Eschatology In The Work Of Jan Hus (27) (Europa Sacra) 9782503593050, 2503593054

Citation preview

ESCHATOLOGY IN THE WORK OF JAN HUS

EUROPA SACRA VOLUME 27 Editorial Board under the auspices of Monash University General Editor Carolyn James, Monash University Editorial Board Megan Cassidy-Welch, Australian Catholic University David Garrioch, Monash University Peter Howard, Australian Catholic University Thomas Izbicki, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Constant J. Mews, Monash University M. Michele Mulchahey, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto Adriano Prosperi, Scuola Normale di Pisa Volumes published in this series are listed at the back of the book.

Eschatology in the Work of Jan Hus

by lucie mazalová

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Translated by Nicholas Orsillo

© 2021, 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. D/2021/0095/82 ISBN 978-2-503-59305-0 eISBN 978-2-503-59306-7 DOI 10.1484/M.ES-EB.5.122160 ISSN 2030-3068 eISSN 2406-5838 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper.

Table of Contents

List of Illustrations

7

Foreword

9

Abbreviations

11

Acknowledgements

13

Introduction The Current State of Research on Hus’s Eschatology A Note on Methods

15 18 33

Chapter 1. Hus’s Eschatology. The Circumstances under which it Emerged and Developed Medieval Christian Eschatology The Eschatology of Heterodox Doctrines in Bohemia in the Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries The Eschatology of the Early Bohemian Reformation The Eschatology of John Wycliffe Prophecies Other Eschatological Ideas in Contemporary Czech Literature The Possible Influence of Crisis Factors in the Fourteenth Century Hus’s University Education Milestones in Hus’s Life, Hus’s Personality, Works, and Career Chapter 2. Antichrist in Hus’s Synodal Sermons The Development of Hus’s Ideas up to 1405 The Marks of Antichrist in Hus’s Synodal Sermons Diliges Dominum Deum (1405) and State succincti (1407) Evidence of the Coming of Antichrist: Biblical and Non-Biblical Authorities and Hus’s Own Experience Antichrist Terminology in Hus’s Synodal Sermons The Rhetorical Devices of Hus’s Synodal Sermons

41 41 47 59 64 66 68 71 77 91 97 99 104 111 119 122

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 3. Antichrist in Hus’s Correspondence The Terminology and Rhetorical Devices of the Correspondence The Development of the Antichrist Theme in Hus’s Letters Chapter 4. Hus’s Notion of Antichrist in the Context of his Systematic Theological Works and the Writings of Other Authors A Comparison with the Notion of Antichrist in Super Quattuor sententiarum Comparing Hus’s Notions of Antichrist with the Ideas of Milíč of Kroměříž Comparing Hus’s Notion of Antichrist with Matěj of Janov’s Comparing Hus’s Ideas with Those of Wycliffe A Comparison of Hus’s Notion of Antichrist with Jakoubek’s Presented in Posicio de Anticristo

127 130 132

155 155 157 167 176 184

Chapter 5. Purgatory in the Sermon Dixit Martha ad Iesum What Is the Nature of Purgatory? The Power of Prayers for Intercession A Comparison with the Sources of Dixit Martha A Comparison with Works Based on Hus’s Dixit Martha A Comparison with the Ideas of Hus’s Predecessors and Contemporaries

191 193 196 199 205

Chapter 6. A Postscript on Hus’s Eschatology Threats and the End of the World Death Hus’s Eschatology and its Place in Medieval Thought

213 213 218 219

Epilogue

223

Bibliography

225

Index

247

209

List of Illustrations

Figures Figure 1. ‘The beginning of the sermon Diliges Dominum Deum’, Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic, MS VIII F 2, fol. 22r. First half of the fifteenth century. 126 Figure 2. ‘Hus’s letter to Petr of Mladoňovice (Constance 1415)’, Prague, National Museum, MS VIII F 38, p. 90. Around 1417. 154 Figure 3. ‘The end of the sermon Dixit Martha and the beginning of the sermon State succincti’, Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic, MS XI D 9, fol. 14v. First third of the fifteenth century. 211

