Čornej, Petr and Milena Bartlová, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české [History of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown] (Prague: Paseka, 1999–2013), vi: 1437–1526 (2007) Dahmus, John H., The Prosecution of John Wyclyf (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952) Daňhelka, Jiří, ‘Das Zeugnis des Stockholmer Autographs von Hus’, Die Welt der Slaven, 27 (1982), pp. 225–33 David, Zdeněk  V., Finding the Middle Way: The Utraquists’ Liberal Challenge to Rome and Luther (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press; and Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003) Davidson, Mary Catherine, ‘Language-Mixing and Code-Switching in England in the Late Medieval Period’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, 2001) D’Avray, David L., The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused from Paris Before 1300 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) De Reu, Martine, ‘Divers chemins pour étudier un sermon’, in De l’homélie au sermon: Histoire de la prédication médiévale: Actes du Colloque international de Louvain-la-Neuve (9–11 juillet 1992), ed. by Jacqueline Hamesse and Xavier Hermand, Publications de l’Institut d’Études Médiévales, 2: Textes, Études, Congrès, 14 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut d‘études médiévales, 1993), pp. 331–40 Dekarli, Martin, ‘Henry Totting of Oyta and the Prague Nominalist “Schola Communis” between 1366 and 1409: A  Preliminary Draft’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis, 55/1 (2015), pp. 55–72

282 Bibliography

———, ‘“Regula generalis, principalis, prima veritas”: The Philosophical and Theological Principle of “Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti” of Matěj of Janov’, The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, 8 (2011), pp. 30–43 Delcorno, Carlo, ‘Medieval Preaching in Italy (1200–1500)’, in The Sermon, ed. by Beverly Mayne Kienzle, Typologie des Sources du Moyen Âge Occidental, 81–83 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), pp. 449–560 ———, ‘Predicazione volgare e volgarizzamenti’, Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome: Moyen-Age, Temps modernes, 89 (1977), pp. 679–89 ———, ‘The Language of Preachers: Between Latin and Vernacular’, The Italianist, 15 (1995), pp. 48–66 Denis, Michael, Codices manuscripti theologici Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonensis Latini aliarumque Occidentis linguarum, 2 vols (Vienna: Trattner, 1793–1802), i/2: Codices ad Caroli VI. tempora bibliothecae illatos complexum (1794) Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm, 33 vols, rev. edn (Munich: dtv, 1984), v: 4, 1, 2: Gefoppe – Getreibs De Vooght, Paul, Jacobellus de Stříbro († 1429), premier théologien du husitisme, Bibliothèque de la Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 54 (Louvain: Bureaux de la R. H. E., Publications universitaires de Louvain, 1972) Diekmannshenke, Hans-Joachim, Die Schlagwörter der Radikalen der Reformationszeit (1520-1536): Spuren utopischen Bewußtseins, Europäische Hochschulschriften, 1: Deutsche Sprache und Literatur, 1445 (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1994) Dokoupil, Vladislav, Soupis rukopisů mikulovské dietrichsteinské knihovny [Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Mikulov Dietrichstein Library], Soupisy rukopisných fondů Universitní knihovny v Brně, 2 (Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1958) ———, Soupis rukopisů z knihovny minoritů v Brně, františkánů v Moravské Třebové a premonstrátů v Nové Říši [Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Library Friars Minors in Brno, Franciscans in Moravská Třebová and Premonstratensians in Nová Říše] (Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1959)

Bibliography 283

Doležalová, Eva, Svěcenci pražské diecéze 1395–1416 [Ordinands in the Diocese of Prague, 1395–1416], Práce Historického ústavu AV ČR: A, Monographia, 25 (Prague: Historický ústav, 2010) ———, and others, ‘The Reception and Criticism of Indulgences in the Late Medieval Czech Lands’, in Promissory Notes on the Treasury of Merits: Indulgences in Late Medieval Europe, ed. by Robert Norman Swanson, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 101–46 Dondaine, Antoine, ‘Guillaume Peyraut: Vie et oeuvres’, Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, 18 (1948), pp. 162–236 Dragoun, Michal, ‘Jenský kodex z hlediska kodikologie’ [The Jena Codex from the Point of View of Codicology], in Jenský kodex, ed. by Marta Vaculínová and Kamil Boldan, 2  vols (Prague: Gallery, 2009), i: Faksimile [Facsimile], pp. 77–86 ———, Soupis středověkých rukopisů Knihovny Národního Muzea: Doplňky ke katalogům F.  M. Bartoše, J.  Vašici a J.  Vajse [Catalogue of Medieval Manuscripts of the Library of National Museum: Supplements to the Catalogues of F. M. Bartoš, J. Vašica, and J. Vajs] (Prague: Scriptorium, 2011) Dubreil-Arcin, Agnès, Vies de saints, légendes de soi: L’écriture hagiographique dominicaine jusqu’au ‘Speculum sanctorale’ de Bernard Gui (†  1331), Hagiologia, 7 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011) Dussen, Michael van, From England to Bohemia: Heresy and Communication in the Later Middle Ages, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, 86 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) Eberhard, Winfried, Konfessionsbildung und Stände in Böhmen 1478– 1530, Veröffentlichungen des Collegium Carolinum, 38 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1981) Falke, Jakob von, Geschichte des fürstlichen Hauses Liechtenstein, 3  vols (Vienna: Braumüller, 1868–82), ii (1877) Farr, William E., John Wycliffe as Legal Reformer (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, 1985) Fernández Couceiro, Eduardo, Český utrakvistický humanismus v literárním díle Mikuláše Konáče z Hodiškova [Czech Utraquist Humanism and the Literary Works of Mikuláš Konáč of Hodiškov], Polemos (Prague: Togga, 2011)

284 Bibliography

———, and others, ‘Národní humanismus v diskuzi’ [Discussion about Czech National Humanism], Česká literatura, 62/2 (2014), pp. 251– 93 (summary in English, p. 268, p. 275, p. 286, p. 293) Feyfar, Matthias Maria, Die erlauchten Herren auf Nikolsburg: Eine geschichtliche Studie (Vienna: Mayer, 1897) Flajšhans, Václav, ‘K literární činnosti M. Jana Husa, X: Themata sermonum’ [On the Literary Activity of Master Jan Hus, X: Themata Sermonum], Věstník České akademie, 11 (1902), pp. 593–94 ———, Literární činnost Mistra Jana Husi [Literary Activity of Master Jan Hus] (Prague: Dvorský, 1900) ———, Mistr Jan řečený Hus z  Husince [Master Jan Called Hus from Husinec] (Prague: J. R. Vilímek, 1901) ———, ‘Paběrky z rukopisů kapitulních’ [Gleanings of Chapter Manuscripts], Věstník České akademie, 11 (1902), pp. 307–11 ———, ‘Staročeské texty v nových vydáních’ [Old Czech Texts in New Editions], Časopis Českého muzea (Časopis Musea Království českého), 84 (1910), pp. 227–39 ———, ‘Z knihovny Strahovské’ [From the Strahov Library Collection], Časopis Českého muzea (Časopis Musea Království českého), 74 (1900), pp. 325–33 Flegl, Michal, ‘Skalní poustevny ve Strahovské zahradě’ [Rock Hermitages Located in the Strahov Monastery Garden], Muzejní a vlastivědná práce, 42/3 (2004), pp. 170–71 Fletcher, Alan J., ‘“Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini”: A ThirteenthCentury Sermon for Advent and the Macaronic Style in England’, Mediaeval Studies, 56 (1994), pp. 217–45 ———, Late Medieval Popular Preaching in Britain and Ireland: Texts, Studies, and Interpretations, Sermo, 5 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009) ———, ‘Written Versus Spoken Macaronic Discourse in Late Medieval England: The View from a Pulpit’, in Multilingualism in Medieval Britain (c.  1066–1520): Sources and Analysis, ed.  by Judith Anne Jefferson and others, Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe, 15 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 137–52

Bibliography 285

Fluss, Viktor, ‘Zur alttschechischen Cicero-Übersetzung des Řehoř Hrubý von Jelení’, in Charisteria: Alois Rzach zum achtzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht, ed.  by Alois Rzach (Reichenberg: Stiepel, 1930), pp. 30–35 Foltynovský, Josef, ‘Sbírka českých kázání v rukopise studijní knihovny olomoucké’ [A Collection of Czech Sermons in a Manuscript of the Study Library of Olomouc], Hlídka, 43 (1926), pp. 393–99 Franz, Adolph, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Liturgie und des religiösen Volkslebens (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1902) Fröhlich, Jiří, ‘Poustevníci a poustevny na jihu Čech: Přehled a lokalizace pousteven v 11.-19. století’ [Hermits and Hermitage in Southern Bohemia: Survey and Localization of the Hermitage between the Eleventh and Nineteenth Centuries], Jihočeský sborník historický, 69/70 (2000/1), pp. 124–44 Fudge, Thomas A., Magnificent Ride: The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia, St Andrews Studies in Reformation History (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998) Galle, Christoph, Hodie nullus – cras maximus: Berühmtwerden und Berühmtsein im frühen 16. Jahrhundert am Beispiel des Erasmus von Rotterdam, Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte, 158 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2013) Garbacik, Józef, ‘Górka (z Górki) Łukasz h. Łodzia’ [Górka (of Górka) Lucas, Coat of Arms Lodzia], in Polski Słownik Biograficzny, 8 (1959– 60), pp. 408–09 Gawęda, Stanisław, Możnowładztwo małopolskie w XIV i pierwszej połowie XV wieku [Feudal Lords of Lesser Poland in the Fourteenth and the First Half of the Fifteenth Century], Zeszyty naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego: Prace historyczne, 18 (Kraków: Nakł. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1966) Gebauer, Jan, Slovník staročeský [Old Czech Dictionary], 2  vols (Prague: Česká akademie, 1903–16), ii: K-L (1916) Gonnet, Giovanni, ‘La Donazione di Constantino presso gli eretici medioevali’, Bollettino della Società di Studi Valdesi, 93 (1972), pp. 17–29

286 Bibliography

Grabmann, Martin, ‘Der Franziskanerbischof Benedictus de Alignano (†  1268) und seine Summa zum Caput “Firmiter” des vierten Laterankonzils’, in Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, P. Michael Bihl O.F.M. als Ehrengabe dargeboten, ed. by P. Ignatius-Maria Freudenreich (Colmar: Alsatia Verlag, 1941), pp. 50–64 Green, Dennis Howard, Medieval Listening and Reading: The Primary Reception of German Literature 800–1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) Grossel, Marie-Geneviève, ‘Le roman de Barlaam et Josaphat et les translations romanes des “Vitae Patrum”’, in Barlaam und Josaphat: Neue Perspektiven auf ein europäisches Phänomen, ed. by Matthias Meyer and Constanza Cordoni (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), pp. 141–60 Hallberg, Håkan, Acho Iohannis scribens, praedicans, auditus: Två Vadstenapredikningar i två versioner, Meddelanden: Vadstenbrödernas predikan, 4 (Uppsala: Uppsala universitet: Institutionen för klassiska språk, 1997) ———, ‘Reportaciones Vadsteneses – über das Predigen im Kloster Vadstena um 1430’, in A Catalogue and its Users: A Symposium on the Uppsala C Collection of Medieval Manuscripts, ed. by Monica Hedlund (Uppsala: Acta Bibliothecae R. Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1995), pp. 101–14 Halmari, Helena and Timothy Regetz, ‘Syntactic Aspects of Code-Switching in Oxford, MS Bodley 649’, in Code-Switching in Early English, ed. by Herbert Schendl and Laura Wright (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), pp. 115–54 ———, ‘Language Switching and Alliteration in Oxford, MS  Bodley 649’, in Multilingualism in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Age, Communication and Miscommunication in the Premodern World, ed. by Albrecht Classen, Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture, 18 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016) Hanuš, Ignác Jan, ‘Hr. Hanuš besprach diesmal…’ (Philosophische Section am 16. Juni 1862), Sitzungsberichte der königlichen böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Prag, January–June (1862), pp. 94–98 ———, Malý výbor ze staročeské literatury: podle rukopisův C.K.  Knihovny vysokých škol prážských XIV.-XVII. století posud z větší části netištěných [Small Anthology of Old Czech Literature: According to the

Bibliography 287

Manuscripts in C.K.  Library of Prague Colleges from XIV.-XVII. Century, Mainly Not Yet Edited] (Prague: I. L. Kober, 1863) ———, ‘Příspěvky k historii literatury české’ [Contributions to the History of Czech Literature], Časopis Musea Království českého, 35 (1861), pp. 107–22 Hardt, Hermann von der, Magnum Oecumenicum Constantiense Concilium, 6 vols (Frankfurt and Leipzig: In Off. C. Genschii, 1699), iv (1699) Harvey, Margaret, ‘Adam Easton and the Condemnation of John Wyclif, 1377’, The English Historical Review, 113 (1998), pp. 321–34 Hauréau, Barthélemy, ‘Sermonnaires’, Histoire littéraire de la France, 26 (1873), pp. 387–486 Hejnic, Josef, ‘Erasmus Rotterdamský a české země v druhém desetiletí 16. století’ [Erasmus of Rotterdam and the Czech Lands in the Second Decennium of the Sixteenth Century], Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 109/4 (1986), pp. 214–21 Hejnová, Miroslava, ‘Životy svatých otců a Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení’ [Řehoř Hrubý’s Lives of the Holy Fathers], Čtenář, 42/7 (1990), pp. 334–35 Herold, Vilém, ‘Commentarium Magistri Johannis Wenceslai de Praga super octo libros Politicorum Aristotelis’, Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonorum, 26 (1982), pp. 53–77 ———, Pražská univerzita a Wyclif: Wyclifovo učení o ideách a geneze husitského revolučního myšlení [The University of Prague and Wyclif: Wyclif ’s Concept of Ideas and the Genesis of Hussite Revolutionary Thought] (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1985) ———, ‘Wyclifs Polemik gegen Ockhams Auffassung der platonischen Ideen und ihr Nachklang in der Tschechischen Hussitischen Philosophie’, in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. by Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks, Studies in Church History: Subsidia, 5 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987) pp. 185–215 Hindin, Seth Adam, ‘Ethnische Bedeutungen der sakralen Baukunst: “Deutsche” und “tschechische” Pfarrkirchen und Kapellen in Böhmen und Mähren (1150–1420)’, in Böhmen und das Deutsche Reich: Ideenund Kulturtransfer im Vergleich (13.-16. Jahrhundert), ed.  by Eva Schlotheuber and Hubertus Seibert, Veröffentlichungen des Collegium Carolinum, 116 (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2009), pp. 11–34

288 Bibliography

Hirschi, Caspar, Wettkampf der Nationen: Konstruktionen einer deutschen Ehrgemeinschaft an der Wende vom Mittelalter zur Neuzeit (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2005) Hlaváček, Petr, ‘Bohemian Franciscans between Orthodoxy and Nonconformity at the Turn of the Middle Ages’, trans. by Zdeněk V. David, The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, 5/1 (2004), pp. 167–89 ———, Die böhmischen Franziskaner im ausgehenden Mittelalter: Studien zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte Ostmitteleuropas, Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des östlichen Mitteleuropa, 40 (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2011) ———, ‘“Errores quorumdam Bernhardinorum”: Franciscans and the Bohemian Reformation’, trans. by Zdeněk  V. David, The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, 3 (2000), pp. 119–26 Holeton, David R., La communion des tout-petits enfants: Étude du mouvement eucharistique en Bohême vers la fin du Moyen-Âge, Bibliotheca ephemerides liturgicae: Subsidia, 50 (Rome: C.L.V. – Edizioni Liturgiche, 1989) ———, ‘Wyclif ’s Bohemian Fate: A Reflection on the Contextualization of Wyclif in Bohemia’, Communio Viatorum, 32 (1989), pp. 209–22 Horner, Patrick J., A  Macaronic Sermon Collection from Late Medieval England: Oxford, MS  Bodley 649, Studies and Texts, 153 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies, 2006) Horst, Tom ter, and Nike Stam, ‘Visual Diamorphs: The Importance of Language Neutrality in Code-Switching from Medieval Ireland’, in Multilingual Practices in Language History: English and Beyond, ed. by Päivi Pahta, Janne Skaffari, and Laura Wright, Language Contact and Bilingualism, 15 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017) pp. 223–42 Hrubý, Hynek, České postilly: studie literarně a kulturně historická [Czech Postils: Literary- and Cultural-Historical Studies], Spisy poctěné jubilejní cenou Kral. České společnosti náuk v Praze, 12 (Prague: Nakladem Jubilejního fondu Král. české společnosti náuk, 1901) Hudson, Anne, ‘From Oxford to Bohemia: Reflections on the Transmission of Wycliffite Textes’, Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica, 2 (2010), pp. 25–37

Bibliography 289

———, ‘From Oxford to Prague: The Writings of John Wyclif and his English Followers in Bohemia’, The Slavonic and East Central European Review, 75 (1997), pp. 642–57 ———, ‘Opera omnia: Collecting Wyclif ’s Works in England and Bohemia’, in Religious Controversy in Europe, 1378–1536: Textual Transmission and Networks of Readership, ed. by Michael van Dussen and Pavel Soukup, Medieval Church Studies, 27 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 49–70 ———, Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif ’s Writings, Variorum Collected Studies Series, 907 (Burlington: Ashgate, 2008) ———, ‘The Hussite Catalogues of Wyclif ’s Works’, in Hustitství – Reformace – Renesance: Sborník k 60 narozenínám Františka Šmahela, ed.  by Jaroslav Pánek and others, 3 vols, Práce Historického ústavu AV ČR, C: Miscellanea, 9 (Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 1994), i, pp. 401–16 ———, The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988) Jireček, Josef, Rukověť k dějinám literatury české do konce 18. věku [History of the Czech Literature until the End of the Eighteenth Century: A Handbook], 2 vols (Prague: Tempský, 1875–76), i: A – L (1875) Johnson, Holly, The Grammar of Good Friday: Macaronic Sermons of Late Medieval England, Sermo, 8 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012) Jordan, Jan Petr, Die Vorläufer des Husitenthums in Böhmen (Leipzig: Keil, 1846) Kabaciński, Ryszard, ‘W czasach staropolskich (do roku 1772)’ [In the OldPolish Period (until 1772)], in Dzieje Pakości, ed.  by Włodzimierz Jastrzębski, Prace popularnonaukowe, 11 (Poznań: Państwowe Wydawn, 1978), pp. 33–116 Kämmerer, Carmen Maria, Codeswitching in Predigten des 15. Jahrhunderts: Mittellatein – Frühneuhochdeutsch, Mittellatein – Altitalienisch/ Altspanisch, Studies in Eurolinguistics, 4 (Berlin: Logos, 2006) Käppeli, Thomas, Scriptores ordinis Praedicatorum medii aevi, ed. by, 4 vols (Rome: Istituto Storico Domenicano, 1970–93), i: A-F (1970) Kamínková, Eva, Husova Betlémská kázání a jejich dvě recense [Hus’s Bethlehem Sermons and its Two Recensions], Acta Universitatis

290 Bibliography

Carolinae: Philosophica et historica: Monographia, 2 (Prague: Universita Karlova ve Státním pedagogickém nakladatelství, 1963) Kaminsky, Howard, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967) Karel IV., císař z Boží milosti: kultura a umění za vlády posledních Lucemburků 1347–1437 [Charles IV, Emperor by the Grace of God: Culture and Art from the Reign of the Last Luxemburg 1347–1437], ed. by Jiří Fajt and others (Prague: Správa Pražského hradu, 2006) Katalog českých rukopisů c. k. veřejné a univerzitní knihovny [The Catalogue of the Czech Manuscripts Held in the University Library in Prague], ed. by Josef Truhlář (Prague: Česká akademie, 1906) Kaufmann, Thomas, Der Anfang der Reformation: Studien zur Kon­ textualität der Theologie, Publizistik und Inszenierung Luthers und der reformatorischen Bewegung, Spätmittelalter, Humanismus, Reformation, 67 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) Keen, Maurice, ‘The Influence of Wyclif ’, in Wyclif in his Times, ed.  by Anthony Kenny (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 127–45 Keipert, Helmut, ‘Tschechisch, Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch: Sprachprobleme bei Václav Písecký’, in Studien zum Humanismus in den böhmischen Ländern, ed. by Hans-Bernd Harder and Hans Rothe, Schriften des Komitees der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zur Förderung der Slawischen Studien, 11 (Cologne: Böhlau, 1988), pp. 303–40 Kejř, Jiří, ‘Kdo je “Parisiensis” ve spisech Husových?’ [Who Is ‘Parisiensis’ in Hus’s Writings], Studie o rukopisech, 18 (1979), pp. 3–27 Kéry, Lotte, ‘Ketzer, Ketzerei’, in Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, ed. by Albrecht Cordes and others, 2 vols, 2nd rev. edn (Berlin: Schmidt, 2008–12), ii: Geistliche Gerichtsbarkeit – Konfiskation (2012), cols 1720–26 Klaassen, Walter, ‘Speaking in Simplicity: Balthasar Hubmaier’, The Mennonite Quarterly Review, 40 (1966), pp. 139–47 Klein, Klaus, ‘Frühchristliche Eremiten im Spätmittelalter und in der Reformationszeit: Zur Überlieferung und Rezeption der deutschen “Vitaspatrum”-Prosa’, in Literatur und Laienbildung im Spätmittelalter und in der Reformationszeit: Symposion Wolfenbüttel 1981, ed.  by