Foreword

This monograph represents an invitation to English-language reading scholars to approach a remarkable body of almost a century and a half of Czech medieval scholarship. Lucie Mazalová introduces the reader to a broad range of scholars, from Kybal, Bartoš, and Pekař to Šmahel, Soukup, and Nechutová, all of whom have made important contributions to the understanding of the Czech medieval experience. Her study of Hus’s eschatology (one of the first monographs on Hus written in Czech to have been translated into English in some decades) represents a new generation of Czech medievalists’ invitation to engage in a body of schol‐ arship on Central Europe that offers a much broader appreciation of the medieval period. What it might appear to lack with its apparent absence of references to authoritative English-language scholarship, it more than com‐ pensates with the access it provides to a rich and varied body of literature representing a broad range of ideological approaches and historiographic methods. Stephen Lahey

Abbreviations

dist. Doc.

Glossa ordinaria l. Korespondence

Op.

Op. 1715

Regulae

Sententiae

Super IV Sententiarum

distinctio (= distinction) Documenta Mag. Ioannis Hus vitam, doctrinam causam in Constantiensi concilio actam et controversias de religione in Bohemia annis 1403–1418 motas illustrantia, ed. by František Palacký (Praha: Tempsky, 1869) Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria novisque additionibus, a Strabo Fulgensi collecta (Venezia 1603) liber (= book) Jana Husi Korespondence a dokumenty, ed. by Václav Novotný (Praha: Komise pro vydávání pramenů náboženského hnutí českého ve stol. XIV. a XV., zřízené při České akademii věd a umění, 1920) Ioannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et monumenta, ed. by M. Flacius Illyricus (Nürnberg: Officina Ioannis Montani & Ulrici Neuberi, 1558) Historia et monumenta Ioannis Hus atque Hieronymi Pragensis […], ed. by M. Flacius Illyricus, 2nd revised edition of the 1558 edition (Norimbergae: Io. Montanus et Ulr. Neuberus, 1715) Matěj of Janov, Matěje z Janova, Mistra pařížského, Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti (Matthiae de Janov dicti Magister Parisiensis Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti), ed. by Vlastimil Kybal, Otakar Odložilík, Jana Nechutová, and Helena Krmíčková, 6 vols (Praha: Universitního Knihkupectví Wagnerova, 1908–1913; Komise pro vydávání pramenů českého hnutí náboženského ve stol. XIV. a XV., zřízené při České akademii věd a umění, 1926; München: Oldenbourg, 1993) Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, ed. by Ignatius Brady, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, 4–5 (Grottaferrata: Ed. Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1971–1981) Spisy M. Jana Husi, 4–6, Super IV Sententiarum, ed. by Václav Flajšhans (Praha: Bursík, 1904–1906)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno for financial support, Nicholas Orsillo for his translation of this difficult topic, Professor Stephen Lahey for his willingness to read this text and for his invaluable advice, the National Library of the Czech Republic and the National Museum in Prague for providing images of manuscripts and permission to publish them, and the Central Library at the Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno for providing the picture of Jan Hus from Flacius’s old print. Lucie Mazalová

Introduction

Throughout history people have contemplated the last things. At some point in life nearly everyone will ask what comes after death, or after the end of the world. Such considerations arise out of the contrasts and con‐ nections inherent in the certainty of this world and the doubt connected with things beyond the visible world. The stimuli that lead to asking such questions, the feelings one can experience in the process, and the answers one may come to can vary widely from person to person. Most often, and perhaps most intensively, we ponder the last things in extreme situations in life. At other times, though, we may think about these things with less emotion but in greater detail. Certainly, many scholars have deliberated about the last things, but wondering about what happens after the end is not limited to academic tomes. Even a small child, who has just found out about death, may ask, in his or her own special way, about the nature of death in hope of hearing a satisfying answer. Hence, these questions and their potential answers differ from context to context, and so there is no single eschatological doctrine. The term eschatology, in its broadest sense, encompasses all such con‐ siderations about death and the end of the world, whether they are the ideas of one individual or part of official doctrines. Throughout history we can encounter essentially the same eschatological themes repeated over and over again, although the popularity of each and the way they are dis‐ cussed have varied over time. This observation makes even the eschatology of the distant past interesting and, with a bit of help, comprehensible to the contemporary person. Latin medieval studies, my field of expertise, provides suitable means for studying the history of eschatology in the Middle Ages. My research has centred around the Bohemian Reformation,1 so I have also chosen to focus on it in my examination of eschatology. Initially I considered study‐ ing authors whose eschatology has not been sufficiently described and analysed. Therefore, it might seem surprising that in the end I decided to concentrate on the last things in the work of one of the most well-known and well-researched figures not only of the Bohemian Reformation but

1 For basic information about the origins and later development of the Bohemian Reformation, see e.g., Nodl, ‘The Hussites and the Bohemian Reformation’.