Bibliography 291

Ludger Grenzmann and Karl Stackmann, Germanistische SymposienBerichtsbände, 5 (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1984), pp. 686–95 Klicman, Ladislav, ‘Zpráva o cestě po knihovnách v Rakousku a Německu, kterou s podporou České Akademie a c. k. ministerstva vyučování za účelem badání o předchůdcích Husových a hnutí husitském vůbec’ [Report on a Tour of the Libraries in Austria and Germany, Supported by the Czech Academy and the Imperial-Royal Ministry of Education for the Purpose of Research on the Forerunners of the Hussites and the Hussite Movement in General], Věstník české akademie Císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění, 2 (1893), pp. 63–75 Knoll, Paul W., ‘The Worst Heretic: Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn in the Academic and Ecclesiastical Context of Mid-15th Century Kraków and Poland’, The Polish Review, 54/1 (2009), pp. 3–29 Kössinger, Norbert, ‘Barlaam und Josaphat deutsch: Eine Projektskizze zur Pragmatik von Legenden’, in Barlaam und Josaphat: Neue Perspektiven auf ein europäisches Phänomen, ed. by Matthias Meyer and Constanza Cordoni (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), pp. 211–26 Kolár, Jaroslav, ‘Erasmovské recepce v české literatuře předbělohorské doby’ [The Reception of the Erasmus’s Work in the Czech Literature before the Battle on the White Mountain], Miscellanea oddělení rukopisů a vzácných tisků, 4/2 (1987), pp. 233–49 ———, ‘Překlad Řehoře Hrubého z Erasmových Adagií’ [The Translation of Erasmus’ Adagia by Řehoř Hrubý], Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 111/2 (1988), pp. 103–09 Kolbuszewski, Stanisław, Herezja kanonika Jędrzeja Gałki [Heresy of Canon Jedrzej Galka], Prace Opolskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciół Nauk. Wydział Języka i Literatury (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowny im. Ossolińskich, 1964) Kopecký, Milan, Český humanismus [The Czech Humanism], České myšlení, 14 (Prague: Melantrich, 1988) ———, ‘Die Moraltendenz in der tschechischen Literatur der Renaissance’, Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, E: Řada Archeologica Classica, 10 (1965), pp. 321–28 ———, ‘Emil Pražák, “Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení”’ [Review of: Pražák, ‘Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení’], Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, D/13: Řada Literárněvědná, 15 (1966), pp. 170–72

292 Bibliography

———, Literární dílo Mikuláše Konáče z Hodiškova: Příspěvky k poznání české literatury v období renesance [Literary Works of Mikuláš Konáč of Hodiškov: Towards our Knowledges of the Czech Literature in Renaissance], Opera Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis: Facultas philosophica, 74 (Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1962) Kras, Paweł, ‘Donacja Konstantyna – legenda w służbie polityki papieskiej’ [The Donation of Constantine – the Legend in the Service of Papal Politics], Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica, 3 (2011), pp. 7–32 ———, ‘Hussites in Fifteenth-Century Poland’, in Geist, Gesellschaft, Kirche im 13.-16. Jahrhundert, ed.  by František Šmahel, Colloquia Mediaevalia Pragensia, 1 (Prague: Centre for Medieval Studies, 1999), pp. 177–89 ———, ‘Hussitism and the Polish Nobility’, in Lollardy and the Gentry in the Later Middle Ages, ed. by Margaret Ashton (Stroud: Sutton, 1997), pp. 183–89 ———, Husyci w piętnastowiecznej Polsce [Hussites in Fifteenth-Century Poland] Źródła i monografie (Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski. Towarzystwo Naukowe), 174 (Lublin: Catholic University, 1998), pp. 194–98 ———, ‘Idolum haereticorum: wizerunek Johna Wyclifa w późnoś­ redniowiecznej Anglii’ [Idolum haereticorum: The Image of John Wyclif in Late Medieval England], in Rycerze, wędrowcy, kacerze: Studia z historii średniowiecznej i wczesnonowożytnej Europy Środkowej, ed.  by Waldemar Kowalski and Beata Wojciechowska (Kielce: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego, 2013), pp. 211–21 ———, ‘Kariera uniwersytecka Andrzeja Gałki z Dobczyna’ [University Career of Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn], Roczniki Humanistyczne, 48/2 (2000), pp. 247–64 ———, ‘“Libri suspecti, libri prohibiti”: Wycliffite and Hussite Writings in Fifteenth Century Polish Towns’, in Uses of the Written World in Medieval Towns, ed. by Marco Mostert and Anna Adamska, Medieval Urban Literacy, 2: Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy, 28 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), pp. 195–226

Bibliography 293

———, ‘“Pastor gregis dominici et doctrina pestifera”: Działania Zbigniewa Oleśnickiego w sprawie Andrzeja Gałki z Dobczyna (1448–1449)’ [‘Pastor gregis dominici et doctrina pestifera’: The Operations of Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki against Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn], in ‘Ecclesia, regnum, fontes’: Studia z dziejów średniowiecza, ed. by Sławomir Gawlas and others (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2014), pp. 639–53 ———, ‘Recepcja pism Johna Wyclifa w Czechach i w Polsce w okresie husyckim’ [The Transmission of John Wyclif ’s Writings in Bohemia and Poland in the Hussite Period], in Piśmiennictwo Czech i Polski w średniowieczu i wczesnej epoce nowożytnej, ed. by Antoni Barciak and Wojciech Iwańczak, Prace naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach, 2396 (Katowice: Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2006), pp. 218–51 ———, ‘Wyclif ’s Tradition in Fifteenth Century Poland: The Heresy of Master Andrew Gałka of Dobczyn’, in The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, 5/1 (2004), pp. 191–210 Kraus, Arnošt, Husitství v literatuře, zejména německé [The Hussites in Literature, Particularly in German], 3 vols, Rozpravy České Akademie Věd a Umění, 3: 45, 49, 58 (Prague: Česká akademie císaře Františka Josefa, 1917–24), i: Husitství v literatuře prvních dvou století svých (1917) Křest’an, Jiří, ‘“Poslední husita” odchází: Zdeněk Nejedlý v osidlech kulturní politiky KSČ po roce 1945’ [‘The Last Hussite’ Departs: Zdeněk Nejedlý in the Snares of the Cultural Politics of the Czech Communist Party after 1945], Soudobé dějiny, 12 (2005), pp. 9–44 Krofta, Kamil, ‘Kněz Jan Protiva z Nové Vsi a Chelčického “mistr Protiva”’ [The Priest Iohannes Protiva de Nova Villa and Chelčický’s ‘Master Protiva’], Časopis musea království českého, 74 (1900), pp. 189–220 Kunze, Konrad and others, ‘Information und innere Formung: Zur Rezeption der “Vitaspatrum”’, in Wissensorganisierende und wissensvermittelnde Literatur im Mittelalter: Perspektiven ihrer Erforschung: Kolloquium 5.-7. Dezember 1985, ed. by Norbert Richard Wolf, Wissensliteratur im Mittelalter, 1 (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1987), pp. 123–42 Kurtyka, Janusz, Tęczyńscy: Studium z dziejów polskiej elity możnowładczej w średniowieczu [The Tęczyński: A Study in the History of Polish Lord Elite in the Middle Ages] (Kraków: Secesja, 1997)

294 Bibliography

Kyas, Vladimír, ‘K staročeskému Passionálu’ [Towards the Old Czech Pasional], in Příspěvky k dějinám starší české literatury, ed. by Josef Hrabák (Prague: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd, 1958), pp. 140–55 Kybal, Vlastimil, M. Matěj z Janova: Jeho život, spisy a učení [Master Matthias of Janov: His Life, Writings, and Teaching] (Prague: Kralovská česká společnost nauk, 1905) Kyrášek, Jiří, ‘Doslov’ [Afterword], in Erasmus of Rotterdam, Humanismi et pacis praedicator: Hlasatel humanistických a mírových myšlenek, ed. by Otokar Chlup and Jaromír Kopecký (Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1958), pp. 105–14 Lahey, Stephen E., ‘Peter Payne Explains Everything that Happens’, in Jan Hus 1415 a 600 let poté, ed.  by Jakub Smrčka and Zdeněk Vybíral, Husitský Tábor: Supplementum, 4 (Tábor: Husitské muzeum v Táboře, 2015), pp. 129–43 Larsen, Andrew Eric, ‘John Wyclif, c. 1331–1384’, in A Companion to John Wyclif: Late Medieval Theologian, ed. by John Christopher Levy, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 50–64 Latinitatis medii aevi lexicon Bohemorum, ed. by Ladislav Varcl and others, 22  vols (Prague: Academia 1977–), viii: D – *dignificatio (Prague: Academia, 1986), xix: Lapideitas – limitanter, ed. by Zuzana Silagiová and others (Prague: KLP, 2006) Lazzerini, Lucia, ‘“Per latinos grossos…”: Studio sui sermoni mescidati’, Studi di filologia italiana: Bullettino dell’Accademia della Crusca, 29 (1971), pp. 219–339 Lecoy de La Marche, Albert, La chaire française au moyen âge: Spécialement au XIIIe siècle d’après les manuscrits contemporains, 2nd  edn (Paris: Renouard, 1886) Leff, Gordon, Heresy in the Later Middle Ages: The Relation of Heterodoxy to Dissent, c. 1250–c. 1450, 2 vols (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967) Lehár, Jan, ‘Životy sv. Otců’ [Lives of the Holy Fathers], in Lexikon české literatury: Osobnosti, díla, instituce, ed. by Vladimír Forst and others, 4  vols (Prague: Academia, 1985–2008), iv/2: U – Ž, dodatky A–Ř (2008), ed. by Luboš Merhaut (Prague: Academia, 2008), p. 1865

Bibliography 295

Lentner, Leopold, Volkssprache und Sakralsprache: Geschichte einer Lebensfrage bis zum Ende des Konzils von Trient, Wiener Beiträge zur Theologie, 5 (Vienna: Herder, 1964) Levý, Jiří, České teorie překladu [Czech Translation Theories], Česky překlad, 1 (Prague: Státní nakladatelství krásné literatury, hudby a umění, 1957) Lexikon české literatury [Lexicon of Czech Literature], ed. by Vladimír Forst and others, 4  vols (Prague: Academia, 1985–2008), iii/2: M – Ř: P – Ř, ed. by Jiří Opelík (2000) Linda, Jaroslav, Soupis rukopisů Studijní a vědecké knihovny Plzeňského kraje, 3 vols (Plzeň: Studijní a vědecká knihovna Plzeňského kraje – Prague: Koniasch Latin Press, 2004–16), iii (2016) Lipphardt, Walther, ‘“Christ ist erstanden”: Zur Geschichte des Liedes’, Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie, 5 (1960), pp. 96–114 Lixačev, Dmitrij Sergeevič, Těkstologija: kratkij očerk [Textology: Short Essay] (Moscow: Nauka, 1964) ———, Těkstologija: na matěriale russkoj litěratury X.‒XVII. vv. [Textology: On the Basis of Material from Russian Literature, X–XVII Centuries] (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR, 1962; 2nd edn: Leningrad: Nauka, 1983) Loserth, Johann, Hus und Wiclif: Zur Genesis der hussitischen Lehre (Prag and Leipzig: Tempsky and Freytag, 1884; 2nd edn: Munich and Berlin: Oldenbourg, 1925) ———, Wiclif and Hus, trans. by M.  J. Evans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1884) Loskot, František, Konrad Waldhauser: Řeholní kanovník sv. Augustina, předchůdce Mistra Jana Husa [Conrad Waldhauser: Augustinian Regular Canon, Forerunner of Jan Hus], Knihovna Volné myšlenky: Velici mužové české reformace, 2 (Prague: Nákladem Volné myšlenky, 1909) Lück, Heiner, ‘Gerüfte’, in Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, ed.  by Albrecht Cordes and others, 2  vols, 2nd rev. edn (Berlin: Schmidt, 2008–12), ii: Geistliche Gerichtsbarkeit – Konfiskation (2012), cols 259–64 M. Jan Hus a M. Štĕpán z Pálče: Sborník z kolokvia uspořádaného referátem kultury Okresního úřadu Kladno 25. května 2000 v klášteře bosých

296 Bibliography

karmelitánů ve Slaném [Master Jan Hus and Master Stepan of Palecz: Collection of Papers Presented in the Monastery of Bare Foot Carmelites in Slane on 25 May 2000], ed. by Zdeněk Kuchyňka (Kladno: Okresní úřad Kladno, 2000) Macek, Josef, Víra a zbožnost jagellonského věku [Religion and Religiosity in the Jagellonian Period], Edice Každodenní život, 9 (Prague: Argo, 2001) Machilek, Franz, ‘Konrad von Waldhausen (Waldhauser)’, in Die Deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, ed. by Kurt Ruh and others, 14 vols, 2nd rev. edn (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978–2008), v: Koch – Marienberg (1985), pp. 260–68 Mágr, Antonín Stanislav, ‘K  rukopisům povídky o Barlaamu a Josafatovi’ [On the Czech Manuscripts of the Barlaam and Josaphat Tale], Naše věda, 23 (1944), p. 103 Marek, Jindřich, Jakoubek ze Stříbra a počátky utrakvistického kazatelství v českých zemích: Studie o Jakoubkově postile z let 1413–1414 [ Jakoubek of Stříbro and the Beginnings of Utraquist Preaching in the Bohemian Lands: A  Study on Jakoubek’s Postil from 1413–1414] (Prague: Národní knihovna ČR, 2011) Marin, Olivier, ‘Les usages de la liturgie dans la prédication de Jean Hus’, The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, 6 (2007), pp. 45–75 Martinková, Michaela, ‘Husova staročeská Postila v latinském překladu’ [Hus’s Old Czech Postil in Latin Translation], Usta ad Albim BOHEMICA, 13 (2013), pp. 31–36 Mazalová, Lucie, ‘“Quare examinemus nos ipsos, o clerici…”: O  vývoji antikristovského tématu a rétoriky v  Husově synodální kritice’ [‘Quare examinemus nos ipsos, o clerici…’: On the Development of the Antichrist Theme and Rhetorics in Hus’s Synodical Criticism], Teologická reflexe: časopis pro teologii, 19/2 (2013), pp. 159–73 Mediae Latinitatis lexicon minus: Lexique Latin Médiéval – Français/ Anglais: A  Medieval Latin-French/English Dictionary, ed.  by Jan Frederik Niermeyer and others, 2 vols (Leiden: Brill, 1954–76) Menčík, Ferdinand, ‘O dvou spisech Husových’ [On Two Writings of Hus], Časopis Musea Království českého, 71 (1897), pp. 74–79

Bibliography 297

Menšík, Jan, ‘Staročeské Životy svatých Otcův’ [Review of: ‘Old Czech Lives of the Holy Fathers’, ed.  by Smetánka], Časopis pro moderní filologii, 1 (1911), pp. 52–55 Mertens, Thom, ‘Relic or Strategy: The Middle Dutch Sermon as a Literary Phenomenon’, in Speculum Sermonis: Interdisciplinary Reflections on the Medieval Sermon, ed. by Georgiana Donavin and others, Disputatio, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004) pp. 293–314 Mezník, Jaroslav, ‘Národnostní složení předhusitské Prahy’ [The National Composition of Pre-Hussite Prague], Sborník historický, 17 (1970), pp. 5–30 ———, ‘Tolerance na Moravě v  16. století’ [Tolerance in Moravia in the Sixteenth Century], in Problém tolerance v dějinách a perspektivě, ed. by Milan Machovec (Prague: Academia, 1995), pp. 76–85 Michałowska, Teresa, Średniowiecze [The Middle Ages], Wielka historia literatury polskiej, 1 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1995) Miedema, Nine Robijntje, Die ‘Mirabilia Romae’: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Überlieferung mit Edition der deutschen und niederländischen Texte, Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, 108 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1996) Mierau, Heike Johanna, ‘Exkommunikation und Macht der Öffentlichkeit: Gerüchte im Kampf zwischen Friedrich II. und der Kurie’, in Propaganda, Kommunikation und Öffentlichkeit (11.–16. Jahrhundert), ed. by Karel Hruza, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters, 6 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), pp. 47–80 ———, ‘Fama als Mittel zur Herstellung von Öffentlichkeit und Gemeinwohl in der Zeit des Konziliarismus’, in Politische Öffentlichkeit im Spätmittelalter, ed. by Martin Kintzinger and Bernd Schneidmüller, Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für mittelalterliche Geschichte: Vorträge und Forschungen, 75 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2011), pp. 237–86 ———, ‘Gerüchte als Medium der Grenzüberschreitung im Bonifaz-Prozeß’, in Grenze und Grenzüberschreitung im Mittelalter: 11. Symposium des Mediävistenverbandes vom 14. bis 17. März 2005 in Frankfurt an der Oder, ed. by Ulrich Knefelkamp and Kristian Bosselmann-Cyran (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2007), pp. 109–21

298 Bibliography

Mihola, Jiří, ‘Poustevníci versus reformace: K utváření, životu a zániku předbělohorské německo-české provincie řádu paulánů v 15. a 16. století’ [Hermits Versus Reformation: The Formation, Life, and Downfall of the German-Czech Pre-White Mountain Province of the Order of the Minims in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries], Sborník prací Pedagogické fakulty Masarykovy university, Řada společenských věd, 26/1 (2012), pp. 21–36 Miller, Clarence H., ‘Introduction’, in Erasmus of Rotterdam, Moriae encomium id est Stultitiae laus, ed. by Clarence H. Miller, Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, 4/3 (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1979), pp. 13–64 Miškovská, Hana, ‘Latinské překlady Husovy české Postilly v rukopise Mk 91 a Mk 56 a vztah k jejich předlohám’ [Latin Translations of Hus’s Czech Postil in the MSS Mk 91 and Mk 56], Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 113/3 (1990), pp. 188–99 Möhl, Christoph, ‘Die Herren von Liechtenstein und die Wiedertäufer in Mähren’, Jahrbuch des historischen Vereins für das Fürstentum Liechtenstein, 77 (1977), pp. 119–71 Molnár, Amedeo, A Challenge to Constantinianism: The Waldensian Theology in the Middle Ages, WSCF, 2 (Genève: WSCF Book, 1976) Morée, Peter C.  A., Preaching in Fourteenth-Century Bohemia: The Life and Ideas of Milicius de Chremsir († 1374) and his Significance in the Historiography of Bohemia (Heršpice: EMAN, 1999) Morenzoni, Franco, ‘Les prédicateurs et leurs langues à la fin du Moyen Âge’, in Zwischen Babel und Pfingsten: Sprachdifferenzen und Gesprächsverständigung in der Vormoderne (8.-16. Jh.), ed. by Peter von Moos (Vienna: LIT Verlag, 2008), pp. 501–18 Muessig, Carolyn A., ‘The Vernacularization of Late Medieval Sermons: Some French and Italian Examples’, in Medieval Multilingualism: The Francophone World and Its Neighbors, ed.  by Christopher Kleinhenz and Keith Busby, Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe, 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), pp. 267–84 Mutlová, Petra, ‘Communicating Texts through Images: Nicholas of Dresden’s “Tabule”’, in Public Communication in European Reformation: Artistic

Bibliography 299

and Other Media in Central Europe 1380–1620, ed. by Milena Bartlová and Michal Šroněk (Prague: Artefactum, 2007), pp. 29–37 ———, ‘Vybrané prameny k existenci drážďanské školy’ [Selected Sources on the Existence of the Dresden School], in Querite primum regnum Dei: Sborník příspěvků k poctě Jany Nechutové, ed. by Helena Krmíčková and others (Brno: Matice moravská, 2006), pp. 553–60 Mužík, František, ‘Christ ist erstanden – Buóh všemohúcí’, Miscellanea Musicologica, 21–23 (1970), pp. 7–45 Nedvědová, Milada, ‘Ediční poznámka’ [Editorial Note], in Jan Češka, Řeči a naučení hlubokých mudrců, ed. by Milada Nedvědová, Světová četba, 513 (Prague: Odeon, 1982), pp. 170–73 Nejedlý, Zdeněk, Dějiny husitského zpěvu [History of Hussite Singing], 2nd  edn, 6  vols, Sebrané spisy, 40–45 (Prague: Nákladem Československé akademie věd, 1954–56), i (1954), ii (1954) ———, Dějiny předhusitského zpěvu v Čechách [History of Pre-Hussite Singing in Bohemia] (Prague: Nákladem Královské české společnosti náuk, 1904) Neškudla, Bořek, ‘Obtíže přechodu od rukopisu k tištěné knize na příkladu díla Řehoře Hrubého z  Jelení’ [Difficulties in Transition from Manuscripts to Printed Books] (unpublished paper; 9 pp.) ———, ‘Řehoř Hrubý z  Jelení a takzvaný národní humanismus: K pětisetletému výročí úmrtí Řehoře Hrubého z Jelení’ [Řehoř Hrubý of  Jelení and the so-called National Humanism], Česká literatura, 62 (2014), pp. 728–51 (summary in English, pp. 750–51) Neumann, Augustin, ‘Výbor z předhusitských postil’ [A Selection of Pre-Hussite Postils], Archiv literární: Příloha k revui Archa, 2 (1922), pp. 60–75, pp. 94–102, pp. 121–43, pp. 184–89, pp. 216–22, pp. 233– 40, pp. 250–55, pp. 287–90, pp. 319–26, pp. 356–60, pp. 366–76 Newman, Barbara, ‘The Passion of the Jews of Prague: The Pogrom of 1389 and the Lessons of a Medieval Parody’, Church History, 81 (2012), pp. 1–26 Nolcken, Christina, von, ‘Another Kind of Saint: A  Lollard Perception of  John Wyclif ’, in Studies in Church History, Subsidia, 5  (1987), pp. 429–43

300 Bibliography

Novotný, Václav and Vlastimil Kybal, M.  Jan Hus: Život a učení [M.  Jan Hus: Life and Learning], Laichterův výbor nejlepších spisů poučných, 46 (Prague: Laichter, 1919–21): i: Václav Novotný, Život a dílo, 2 pts Nowak-Dłużewski, Juliusz, Okolicznościowa poezja polityczna w Polsce: Średniowiecze [Occasional Political Poetry in Poland: The Middle Ages] (Warsaw: Pax, 1963) Odstrčilík, Jan, ‘Analýza dvou latinských překladů Husovy České nedělní postily v rkp. Brno, Moravská zemská knihovna, Mk 56 a Mk 91a jejich částečná edice’ [Analysis of Two Latin Translations of Hus’s Czech Sunday Postil in Brno, Moravian Library, MS 56 and MS 91 and their Partial Edition] (unpublished doctoral thesis, Charles University of Prague, 2015) Palacz, Ryszard, ‘Stefan Palecz’, Materiały i Studia Zakładu Historii Filozofii Starożytnej i Średniowiecznej, 5 (1967), pp. 93–124 Palmer, Nigel F., ‘Latein, Volkssprache, Mischsprache: Zum Sprachproblem bei Marquard von Lindau, mit einem Handschriftenverzeichnis der “Dekalogerklärung” und des “Auszugs der Kinder Israel”’, in Spätmittelalterliche geistliche Literatur in der Nationalsprache, ed. by James Hogg, 2 vols, Analecta Cartusiana, 106 (Salzburg: Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universität Salzburg, 1983–84), i (1983), pp. 70–110 Pánek, Jaroslav, ‘Moravští novokřtěnci (Společenské a politické postavení předbělohorských heretiků, sociálních reformátorů a pacifistů)’ [Moravian Anabaptists (The Social and Political Status of Heretics, Social Reformers, and Pacifists in the Period before the Battle of White Mountain)], Český časopis historický, 92 (1994), pp. 242–56 Patera, Adolf, ‘Mistra Jana Husi česká kázání na posvěcenie kostela a na sv. Trojici’ [Czech Sermons of Master Jan Hus on Consecration of the Church and on the Holy Trinity], Věstník Královské české společnosti nauk: Třída filosoficko – historicko – filologická, 15/1890 (1891), pp. 355–85 ———, and Antonín Podlaha, Soupis rukopisů knihovny Metropolitní kapitoly pražské [Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Metropolitan Chapter Library in Prague], 2 vols, Soupis rukopisů knihoven a archivů zemí českých, jakož i rukopisných bohemik mimočeských, 1, 4 (Prague: Česká akademie věd a umění, 1910–22), ii: F – P (1922) Pekař, Josef, Žižka a jeho doba [Žižka and his Time] (Prague: Vesmír, 1927– 33), i (1933)