16

INTRODUCTION

in Czech history in general, Jan Hus,2 and partly on how he personally experienced the last things. Even though Hus’s work, as well as his life, provides many opportuni‐ ties for studying his eschatology, this subject has received little scholarly attention in comparison to other topics in Hus’s writings.3 Moreover, there has been no detailed study about Hus’s eschatology in the social and eccle‐ siastical context of fourteenth-century Europe or in the context of other works created by Hus’s contemporaries. Although in the past scholars from several fields have written important studies on Hus’s eschatology, they have focused mainly on individual last things or select eschatological questions. These issues have not garnered greater attention nor have they been the subject of more extensive, systematic research; nevertheless, a large number of studies are not necessary in order to produce a compre‐ hensive interpretation of Hus’s eschatology. Research is well on the way to making a significant move forward towards an overall assessment of Hus’s eschatology, which could have a significant impact on how other parts of Hus’s teachings are viewed, either singly or as a whole. In this book, I attempt to contribute to this progress. My main objective is to, on the basis of a study of selected works by Hus, answer the question: What importance did eschatology and each of the last things have for Hus, and subsequently, what role did they play in his works? But before providing an answer to this question, I need to first pose at least three more: According to Hus, what are the last things? From today’s perspective, what can we consider to be Hus’s eschatology? What did Hus say about the last things in the works under investigation? I approach these questions using the three perspectives that my field, Latin medieval studies, offers, and so my conclusions are based on content and linguistic analyses and historical criticism4 of Hus’s writings. I should emphasize the other tasks lying outside of the main points of this work that I have set out to accomplish in this book. In seeking out the role of eschatology in Hus’s works, I endeavour to shed light on three specific issues: Hus’s ideas about the relationships between time, space, and man, or human society in its entirety in the eschatological context; the importance of eschatological issues for Hus’s opinions on reforming human morality; and how Hus’s approach merges with the idea

2 For basic information about his life and work, see e.g., Pavlíček, ‘The Chronology of the Life and Work of Jan Hus’. 3 Although Vlastimil Kybal, for example, has focused on Hus’s teachings about the last things very thoroughly, he does so only from a certain perspective and only in the conclusion of his three-volume monograph on Hus’s teachings and in comparison with the other topics covered in the book only on a very general level. See Kybal, M. Jan Hus: život a učení. 4 Nechutová, Středověká latina, p. 11.

INTRODUCTION

that true reform will only occur with the second coming of Christ.5 In each case, I attempt to contextualize Hus’s thoughts in a broader historical framework, and therefore in this book I take into consideration the escha‐ tological thought that preceded and coincided with Hus in Bohemia as well as within European theology. To this end I have picked two types of sources to study: Hus’s ser‐ mons6 — Diliges Dominum Deum (1405), State succincti (1407), and Dixit Martha ad Iesum (1411) — and Hus’s correspondence (1402–1415).7 The eschatological content of these sermons has not yet been subjected to a detailed analysis; in fact, the eschatological aspects of the first two mentioned sermons have not been studied at all. Correspondence, in contrast, is a relatively popular choice of source material for this type of study. Despite this popularity, Hus’s letters still have untapped potential. In terms of content and form, Hus’s sermons and letters offer a sufficient number of statements about the last things, which moreover were made at different points in time and under different circumstances, making them promising source materials. Additionally, comparing them opens the door to studying the effects of genre on Hus’s proclamations. In his sermons we encounter collective eschatology in particular and can piece together how his statements were influenced by his listeners, his goals, and his life mission — preaching. His correspondence offers us a view of Hus’s individual eschatology, as he lived it, that emerged in extreme situations in his life, particularly after he was condemned to death. It can be expected that works written in that situation will contain thoughts about the last things the author considered to be paramount. I see taking into account the influence of genre and the other mentioned circumstances on Hus’s statements as one path towards getting closer to understanding the essence of Hus’s ideas about the last things. Besides the above-mentioned main sources, I also examine Hus’s works that also served other functions, such as Super Quattuor senten‐ tiarum,8 one of Hus’s most systematic and official commentaries on theo‐ logical (and eschatological) issues, and his prison writings (De cognitione