Bibliography 301

Pelán, Jiří, ‘Petrarkův spis “De remediis” a jeho česká recepce’ [Petrarch’s Work ‘De remediis’ and its Czech Reception], Česká literatura, 54/5 (2006), pp. 1–19 Perett, Marcela, ‘Vernacular Songs as “Oral Pamphlets”: The Hussites and their Propaganda Campaign’, Viator, 42 (2011), pp. 371–91 Petitmengin, Pierre, ‘Un ami de Melanchton: Sigismundus Gelenius, éditeur et traducteur de textes classiques et patristiques’, in Die Patristik in der frühen Neuzeit: Die Relektüre der Kirchenväter in den Wissenschaften des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts, ed. by Günter Frank and others, MelanchtonSchriften der Stadt Bretten, 10 (Stuttgart, Bad Cannstatt: FrommannHolzboog, 2006), pp. 65–92 Petr, Stanislav, Soupis rukopisů knihovny při farním kostele svatého Jakuba v  Brně [Catalogue of Manuscripts from the Library of the Parish Church of St  Jacob in Brno], Studie o rukopisech: Monographia, 12 (Prague: Masarykův ústav a Archiv Akademie věd ČR, 2007) Polenz, Peter von, Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, 3 vols, Sammlung Göschen, 2237 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991–99), i: Einführung, Grundbegriffe: 14. bis 16. Jahrhundert (1991) Potkowski, Edward, Książka rękopiśmienna w kulturze Polski średniowiecznej [Handwritten Book in the Culture of Medieval Poland] (Warsaw: Ludowa Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza, 1984), pp. 68–72 Prague: The Crown of Bohemia 1347–1437, ed.  by Jiří Fajt and Barbara Drake Boehm (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005) Pražák, Emil, ‘Hrubého překlad Erasmovy Chvály bláznovství’ [Hrubý’s Translation of Erasmus’s ‘The Praise of Folly’], in Erasma Rotterdamského Chvála bláznovství: Z latiny přeložil a výkladem opatřil Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení, ed.  by Emil Pražák, Editio Cimelia Bohemica, 9 (Prague: Pragopress, 1969), pp. 3–5 ———, ‘Hrubý z Jelení, Řehoř’, in Lexikon české literatury: Osobnosti, díla, instituce, ed. by Vladimír Forst amd others, 4 vols (Prague: Academia, 1985–2008), ii/1: H-J (1993), ed.  by Vladimír Forst (Prague: Academia, 1993), pp. 339–40 ———, ‘Místo Řehoře Hrubého ve vývoji českého humanismu’ [Řehoř Hrubý Rank among Czech Humanist Authors], Česká literatura, 9/1 (1961), pp. 29–48

302 Bibliography

———, Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení: Studie s ukázkami z díla [Řehoř Hrubý z Jelení: Study with Anthology], Odkazy pokrokových osobností naší minulosti, 11 (Prague: Svobodné slovo, 1964) Přehled dějin Československa, i, ed.  by Josef Janáček and Richard Marsina, 2 pts (Prague: Academia, 1980–82), part i: Do roku 1526 (1980) Repertorium der lateinischen Sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit von 1150– 1350, ed. by Johannes Baptist Schneyer, 11 vols, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, 43/1 (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1969–90), i: Autoren A-D (1969) Richter, Karl F., ‘Konrad Waldhauser’, in Karl  IV. und sein Kreis, ed.  by Ferdinand Seibt, Lebensbilder zur Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, 3 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1978), pp. 159–74 Rivers, Kimberly A., Preaching the Memory of Virtue and Vice: Memory, Images, and Preaching in the late Middle Ages, Sermo, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010) Rothkegel, Martin, ‘Anabaptism in Moravia and Silesia’, in A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism: 1521-1700, ed. by John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. 163–215 ———, ‘Das Verständnis der Heiligen Schrift bei den Täufern in Mähren’, in Amica Sponsa Mater: Bible v čase reformace, ed. by Ota Halama (Prague: Kalich, 2014), pp. 177–225 ———, ‘Von der Schönen Madonna zum Scheiterhaufen: Gedenkrede auf Balthasar Hubmaier, verbrannt am 10. März 1528 in Wien’, Jahrbuch für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich, 120 (2004), pp. 49–73 Rouse, Richard H. and Mary  A. Rouse, ‘Biblical Distinctions in the Thirteenth Century’, Archives d’historie doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age, 49 (1974), pp. 27–37 ———, Preachers, Florilegia and Sermons: Studies on the Manipulus florum of Thomas of Ireland (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1979) Rusconi, Roberto, ‘Reportatio’, Medioevo e rinascimento, 3 (1989), pp. 7–36

Bibliography 303

Ryba, Bohumil, ‘Další rukopis Waldhauserovy Postily’ [Another Manuscript of Waldhauser’s Postils], Glosy ze Strahova, 5 (1966), pp. 9–10 Rychterová, Pavlína, ‘Autorität und Wahrheitsdiskurs im vernakularen katechetischen Schrifttum im spätmittelalterlichen Böhmen’, in Autorität und Wahrheit: Kirchliche Vorstellungen, Normen und Verfahren (13.–15. Jahrhundert), ed.  by Gian Luca Potestà, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, 84 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2012), pp. 113–26 ———, ‘Die Verbrennung von Johannes Hus als europäisches Ereignis: Öffentlichkeit und Öffentlichkeiten am Vorabend der hussitischen Reformation’, in Politische Öffentlichkeit im Mittelalter, ed. by Martin Kintzinger and Bernd Schneidmüller, Vorträge und Forschungen, 75 (Ostfildern: Thorbecke, 2011), pp. 361–83 ———, ‘Preaching, the Vernacular, and the Laity’, in A  Companion to the Hussites, ed. by Michael van Dussen and Pavel Soukup, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2019) (forthcoming) ———, ‘Theology Goes to the Vernaculars: Jan Hus “On Simony”, and the Practice of Translation in Fifteenth-Century Bohemia’, in Religious Controversy in Europe, 1378–1536: Textual Transmission and Networks of Readership, ed. by Michael van Dussen and Pavel Soukup, Medieval Church Studies, 27 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 231–49 ———, ‘The Vernacular Theology of Jan Hus’, in A Companion to Jan Hus, ed. by František Šmahel and Ota Pavlíček, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 170–213 ———, and Jakub Sichálek, ‘Lost and Found in Translation: Der alttschechische Barlaam zwischen kontemplativem Traktat, Predigt und Abenteuerroman’, Barlaam und Josaphat: Neue Perspektiven auf ein europäisches Phänomen, ed.  by Matthias Meyer and Constanza Cordoni (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), pp. 321–41 Ryšánek, František, ‘Kritické a exegetické příspěvky k českým spisům M. Jana Husi’ [Critical and Exegetical Contributions to Czech Writings by M. Jan Hus], Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 79/2 (1956), pp. 209–18 Scales, Len, The Shaping of German Identity: Authority and Crisis, 1245– 1414 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) Schabel, Chris, Monica Brinzei, and Mihai Maga, ‘A Golden Age of Theology at Prague: Prague “Sentences” Commentaries from 1375

304 Bibliography

to 1385, the “Terminus Post Quem” for Evidence of Wycliffism in Bohemia’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae – Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis, 55/1 (2015), pp. 19–40 Schendl, Herbert ‘Code-Switching in Late Medieval Macaronic Sermons’, in Multilingualism in Medieval Britain (c. 1066–1520): Sources and Analysis, ed.  by Judith Anne Jefferson and others, Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe, 15 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 153–69 ———, ‘Linguistic Aspects of Code-Switching in Medieval English Texts’, in Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain, ed. by David A. Trotter (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2000), pp. 77–92 ———, ‘Text Types and Code-Switching in Medieval and Early Modern English’, Vienna English Working Papers, 5/1–2 (1996), pp. 50–62 Schiewer, Hans-Jochen, ‘Spuren von Mündlichkeit in der mittelalterlichen Predigtüberlieferung: Ein Plädoyer für exemplarisches und beschreibend-interpretierendes Edieren’, Editio, 6 (1992), pp. 64–79 ———, and Regina  D. Schiewer, ‘Opera mixta – Deutsch-lateinische Mischpredigten: Überlieferung und Funktion’, in Meister Eckharts Werk und seine Wirkung: Die Anfänge, ed.  by Freimut Löser, HansJochen Schiewer, and Regina D. Schiewer, Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch, 11 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2017), pp. 291–318 Schmidtová, Anežka, ‘[Review of ] F.  M. Bartoš, Dvě studie o husitských postilách, Praha 1955’ [F. M. Bartoš, Two Studies on Hussite Postils], Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 78 (1955), p. 290 Schulz-Flügel, Eva, ‘Praefatio’, in Tyrannius Rufinus, Historia monachorum sive de vita sanctorum patrum, ed.  by Eva Schulz-Flügel, Patristische Texte und Studien, 34 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990), pp. 3–237 Schwarz, Ernst, Volkstumsgeschichte der Sudetenländer, 2  vols, Handbuch der sudetendeutschen Kulturgeschichte, 3–4 (Munich: Oldenbourg & Lerche, 1965–66), ii: Mähren – Schlesien (1966) Schwarz, Werner, Schriften zur Bibelübersetzung und mittelalterlichen Übersetzungstheorie, ed.  by Heimo Reinitzer and others, Vestigia Bibliae, 7 (Hamburg: Wittig, 1985)

Bibliography 305

Schwarzenberg, Karl, ‘Bücher der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek aus dem Prager Karolinum’, Biblos, 19 (1970), pp. 97–102 ———, Katalog der kroatischen, polnischen und tschechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, N.  F. 4/4 (Vienna: Hollinek, 1972) Sedlák, Jan, ‘Husův pomocník v evangeliu’ [Hus’s Assistant in the Evangelium], Studie a texty k náboženským dějinám českým, 2 (1914/5), pp. 302–50 and pp. 446–77 ———, ‘Husův vývoj dle jeho postil’ [Hus’s Development According to his Postils], Studie a texty k náboženským dějinám českým, 2  (1915), pp. 394–414 ———, M.  Jan Hus, Podíl údů, na rok 1915, 58 (Prague: Dědictví sv. Prokopa, 1915) ———, Mikuláš z Drážďan [Nicholas of Dresden] (Brno: Hlídka, 1914) ———, Studie a texty k životopisu Husovu [Studies and Texts on Hus’s Life], Studie a texty k náboženským dějinám českým, 2 (Olomouc: Matice Cyrilometodějská́, 1915) Seibt, Ferdinand, Deutschland und die Tschechen: Geschichte einer Nachbarschaft in der Mitte Europas (Munich: List, 1974) Seltzer, Joel Daniel, ‘Framing Faith, Forging a Nation: Czech Vernacular Historiography and the Bohemian Reformation, 1430–1530’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 2005) Seton-Watson, Robert William, Prague Essays: Presented by a Group of British Historians to the Caroline University of Prague on the Occasion of Its Six-Hundredth Anniversary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949) Shogimen, Takashi, ‘Wyclif Ecclesiology and Political Thought’, in A Companion to John Wyclif: Late Medieval Theologian, ed.  by Ian  C. Levy, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2006) pp. 199–240 Sichálek, Jakub, ‘European Background: Czech Translations’, in The Wycliffite Bible: Origin, History and Interpretation, ed.  by Elizabeth Solopova, Medieval and Renaissance Authors and Texts, 16 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), pp. 66–84