5 The connections between Hus’s reform programme and the expectations of fundamental reform have been pointed out by Holeček, ‘Ministri dei possunt’, p. 227. 6 The sermons Diliges and State are available in Op. II, ed. by Flacius Illyricus, fols 27v–36v (see the list of abbreviations at the end of the book). A new edition of Diliges is included in Lukšová’s dissertation ‘Synodální kázání Jana Husa Diliges Dominum Deum’, which was defended at the Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno in 2018 and published in 2021 by FAU University Press in Erlangen with the title Die Synodalpredigt von Jan Hus Diliges Dominum Deum. The sermon Dixit Martha can also be found in Op. II, fols 48v–53v, although a more recent edition exists in Positiones – recommendationes – sermones, ed. by Schmidtová, pp. 119–78. 7 Jana Husi Korespondence a dokumenty, ed. by Novotný. 8 Spisy M. Jana Husi, 4–6. Super IV Sententiarum, ed. by Flajšhans.

17

18

INTRODUCTION

et dilectione Dei, De peccato mortali, De poenitentia pro Iacobo, De mandatis Domini, De matrimonio ad Robertum, De tribus hostibus hominis et septem peccatis mortalibus, De sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini),9 which represent another genre from late in Hus’s body of work and life. I also consider the works of other authors that are connected to Hus’s eschatol‐ ogy. I should admit at the outset that although this approach enabled me to observe the interconnections between Hus’s eschatology and various other characteristics of his works, I only took limited advantage of this opportu‐ nity. Instead, I intend to compare Hus’s treatment of eschatology in his systemic commentary to Peter Lombard’s Sentences and in his sermons and correspondence. Considering the contours of the work that I have set forth and the large number of layers I study in Hus’s works, I cannot devote attention to the differences between his university sermons, his synodal sermons, and his sermons for laypeople and the effects these differences had on his eschatology (and on his moral teachings); I have, however, dealt with these issues separately and published my conclusions in another study.10 The benefit of comparing two types of works, sermons that have not yet been studied from an eschatological perspective in detail and correspondence that has been partially analysed, is that this approach can engender a sense of the weight and impact of Hus’s sermons. I should explain why I did not study any of Hus’s other works or why I did not make a side-by-side comparison of types of writing other than his letters and sermons. I consider the sermon to be Hus’s most typical and most significant form of expression, which made a mark on his other types of works. It was in preaching that Hus wanted to, and indeed did, find the greatest fulfilment. Comparing Hus’s public and lifelong programme with the spontaneity of his correspondence from Constance is from an eschatological perspective so complex, significant, and indicative that it can reveal the main specific points of Hus’s eschatology.

The Current State of Research on Hus’s Eschatology The earliest scholarship is characterized by efforts to describe facts, to present Hus’s most important statements, and to determine which other authors had the clearest influence on Hus. This positivist approach, which

9 My colleagues and I prepared a modern critical edition at the Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno (as part of the ‘Magistri Iohannis Hus Opera omnia. Editing project as a part of commemorating Hus’s anniversary in 2015’): Magister Iohannis Hus: Constantiensia, ed. by Krmíčková and others. 10 Mazalová, ‘Neb čert čertu oka nevykline’.