306 Bibliography

———, ‘Vícejazyčnost literárního života v českých zemích 14. a 15. století: Sedm tematických exkurzů v rámci bohemistiky’ [The Multilingual Nature of Literary Life in the Czech Lands in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries: Seven Thematic Excursions Within Czech Studies], Česká literatura, 62 (2014), pp. 711–44 ———, ‘Vznik a vývoj česko-německého bilingvismu’ [The Emergence and Development of Czech-German Bilingualism], Slovo a slovesnost, 38 (1977), pp. 197–207 Šimáková, Jitka and others, Katalog prvotisků Knihovny Národního muzea v Praze a zámeckých a hradních knihoven v České republice [Incunabula in the National Museum Library, Prague, and Incunabula in the Castle Libraries in the Czech Republic: The Catalogue] (Prague: KLP – Koniasch Latin Press, 2001) Šimeček, Zdeněk and Armin Hetzer, Geschichte des Buchhandels in Tschechien und in der Slowakei, Geschichte des Buchhandels, 7 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002) Šimek, František, ‘Staročeské Životy svatých Otcův’ [Review of ‘Old Czech Lives of the Holy Fathers’, ed.  by Smetánka], Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 37 (1910), pp. 140–42 Skála, Emil, ‘Die Entwicklung der Sprachgrenze in Böhmen vom 1300 bis etwa 1650’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae: Germanistica Pragensia, 5 (1968), pp. 7–20 ———, ‘Die Entwicklung des Bilinguismus in der Tschechoslowakei vom 13.–18. Jahrhundert’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 86 (1964), pp. 69–106 ———, ‘Německý jazyk v českých zemích ve 14. století’ [The German Language in Czech Lands in the Fourteenth Century], in Mezinárodní vědecká konference doba Karla IV. v dějinách národů ČSSR, pořádaná Univerzitou Karlovou v Praze k 600. výročí úmrtí Karla  IV., 29.11.– 1.12.1978: Materiály z sekce jazyka a literatury, ed. by Jaroslav Porák (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1981), pp. 73–84 Šlosar, Dušan and others, Spisovný jazyk v dějinách české společnosti [Literary Language in History of Czech Society], 3rd rev.  edn (Brno: Host, 2009)

Bibliography 307

Šmahel, František, ‘Antiideál města v  díle Petra Chelčického: Příspěvek k sociální kritice středověkého města’ [Town Anti-Ideal in Petr Chelčický’s Writing], Československý časopis historický, 20/1 (1972), pp. 71–94 ———, ‘Audiovizuální media husitské agitace’ [Audiovisual Media of Hussite Agitation], in Mezi středověkem a renesancí, ed. by František Šmahel, Edice historické myšlení, 16 (Prague: Argo, 2002), pp. 231–37 ———, ‘“Circa universalia sunt dubitationes pauce I–III”: Studie a text k pražskému sporu o universalia realia’ [Study and Text on the Prague Debate on Universalia Realia], Filosofický časopis, 18 (1970), pp. 987–97 ———, Die Hussitische Revolution, trans. by Thomas Krzenck, ed.  by Alexander Patschovsky, 3  vols, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Schriften, 43 (Hannover: Hahn, 2002), iii ———, ‘Die Tabule veteris et novi coloris als audiovisuelles Medium hussitischer Agitation’, Studie o rukopisech, 29 (1992), pp. 95–105 ———, ‘“Doctor evangelicus super omnes evangelistas”: Wyclif ’s Fortune in Hussite Bohemia’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 43 (1970), pp. 26–34 ———, Husitská revoluce [The Hussite Revolution], 4  vols, Práce Historického ústavu ČAV, A: Monographia, 9 (Prague: Historický ústav, 1993), iv: Epilog bouřlivého věku ———, Husitské Čechy: Struktury, procesy, ideje, Česká historie, 9 (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2001) ———, Idea národa v husitských Čechách [The Idea of the Nation in Hussite Bohemia], 2nd edn, Edice historické myšlení, 11 (Prague: Argo, 2000) ———, Jan Hus: Život a dílo [ Jan Hus: Life and Work], Edice Ecce Homo, 19 (Prague: Argo, 2013) ———, ‘Magister Peter Payne: Curriculum vitae eines englischen Nonkonformisten’, in Friedrich Reiser und die ‘waldensisch-hussitische Internationale’ im 15. Jahrhundert: Akten der Tagung Ötisheim-Schönenberg, 2. bis 4. Oktober 2003, ed.  by Albert de Lange, Waldenserstudien, 3 (Heidelberg: Verlag Regionalkultur, 2006), pp. 241–60 ———, ‘The Idea of the “Nation” in Hussite Bohemia’, trans. by Roberta F. Samsour, Historica, 16, 17 (1969), pp. 143–247, pp. 93–197

308 Bibliography

———, ‘The National Idea, Secular Power and Social Issues in the Political Theology of Jan Hus’, in A Companion to Jan Hus, ed.  by František Šmahel and Ota Pavlíček, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 214–53 ———, Verzeichnis der Quellen zum Prager Universalienstreit 1348–1500, Mediaevalia Philosophica Polonnorum, 25 (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1980) ———, ‘[Review of ] “Quadragesimale Admontense  = Quadragesimale admontské”, ed.  by Florianova and others’, Český Časopis Historický, 105/4 (2007), pp. 973–74 Smetánka, Emil, ‘O staročeských Životech sv. Otců’ [On Czech Translation of Vitaspatrum], Věstník Královské české společnosti nauk, třída historická (1904), pp. 1–99 Solms, Hans-Joachim, ‘Soziokulturelle Voraussetzungen und Sprachraum des Frühneuhochdeutschen’, in Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, ed. by Werner Besch and others, 4 vols, 2nd rev. edn, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 2 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998–2004), ii (2000), pp. 1513–27 Soukup, Pavel, ‘K  pramenům Husových Punkt: Jan Hus a Bernard Gui’ [On the Sources of Hus’s Puncta: Jan Hus and Bernard Gui], Studia historica Brunensia, 62 (2015), pp. 235–47 ———, ‘Jan Hus as a Preacher’ in A Companion to Jan Hus, ed. by František Šmahel and Ota Pavlíček, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2015) pp. 96–129 ———, Jan Hus: Prediger – Reformator – Märtyrer, Kohlhammer UrbanTaschenbücher, 737 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014) ———, ‘Jan Hus: Betlémská kázání’ [ Jan Hus: Bethlehem Sermons], in Čítanka latinských textů z pozdně středověkých Čech, ed.  by Lucie Doležalová, Michal Dragoun, and Jan Ctibor (Scriptorium, 2017), pp. 63–79 Soupis rukopisů Strahovské knihovny Památníku národního písemnictví v Praze [Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Strahov Library of the Museum of Czech Literature in Prague], ed. by Bohumil Ryba (Prague: Památník národního písemnictví, 1970–79), v: Strahovské rukopisy DL–DU, Sigma, porůznu

Bibliography 309

a výběr zlomků (čís. 2426–3286) [Strahov Manuscripts DL–DU, Sigma, and Several Selected Fragments (Nos 2426–3286)] (1971) Sperka, Jerzy, ‘Działalność polityczna Piotra i Jana Szafrańców w okresie rządów Władysława Jagiełły’ [The Political Activity of Piotr and Jan Szafraniec under the Reign of King Ladislaus Jagiello], in Genealogia: Rola związków rodzinnych i rodowych w życiu publicznym w Polsce średniowiecznej, ed. by Andrzej Radzimiński and Jan Wroniszewski, Rozprawy (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu) (Toruń: Uniwersytet, 1996) ———, Szafrańcowie herbu Stary Koń: z dziejów kariery i awansu w późnośredniowiecznej Polsce [Szafrańcowie of the Old Horse Coat of Arms: A  Study on Carrier and Promotion in Late-Medieval Poland], Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach, 1986 (Katowice: Wydaw. UŚ, 2001) Spina, Franz, ‘Neuere Ausgaben zur älteren čechischen Literatur’, Archiv für slawische Philologie, 32 (1911), pp. 454–65 Spunar, Pavel, ‘Literární činnost utrakvistů doby poděbradské a jagellonské’ [Literary Activity of Utraquists in the Poděbrad and Jagiellonian Epoch], in Příspěvky k dějinám utrakvismu, ed.  by Amedeo Molnár, Acta reformationem bohemicam illustrantia, 1 (Prague: Kalich, 1978), pp. 165–269 ———, Repertorium auctorum Bohemorum provectum idearum post universitatem Pragensem conditam illustrans, 2 vols, Studia Copernicana 25, 35 (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Polskiej akademii nauk, 1985–95), i (1985), ii (1995) ———, ‘[Review of ] “Quadragesimale Admontense  = Quadragesimale admontské”, ed.  by Florianová and others’, Listy Filologické  / Folia philologica, 131/3–4 (2008), pp. 552–54 ———, and Anežka Vidmanová, ‘[Review of ] Master Nicholas of Dresden, The Old Color and the New’, Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 90/2 (1967), pp. 208–10 Staubach, Nikolaus, ‘Reform aus der Tradition: Die Bedeutung der Kirchenväter für die Devotio moderna’, in Schriftlichkeit und Lebenspraxis im Mittelalter: Erfassen, Bewahren, Verändern, ed.  by Hagen Keller and others, Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften, 76 (Munich: Fink, 1999), pp. 171–201

310 Bibliography

Stayer, James M., ‘Introduction’, in A Companion to Anabaptism and Spiritualism: 1521-1700, ed. by John D. Roth and James M. Stayer, Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. xiii–xxiv Stejskal, Karel, ‘Poznámky k  současnému stavu bádání o Jenském kodexu’[Notes on the Present State of Knowledge Concerning the Jena Codex], Umění, 9 (1961), pp. 1–30 Stolt, Birgit, Die Sprachmischung in Luthers Tischreden: Studien zum Problem Zweisprachigkeit, Stockholmer germanistische Forschungen, 4 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964) Straka, Cyrill A., ‘Nově objevené zlomky spisů Mistra Jana Husi v knihovně Strahovské’ [Recently Discovered Fragments of the Works of Jan Hus in the Library of Strahov], Časopis Musea království českého, 87 (1913), pp. 54–66 Straka, Josef, ‘Jos. Kramář: Překlad Ciceronova Laelia, pořízený od Řehoře Hrubého z Jelení’ [Review of Jos. Kramář, ‘Translation of Cicero’s Laelio made by Řehoř Hrubý of Jelení’], Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 33 (1906), pp. 303–05 Svec, Victor, Bildagitation: Antipäpstliche Bildpolemik der böhmischen Reformation im Göttinger Hussitenkodex, Art in Science, Science in Art, 3 (Weimar: Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaften, 1994) Svoboda, Miroslav and others, Mikulov (Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2013) Szweda, Jolanta and Adam Szweda, ‘Z dziejów husytyzmu’ [On the History of Hussitism], Zapiski Kujawsko-Dobrzynskie, 14 (2000), pp. 37–68 Theisen, Maria, ‘Bewegte Jahre: Kostbare Wyclif-Ausgaben aus der Samsung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek’, Codices Manuscripti, 88: Supplementum, 2 (2010), pp. 88–94 Thesaurus Anecdotorum Novissimus seu Veterum Monumentorum, ed.  by Bernhard Pez, 6 vols (Augsburg: Veith, 1721–29), iv (1723) Thomas, Heinz, ‘Die Deutsche Nation und Martin Luther’, Historisches Jahrbuch, 105 (1985), pp. 426–54 Thomson, Samuel Harrison, ‘Some Latin Works Erroneously Ascribed to Wyclif ’, Speculum, 3 (1928), pp. 382–91

Bibliography 311

Thomson, Williell R., The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf: An Annotated Catalog, Subsidia mediaevalia, 14 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1983) Tille, Václav and Jan Vilikovský, ‘Rukopisná bohemika v Admontě’ [Manuscript ‘Bohemica’ in Admont], Časopis Archivní školy, 11 (1934), pp. 77–122 Tischler, Maria, ‘Böhmische Judengemeinden 1348–1519’, in Die Juden in den böhmischen Ländern: Vorträge der Tagung des Collegium Carolinum in Bad Wiessee vom 27. bis 29. November 1981, ed. by Ferdinand Seibt (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1983), pp. 37–56 Tönnies, Bernhard, Die mittelalterlichen lateinischen Handschriften der Electoralis-Gruppe, Die Handschriften der Thüringer Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Jena, 1 (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2002) Tomek, Václav Vladivoj, Dějepis města Prahy [History of the City of Prague], 2nd  edn, 12  vols, Novočeská bibliothéka, 18: Spisů musejních, 58 (Prague: Fr. Řivnáč, 1892–1906), iii (1893) Tříška, Josef, ‘Příspěvky k středověké literární universitě: De auctoribus et operibus universitatis Pragensis medii aevi capitula. III: Pragenses magistri, praedicatores, notarii’ [Contributions on the Medieval Literary University], Acta Universitatis Carolinae: Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis, 10 (1969), pp. 7–48 Truhlář, Josef, Catalogus codicum manu scriptorum Latinorum qui in C.  R. Bibliotheca publica atque Universitatis Pragensis asservantur, 2 vols (Prague: Královská česká společnost nauk, 1905–06), i: Codices 1–1665, forulorum I–VIII (1905), ii: Codices 1666–2752, forulorum IX–XV et bibliothecæ Kinskyanæ: Adligata 2753–2830: Tabulae: Addenda: Index (1906) ———, Humanismus a humanisté v Čechách za krále Vladislava  II. [Humanism and the Humanists in Bohemia in the Reign of Vladislav  II], Rozpravy České akademie, 3/3/4 (Prague: Česká akademie, 1894) ———, ‘K dějinám poustevníků na Výtoně’ [Towards History of the Hermits in (Přední) Výtoň], Český časopis historický, 8 (1902), pp. 320–22 ———, ‘Paběrky z rukopisů Klementinských X’ [Gleanings of Clementinum manuscripts, X], Věstník České akademie, 7 (1898), pp. 271–74 Uhlíř, Zdeněk, ‘Das lateinische und tschechische Predigen im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert: Übersetzung – Adaptation – Mutation’, in Umbrüche

312 Bibliography

innerhalb der Schriftlichkeit in profanen und sakralen Übersetzungstexten des Deutschen, Tschechischen und Polnischen vom 15. bis 17. Jahrhundert, ed. by Sebastian Seyferth, Westostpassagen – Slawistische Forschungen und Texte, 19 (Hildesheim: Olms, 2014), pp. 29–40 ———, ‘O Řečech nedělních a svátečních Tomáše ze Štítného: Problém české a latinské transmise kazatelských textů’ [Festival and Sunday Sermons by Thomas of Štítné: On the Transmission of Preaching Texts in Medieval Czech and Latin], Z badań nad książką i księgozbiorami historycznymi, 4 (2010), pp. 81–90 Urban, Wincenty, Studia nad dziejami diecezji wrocławskiej w pierwszej połowie XV wieku [Studies on the History of the Diocese of Wrocław in the First Half of the Fifteenth Century] (Wrocław: Opole, 1959) Urbánek, Rudolf, Věk poděbradský [The Age of Poděbrady], 4 vols, Laichterův výbor nejlepších spisů poučných: České dějiny, 3 (Prague: Laichter, 1915–62), i (1915), iv (1962) Urbánková, Emma, Rukopisy a vzácné tisky pražské Universitní knihovny [The Manuscripts and the Rare Books Held in the Prague University Library] (Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1957) Vaculínová, Marta, ‘K diskuzi o humanismu’ [Towards Debate upon Humanism], Česká literatura, 62/4 (2014), pp. 638–42 ———, ‘Zikmund Hrubý z Jelení a jeho život v Basileji’ [Sigismundus Gelenius and his Life in Basle], Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 135/1–2 (2012), pp. 91–124 (summary in English, pp. 123–24) Vanek, Klara, ‘Der Philologe und Übersetzer Zikmund Hrubý z Jelení, gen. Gelenius (1497–1554): Ein Porträt’, Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, C: Historia Litterarum, 57/3 (2012), pp. 69–74 Vaniš, Jaroslav, ‘Mikuláš z Černčic’, Sborník okresního archivu v Lounech, 3 (1990), pp. 31–41 Vernet, André, ‘La diffusion de l’œuvre de Bernard Gui d’après la tradition manuscrite’, in Bernard Gui et son monde, Cahiers de Fanjeaux, 16 (Toulouse: Privat, 1981), pp. 221–42 Vidmanová, Anežka, ‘Autoritäten und Wiclif in Hussens homiletischen Schriften’, in Antiqui und Moderni: Traditionsbewußtsein und Fortschrittsbewußtsein im späten Mittelalter, ed. by Albert Zimmermann, Miscellanea mediaevalia, 9 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1974), pp. 383–93

Bibliography 313

———, ‘Hus a Vilém z Auvergne’ [Hus and William of Auvergne], Studie o rukopisech, 18 (1979), pp. 29–47 ———, ‘Hus als Prediger’, Communio Viatorum, 19 (1976), pp. 65–81 ———, ‘Husova tzv. Postilla De tempore (1408/09)’ [So-called Postilla ‘De tempore’ of Hus (1408–1409)], Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 94 (1971), pp. 7–22 ———, ‘K textové tradici letní části Husova Leccionaria bipartita’ [On Textual Tradition of the Summer Part of Hus’s Leccionarium bipartitum], Listy filologické / Folia philologica, 109 (1986), pp. 147–55 ———, ‘Kdy, kde a jak psal Hus českou Postillu’ [When, Where, and How Hus Wrote the Czech Postil], Listy Filologické / Folia philologica, 112/3 (1989), pp. 144–58 ———, ‘Stoupenci a protivníci mistra Jana Husa’ [Supporters and Adversaries of Master Jan Hus], Husitský Tábor, 4 (1981), pp. 49–56 Vilikovský, Jan, ‘Kazatelství a počátky české prózy’ [Preaching and the Beginnings of Czech Prose], in Písemnictví českého středověku (Prague: Universum, 1948), pp. 109–19 Vintr, Josef, Das Tschechische: Hauptzüge seiner Sprachstruktur in Gegenwart und Geschichte, 2nd rev. edn, Slavistische Beiträge, 403: Studienhilfen, 11 (Munich: Sagner, 2005) Vlk, Miloslav, ‘K  otázce předlohy Jenského kodexu’ [On the Model of the Jena Codex], Sborník Národního muzea v  Praze, A: Historie, 17 (1963), pp. 1–19 ———, ‘Obrazy v Betlémské kapli: Rozbor historických pramenů’ [Paintings in the Bethlehem Chapel: An analysis of Historical Sources], Časopis Národního muzea, 130/1 (1961), pp. 151–69 ———, ‘Paleografický rozbor Jenského kodexu’ [Palaeographical Analysis of the Jena Codex], Sborník historický, 14 (1966), pp. 49–74 Voit, Petr, Český knihtisk mezi pozdní gotikou a renesancí [Printing in the Bohemian Lands between the Late Gothic and the Early Renaissance Periods], 1  vol. (Prague, KLP – Koniasch Latin Press, 2013), i: Severinsko-kosořská dynastie 1488–1557 [The Severin-Kosořský Dynasty, 1488–1557] (summary in English, pp. 433–36)

314 Bibliography

———, Encyklopedie knihy: starší knihtisk a příbuzné obory mezi polovinou 15. a počátkem 19. století [The Encyclopaedia of the Book: The Older Letterpress Printing and Related Subject Fields between the Second Half of the Fifteenth and the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century], 2 vols, 2nd edn (Prague: Libri, 2006–08), i: A – O (2008) ———, Katalog prvotisků Strahovské knihovny v  Praze [A Catalogue of Incunabula of the Strahov Library in Prague], Bibliotheca Strahoviensis: Series monographica, 6 (Prague: Královská kanonie premonstrátů na Strahově, 2015) ———, ‘Mikuláš Konáč z Hodíškova: Inspirace k úvahám o humanismu’ [Mikuláš Konáč of Hodíškov: Inspiration for Reflections on Humanism], Česká literatura, 63/1 (2015), pp.  3–39 (summary in English, pp. 38–39) Vykypělová, Taťána, Wege zum Neutschechischen: Studien zur Geschichte der tschechischen Schriftsprache, Schriftenreihe Studien zur Slavistik, 32 (Hamburg: Kovač, 2013) Walsch, Katherine, ‘Lollardisch-hussitische Reformbestrebungen in Umkreis und Gefolgschaft der Luxemburgerin Anna, Königin von England (1382–1394)’, in Häresie und vorzeitige Reformation im Spätmittelalter, ed. by František Šmahel and Elizabeth Müller-Luckner, Schriften des Historischen Kollegs, 39 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1998), pp. 77–108 ———, ‘Vom Wegestreit zur Häresie: Zur Auseinandersetzung um die Lehre John Wyclifs in Wien und Prag an der Wende zum 15. Jahrhundert’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, 94 (1986), pp. 25–47 ———, ‘Wyclif ’s Legacy in Central Europe in the Late Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries’, in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. by Anne Hudson and Michael Wilks, Studies in Church History: Subsidia, 5 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), pp. 397–417 Wenzel, Siegfried, Macaronic Sermons: Bilingualism and Preaching in LateMedieval England, Recentiores: Later Latin Texts and Contexts (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994) ———, ‘Sermon Collections and Their Taxonomy’, in The Whole Book: Cultural Perspectives on the Medieval Miscellany, ed. by Stephen G.