INTRODUCTION

was applied by two leading Czech historians, falls within the scope of early twentieth-century developments in science.11 The first Czech scholar to focus special attention on at least one eschatological theme in Hus’s works was the art historian Karel Chytil.12 In his own words, he tried to move beyond the prevalent purely theological approach13 to studying Antichrist and proceeded as a historian would. In his studies of Czech art he regularly returned to the question of what Antichrist meant in the doctrines and art of the Hussite era, a period when the idea of Antichrist had become more popular than ever before. For Chytil to describe the development of Hussite Antichrist thought and to devote himself in particular to his favourite Tabule Christi et Antichristi,14 he had to familiarize himself with Hus’s ideas about the matter. As he himself admitted, he only began to examine this issue when Hus studies emerged in the Czech lands and could provide new information.15 He offered up his first official answer to this question in two lectures given as part of an exhibition held in 1915 at the Museum of the Kingdom of Bohemia on the occasion of the five-hundredth anniversary of the death of Jan Hus — ‘O idei Antikrista ve středověku a husitských obrazných antithesích’ (On the Idea of Antichrist in Medieval and Hussite Figurative Antitheses) and ‘Antikrist v umění středověku’ (Antichrist in the Art of the Middle Ages). In them he drew from materials for the book he was writing, Antikrist v naukách a umění středověku a husitské obrazné antithese (Antichrist in the Doctrines and Art of the Middle Ages and Hussite Figurative Antitheses), which was published only in 1918 due to the events of World War I. In this now widely cited work, Chytil attempts to provide a comprehensive answer to his question — he examines the development of Antichrist ideas in literature and art and takes into consideration the contemporary situa‐ tion in the Church and society, thereby respecting the interdisciplinary nature of this issue. The identity and nature of Antichrist is presented in the chapter ‘Antikrist v učení Milíče, Matěje z Janova, Wyklifa a Husa’ 11 On the trends in and evolution of not just specific eschatological research but also Hus scholarship as a whole, see Machovec, ‘Jan Hus’. 12 For more on Karel Chytil and his works, see Mojsejová, ‘Karel Chytil’. 13 Chytil (Antikrist, p. iii) — mentions Antonín Lenz’s study ‘Učení katolické o Antikristovi’, which does not analyze Hus’s eschatology. Another two works Chytil mentions — Wadstein, Die eschatologische Ideengruppe: Antichrist – Weltsabbat – Weltende und Weltgericht and Preuss, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im spätern Mittelalter — present a theological view of Hus’s concept of Antichrist that conformed to the individual beliefs of these authors about Hus and schism. Preuss’s text indicates that he was above all a great critic of Wycliffe, a somewhat lesser critic of Hus, and an admirer of Luther, towards whom the entire analysis was supposed to lead. He drew information on Hus from De ecclesia. 14 In this period, scholars intensely debated the authorship of Tabule; Hus was considered to be one of its possible authors (Chytil, Antikrist, pp. iv–v). 15 Chytil describes in detail his goals and the stimuli that led him to research this topic and write a book on it: Chytil, Antikrist, pp. i–vi.

19

20

INTRODUCTION

(Antichrist in the Teachings of Milíč, Matěj of Janov, Wycliffe, and Hus).16 He also notes mutual influences and common ideas shared with other authors (particularly with Wycliffe) and movements. He draws from the following works by Hus: De ecclesia, his correspondence (Hus’s letters to Křišťan in particular), his sermons,17 Knížky o svatokupectví, Postila, Responsiones ad articulos Palecz, and Responsiones ad articulos Wyclef.18 The chapter ‘O posledních věcech člověka (Eschatologie)’ (On the Last Things of Man [Eschatology]), at the end of Kybal’s ‘classic work of Czech Hus studies’,19 M. Jan Hus: život a učení, remains unequalled.20 Here, historian and philosopher Vlastimil Kybal, a specialist on the Middle Ages and the modern period,21 attempts a detailed analysis of each part of Hus’s doctrine, focussing not just on individual last things but, to some extent, on Hus’s eschatology as a whole. He assembles as many of Hus’s different thoughts on the last things as he can, maintains Hus’s terminology where possible, and to codifies Hus’s thoughts. He recognizes the differences between understandings of the last things in medieval dogma and in modern dogma, and he applies a modern approach to his work. Besides universal eschatology, he also describes personal eschatology and as a result enumerates among the last things death, purgatory, hell, heaven, the second coming of Christ, resurrection, and the Last Judgement. He is most interested in describing and arranging Hus’s statements. Only on a few occasions does he enhance this positivist approach by providing his own analytical commentary on the origin or purpose of these statements. Ultimately, he discovers a fundamental change in Hus’s ideas after his departure from Prague, and in the study’s conclusion he even contemplates the overall character of Hus’s eschatology. In his brief assessment of the relationship between Hus’s eschatology and moral teachings, he hints at a possible subject for future research: Hus never neglected moralizing, not even when he was dealing with the afterlife. Like Chytil, Kybal did not take into account the effects of genre, the specific function of Hus’s statements, the form they came in, or the terminological peculiarities of Hus’s eschatology, even though he drew from many varied works that Hus wrote in both Czech and Latin — Super Quattuor sententiarum, corre‐ spondence, Výklad velký (viery, Desatera a Páteře), Výklad menší (Páteře), sermons (especially Dixit Martha ad Iesum, Sermones de sanctis, and the 16 Chytil, Antikrist, pp. 115–38. 17 The author does not specify which sermons. 18 Throughout the present book I use the titles of Hus’s works established in the compendium Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů k literární činnosti M. Jana Husa a M. Jeronýma Pražského. I have modified the title of Super Quattuor sententiarum. 19 Hrdlička, ‘Vlastimil Kybal’, p. 324. 20 Vlastimil Kybal, M. Jan Hus: život a učení, 2, I–III (Praha: J. Laichter, 1923–1931), pp. 297– 321. 21 Hrdlička, ‘Vlastimil Kybal’, p. 324.

INTRODUCTION

Bethlehem Chapel sermons), Postila, Dcerka, De peccato mortali, Výklad Piesniček Šalamúnových, Provázek třípramenný, De mandatis domini, Enarra‐ tio psalmorum, Super canonicas, and Explicatio in septem priora capita I. epist. s. Pauli ad Corinthios. Scholars began to write about Hus’s eschatology once again in the 1950s and 1960s. Amedeo Molnár contributed three studies in this time. This world-renowned historian of the Reformation, who actually considered himself to be a theologian above all,22 took the study of Hus’s eschatol‐ ogy, and even that of the other reformist authors, a step further. He did not limit himself to just compiling Hus’s statements, but also used them to understand the overall concept of Hus’s eschatology and to com‐ prehend the nature of reformist eschatology. His studies ‘Eschatologická nadějnost počínající české reformace’ (Eschatological Hopefulness in the Early Bohemian Reformation),23 ‘Eschatologická naděje české reformace’ (Eschatological Hope of the Bohemian Reformation),24 and ‘Endzeit und Reformation’25 were, just like his other works, part of a ‘systematically conceived plan to historically, critically, and above all theologically follow the travels of the “church” through history’.26 One component of his exami‐ nation of ecclesiastical history was the study of the changing nature of the Church’s eschatological hopes. In his 1954 study Molnár confirms not only the major importance the eschatology of the Bohemian Reformation had for him, but also the dire state of research on this matter when he writes ‘a systematic, critical analysis of the theological legacy of the Bohemian Reformation, particularly its eschatology, remains a great debt owed by our theological efforts. We are slowly paying it off bit by bit, with work that is so unplanned it is nearly criminal’.27 In his first study, Molnár examines in detail the content and develop‐ ment of Hus’s statements, particularly those on the second coming of Christ and on Antichrist. He notices a greater shift in Hus’s ideas after his departure from Prague and during his time in Constance, as Kybal had earlier observed for Hus’s overall eschatology. He also compares Hus’s ideas with those of Milíč and Matěj of Janov. In connection to the last things, he takes note for the first time of Hus’s death as a martyr and its impact on the eschatological mindset of the Hussites. Unlike the scholars 22 Amedeo Molnár’s student N. Rejchrtová has written in great detail about him: Rejchrtová, ‘Amedeo Molnár’. 23 Amedeo Molnár, ‘Eschatologická nadějnost počínající české reformace’, Křesťanská revue, 21. 6 (1954), 182–85. 24 Amedeo Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje české reformace’, in Od reformace k zítřku (Praha 1956), pp. 13–101. 25 Amedeo Molnár, ‘Endzeit und Reformation’, Heidelberger Jahrbücher, 9 (1965), 73–80. 26 For more on this plan see, Rejchrtová, ‘Amedeo Molnár’. 27 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická nadějnost’, p. 183.