Bibliography 315

Nichols and Siegfried Wenzel, Recentiores: Later Latin Texts and Contexts (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996), pp. 7–21 Wetzel, René and Fabrice Flückiger, ‘Einleitung: Die Predigt im Mittelalter zwischen Mündlichkeit, Bildlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit’, in Die Predigt im Mittelalter zwischen Mündlichkeit, Bildlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit: La prédication au Moyen Age entre oralité, visualité et écriture, ed.  by René Wetzel and Fabrice Flückiger, Medienwandel – Medienwechsel – Medienwissen, 13 (Zürich: Chronos, 2010), pp. 13–23 Wiesiołowski, Jacek, ‘O możnowładczych protektorach husytyzmu słów kilka’ [A Few Words on the Lords, Protectors of Hussitism], in Polskie echa husytyzmu w Polsce, ed. by Stanisław Bylina and Ryszard Gładkiewicz (Warsaw: Polska Akademia Nauk, 1999), pp. 84–85 Wilks, Michael, ‘Wyclif and the Great Persecution’, in Prophecy and Eschatology, ed.  by Michael Wilks, Studies in Church History: Subsidia, 10 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), pp. 39–63 Williams, Ulla, ‘Vitas patrum’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, ed. by Robert Auty and others, 35 vols, 2nd edn (Berlin: Artemis, 1972–2008), viii: Stadt (Byzantinisches Reich) bis Werl (1997), ed.  by Robert-Henri Bautier and Charlotte Bretscher-Gisiger, cols 1765–68 ———, and Werner  J. Hoffmann, ‘Vitaspatrum’, in Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, ed. by Kurt Ruh and others, 14 vols, 2nd rev. edn (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1978–2008), x: Ulrich von Lilienfeld – ‘Das zwölfjährige Mönchlein’ (1999), cols 449–66 Windhorst, Christof, ‘Das Gedächtnis des Leidens Christi und Pflichtzeichen brüderlicher Liebe: Zum Verständnis des Abendmahls bei Balthasar Hubmaier’, in Umstrittenes Täufertum 1525–1975: Neue Forschungen, ed. by Hans-Jürgen Goertz (Göttingen: Vadenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 111–37 ———, Täuferisches Taufverständnis: Balthasar Hubmaiers Lehre zwischen traditioneller und reformatorischer Theologie, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1976) Włodarski, Maciej, ‘Andrzeja Gałki z Dobczyna tzw. “Pieśń o Wiklefie”’ (Lachowie, Niemcowie, Wszyćcy językowie)’ [The ‘Eulogy of Wyclif ’ by Andrzej Gałka of Dobczyn], in Polska poezja świecka XV wieku,

316 Bibliography

ed. by Maciej Włodarski, Biblioteka narodowa, 1/60 (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowny im. Ossolińskich: 1997), pp. XXXIII–XXXVII Wolf, Herbert, Martin Luther: Eine Einführung in germanistische LutherStudien, Sammlung Metzler, 193/D: Literaturgeschichte (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1980) Workman, Herbert Brook, John Wyclif: A  Study of the English Medieval Church, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926) Wünsch, Thomas, Konziliarismus und Polen: Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassung der Kirche in der Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien, Konziliengeschichte, B: Untersuchungen (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998) ———, ‘“Nec pestifera doctrina corrumpat gregem dominicum”: Zur Konfrontation zwischen Wyclifismus und Konziliarismus im Umkreis der Universität Krakau in der ersten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts’, Zeitschrift für Ostforschung, 44 (1995), pp. 5–26 Wydra, Wiesław, Władysław z Gielniowa: Z dziejów średniowiecznej poezji polskiej [Ladislas of Gielniow: On the History of Polish Medieval Poetry] (Poznań: Bestseller, 1992) Zathey, Jerzy, ‘Gdzie jest rękopis “Pieśni o Wiklefie?”’ [Where is the Manuscript of ‘The Song of Wyclif ’?], Pamiętnik Literacki, 45/1 (1954), pp. 145–55 ———, ‘Pieśń o Wiklefie i jej zapomniana melodia’ [The Song on Wyclif and its Lost Melody], Pamiętnik Literacki, 46/3 (1955), pp. 171–87 Zeman, Jarold Knox, The Anabaptists and the Czech Brethren in Moravia 1526–1628: A Study of Origins and Contacts, Studies in European History, 20 (The Hague: Mouton, 1969) Zerlik, Alfred, ‘Konrad von Waldhausen (Zu seinem 600. Todestag)’, Oberösterreichische Heimatblätter, 23/3 (1969), pp. 30–39 Zilynská, Blanka, ‘From Learned Disputation to the Happening: The Propagation of Faith Through Work and Image’, in Public Communication in European Reformation: Artistic and Other Media in Central Europe 1380–1620, ed. by Milena Bartlová and Michal Šroněk (Prague: Artefactum, 2007), pp. 55–67

Bibliography 317

Zink, Michel, La prédication en langue Romane: avant 1300, Nouvelle Bibliothèque du Moyen Âge, 4 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1976) ———, ‘Les destinataires des recueils de sermons en langue vulgaire au XIIe et au XIIIe siècle: Prédication effective et prédication dans un fauteil’, in La piété populaire au Moyen Âge, Actes du Congrès national des sociétés savantes: Section de philologie et d’histoire jusqu’à 1610, 99 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1977), pp. 59–74 Websites [see the specific URLs and dates of access in the particular contributions] Filozofická fakulta Univerzita Karlova, ‘František Mužík’, online:

Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, online: Handschriftencensus: Eine Bestandsaufnahme der handschriftlichen Überlieferung deutschsprachiger Texte des Mittelalters, online: Lorenc, Agata, ‘“Pieśń o Wiklefie” Jędrzeja Gałki z Dobczyna: Próba eksplikacji’ [The ‘Song of Wyclif ’ by Jędrzej Gałka of Dobczyn: An Attempt at Explanation], online: Manuscriptorium: Digital Library of Written Cultural Heritage, online:

Mirabile: Archivio digitale della cultura medievale: Digital Archives for Medieval Culture, online: The Ohio State University (OSU), Library Catalogue, online:

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND ANONYMOUS TEXTS Anselmus Cantuariensis / Anselm of Canterbury, [pseudo-] 97 Aristotle 37, 60–61, 63, 117 Augustine 37, 42, 108 Barlaam and Josaphat 215, 229 Bartholomew Brixiensis 140 Basilius 207 Bechyňka, Jan 228 Bede 116, 174–75 Benedict of Alignan 146–48 Bernardus Claraevallensis / Bernard of Clairvaux, [pseudo-] 97 Boethius 222 Bonaventure 97 Buridan, John 7, 62 Burley, Walter, [pseudo-] 213 Čapek, Jan 193 Chelčický, Petr 12, 14, 65–67, 72, 87, 227 Cicero, Marcus Tullius 207, 209, 222, 224 Comenius / Jan Amos Komenský 211 Cyprian 208, 240 De vitiis et virtutibus 155 Dionysius the Areopagite, [pseudo-] 61 Długosz, Jan 194 Durand, William 39–42, 44–45 Eck, Johannes 263 Eckhart [Master] 250 Erasmus of Rotterdam 206, 208–09, 213–14, 220, 222–23, 226, 230, 248, 250

Gałka of Dobczyn, Andrzej 16, 185–94, 196–99, 202–03 Giles of Rome 61 Glaidt, Oswald 17, 234–35, 237–40, 242–43, 247, 251–54, 256–59, 261, 263 Göschl, Martin 237–38, 240–42, 245 Gui, Bernard 114–15 Guido de Colonna 213 Gregory the Great / Gregorius Magnus 37, 39, 42–43, 45, 108, 168, 170, 173, 207 Guillaume d’Auvergne 116 Guillaume Peyrault 116 Haller, Heinrich 224, 228–29 Hilarius of Litoměřice 13 Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus) 222 Hugh of Saint-Victor / Hugo de Sancto Victore [pseudo-] 97 Hugh of Strasbourg 97 Hrubý of Jelení, Řehoř 16, 205–30 Hrubý of Jelení, Zikmund / Sigismundus Gelenius 207–09 Hubmaier, Balthasar 17, 235, 237, 240–59, 261–63 Hus, Jan 8, 11–13, 15–16, 26, 39, 53, 56, 58–59, 61–62, 65–70, 72, 76, 78, 86–88, 91–92, 94–99, 101, 106–09, 112–27, 130, 153–55, 157, 159–60, 162–65, 168–72, 175, 177–84, 195, 200, 230, 262–63

320 Index of Authors and Anonymous Texts Ienko Wenceslaus of Prague 63

Payne, Peter 59, 196

Iohannes de Sancto Geminiano 94

Peter of Benešov 96

Iovanus Pontanus / Giovanni Pontano 207, 220, 223, 226

Petrarch 207, 217, 223

Isidorus Hispalensis, [pseudo-] 96

Písecký, Václav 207–09

Jacob de Saraponte 162 Jacobus de Voragine 106, 114–16, 175, 213 Jakoubek of Stříbro 12–13, 15, 65–67, 70–88, 95, 97, 113, 130, 155, 192 Jakub de Theramo 228 Jan of Příbram 12, 14, 184, 192 Jerome, St 222 Jerome of Prague 22, 65, 68–69, 87, 200, 230 Johlín of Vodňany 117–18 John Chrysostom 207–08, 222 Koranda, Václav 13–14, 224 Kunssonis, Martin 96 Ludolph of Saxony 116–17 Luther, Martin 224, 234, 237, 239, 241–43, 246, 248, 250–53, 255, 259, 261–62 Matthias Flacius Illyricus 193 Matthias of Janov 24, 41, 68, 75, 98, 130 Melanchthon, Philipp 241

Piccolomini, Enea Silvio 199 Plato 60–61 Pliny 117 Quintilian / Marcus Fabius Quintilianus 222–23 Responsiones ad obiecciones et picturas 130, 144–51 Robert Grosseteste 61 Rokycana, Jan 12–14, 66, 87, 155, 184 Rosa, Václav 97–98, 125–26 Schedel, Hartmann 262 Seneca 37 Sobek of Kornice, Burian 261 Spittelmaier, Johannes 16, 234–39, 242, 247, 251–54, 256–59, 261 Stanislaus of Znojmo 53, 62–64 Štěkna, John 24 Štěpán of Dolany 65, 69, 87 Štěpán of Palecz 7, 64, 195 Stephen of Kolín 95 Sulpicius Severus 219

Milíč of Kroměříž 24, 68, 130

Tauler, Johannes 250

Nicholas of Dresden 8, 15, 127–31, 133–34, 138, 141, 144–46, 149–50

Thomas Aquinas 37, 39 Thomas of Cantimpré 117

Nicholas of Lyra 187

Václav of Dráchov 155–56

Oekolampad, Johannes 248 Omnes attendite, animadvertite 187, 191, 193 Pasionál 230–31

Thomas of Štítné 215 Valla, Laurentius / Lorenzo 207, 223 Verse on the Death of Andrzej Tęczyński, see Wiersz o zabiciu Andrzeja Tęczyńskiego

Index of Authors and Anonymous Texts 321 Viktorin of Všehrdy / Všehrd / Victorinus Cornelius Chrudimensis 206, 208, 222–23

Wiersz o zabiciu Andrzeja Tęczyńskiego 196–97

Vitaspatrum 16, 122, 205, 207, 209–11, 213– 21, 223–25, 227–31

Wyclif, John, [pseudo-] 7, 11, 15–16, 26, 53–59, 61–89, 98–99, 114, 117, 130, 185–200, 202

Waldhauser, Conrad 15, 19–20, 22–46, 49, 68

Zwingli, Huldreich 234, 240–41, 243–44, 246–49, 252, 256, 258

William Ockham 62