21

22

INTRODUCTION

before him, Molnár tends to make judgements. He deems Hus’s concept of Antichrist to be timeless, moral, and topical; regards Hus’s eschatological ideas in general to be essentially scholastic in nature; and believes Hus’s hopes to be non-apocalyptic. Molnár takes all of this to be one of the paths leading to a possible overall assessment of the eschatology of the Bohemian Reformation, which he would eventually consider to be one of the ‘most fundamental characteristic features’ of the period.28 He draws especially from De ecclesia and the correspondence. In the second-mentioned study, Molnár repeats the main ideas of Hus’s eschatology presented in his previous article. Here, though, he continues to examine eschatology up until, and including, Comenius and focuses his attention more on the Bohemian Reformation as a whole. To some extent he varies his use of sources; besides De ecclesia he also draws from the Bethlehem Chapel sermons and Hus’s university works. In 1965’s ‘Endzeit und Reformation’, Molnár fully concentrates on his grand plan — he only briefly repeats the information about Hus most important for his evaluation of reformation eschatology: ‘Hus war alles andere als ein Apokalyptiker’.29 He also notes once again Hus’s impact on the eschatological mindset of the Hussites. In his opinion, Hus became an obvious symbol of the true Church’s situation: it has strayed from the evangelic truth at the end of days. Jana Nechutová, in her 1968 article ‘Hus a eschatologie’ (Hus and Eschatology), continued in the study of Hus’s statements about individual last things in order to learn something more about his overall eschatol‐ ogy.30 Unlike Molnár, she does not look at Hus’s eschatology through the eyes of a Church historian but through the eyes of a medieval Latin specialist. And she focuses exclusively on Hus. She presents some of the places where Hus deals with eschatology and ‘determines the special features of Hus’s doctrine on the end times and the Last Judgment’.31 Nechutová focuses in particular on statements about the Day of Judgement and Antichrist and examines their content, evolution, and form. Thus, she gradually works towards forming a conclusion about Hus’s overall eschatology. She distinguishes two main forms of eschatology and states that Hus is ‘the bearer of an eschatology free of millenarian and apocalypti‐ cal elements, [and] an eschatology focused with utmost ethical emphasis on the daily life of people […], which gives the ultimate meaning to their good behaviour’.32 She notes that ‘a doctrine about the definitive

28 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická nadějnost’, p. 182. 29 Molnár, A. ‘Endzeit und Reformation’, p. 76. 30 Jana Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, in Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, E13 (Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně, 1968), pp. 179–87. 31 Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, p. 180. 32 Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, p. 179.

INTRODUCTION

transcendent breakthrough of the Kingdom of God or the Age of the Holy Spirit into this world’ is missing from Hus’s theology.33 She also observes that ‘Hus’s eschatological thought in its entirety is guided by morality’.34 And thus, Nechutová expressly concurs with Amedeo Molnár about the characteristics of Hus’s eschatology, and in doing so, confirms the interdisciplinary character of this issue and its study. She analyses Hus’s works in chronological order and uses a large number of sources to achieve her objectives: Super Quattuor sententiarum, Česká kázání sváteční, Super canonicas, Abiciamus opera tenebrarum, Collecta Ad te levavi, De san‐ guine Christi glorificato, Exposicio decalogi, Sermones de sanctis, Sermones in Bethlehem, Defensio quorundam articulorum Iohannis Wyclef, Výklad velký (Páteře), Postila, and his correspondence. That same year, Nechutová also published her findings about Hus’s eschatology (albeit in very concise form due to the broader scope of the study) in the article ‘Středověká eschatologie jako víra v lepší budouc‐ nost světa’ (Medieval Eschatology as the Faith in a Better Future of the World).35 Hus’s eschatology ‘imbues ultimate human acts with meaning’. Here Nechutová notes the great influence of Wycliffe on Hus and the discernible approach of Hus’s ideas towards ‘a practical-evangelical line of simple millenarian Waldensian views’.36 The next work contributing to the study of Hus’s eschatology appeared only in 1981 and is perhaps the only one written during the period of ‘normalization’ that followed the Prague Spring. Following Molnár’s and Nechutová’s work from the 1950s and 1960s dealing with Hus’s overall eschatology, in 1981, philologist, lexicologist, and lexicographer Emanuel Michálek published a study focused on a very specific eschatological issue: ‘Antichrist — klíčové slovo v jazyce doby husitské’ (Antichrist: A Keyword in the Vocabulary of the Hussite Period).37 Michálek, an expert on Hus’s terminology, the terminology of his era, and the terminology of medieval Bohemia in general, concisely but cogently analyses the word Antichrist from the perspective of a historical sociolinguist who studies changes in social structure by examining keywords and their development. He attempts to capture the meaning, evolution, and social role of this term. Although this study makes only brief mention of Hus’s ideas about 33 Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, p. 185. 34 Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, p. 187. 35 Jana Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie jako víra v lepší budoucnost světa’, Universitas: Revue Univerzity Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Brně, 1.4 (1968), 1–12. For Hus’s eschatology, see p. 10. 36 Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 10. 37 Emanuel Michálek, ‘Antikrist — klíčové slovo v jazyce doby husitské’, in Sborník Muzea husitského revolučního hnutí, 4 (Tábor: Muzeum husitského revolučního hnutí, 1981), pp. 110–12.

23

24

INTRODUCTION

Antichrist and presents only one method of researching the history and evolution of this concept, it can still make significant contributions to the present book. Michálek comes to the conclusion that Antichrist was a very useful vehicle of social criticism for not only Hus, but other thinkers as well. The author draws from Hus’s Czech-language Postila. In the 1990s a great number of studies were written that focus on one specific eschatological theme in Hus’s works or on Hus’s ideas as part of a wider ‘eschatological era’. These studies continued to leave eschatology as a whole somewhat aside. It was primarily theologians and historians who dealt with this matter as part of broader efforts to reopen Hus studies and to find reconciliation between denominations. The goal of these scholars was to demonstrate that no matter what Hus thought, his intentions were always good. Thanks to this objective, scholars began to speak more frequently of Hus’s martyrdom, which Molnár, also a theologian and histo‐ rian, had already emphasized many years earlier as an important and above all separate topic. Two international conferences dedicated to the life and work of Jan Hus provided the opportunity to begin fulfilling these goals. In 1993 a symposium titled Jan Hus mezi epochami, národy a konfesemi ( Jan Hus between Epochs, Nations and Confessions) was held in Bayreuth.38 Its aim was to reopen Hus and his ideas to study and through discussion between people from different countries and denominations produce scholarship that would not divide people, but bring them together. At this symposium two papers were given on Hus’s eschatology: Zdeněk Kučera, a Czech theologian and one of the initiators of the conference, spoke about Hus’s ecclesiological understanding of the Last Judgement, and Heiko A. Oberman, a Dutch Church historian active in the USA presented on the differences between Hus’s and Luther’s concepts of Antichrist. Both papers were published two years later in Czech in the conference proceedings, followed by German versions in 1997. Zdeněk Kučera, who focuses primarily on current topics in religious practice and theology, used the same approach in writing the article ‘Ekklesiologický výklad posledního soudu — pokus o porozumění Janu Husovi’ (An Ecclesiological Analysis of the Last Judgement: An Attempt at Understanding Jan Hus).39 He later published the very same article under a similar title, ‘Pokus o porozumění Janu Husovi. Ekleziologický výklad posledního soudu’ (An Ecclesiastical Analysis of the Last Judge‐

38 It was held between 22 and 26 September 1993; for more information on the symposium, see Lášek, ‘Slovo na úvod’, pp. 12–15. A German version of the conference proceedings were published in Munich in 1997 as Jan Hus – Zwischen Zeiten, Völkern, Konfessionen. 39 This paper is not included in the German version of the proceedings.

INTRODUCTION

ment).40 In it, Kučera deals with Hus’s understanding of predestination and soteriology, regarding them as the source of Hus’s ideas about the Church, Kučera’s prime interest. He views Hus’s ecclesiological ideas as the result of the unfavourable events that surrounded him and in the end as something that may be beneficial for the current day.41 He establishes the goals of interpreting Hus’s understanding of the Last Judgement ‘in the historical and theological context’, determining the punctum saliens of this topic today, and finally creating a plan for how to hermeneutically proceed so that Hus’s case inspires us rather than discourages us. Kučera emphasizes that he has distanced himself in particular from the approaches of nineteenth-century Romantic historians who assess Hus’s doctrine with Tridentine ecclesiology. He states that the ideas he presents in the text are not his own personal views but ‘part of the academic tradition on which the theological school of the Hussite Faculty has been built’.42 This is because he based his study on material written by the late dogmatist of the Hus Czechoslovak Theological Faculty, Zdeněk Trtík, with whose ideas Kučera identifies. Like Trtík he seeks out the hermeneutic key to Hus’s synthesis of two earlier disparate concepts — numerus or convocatio praedestinatorum and corpus mysticum, that is, Hus’s doctrine on predesti‐ nation and his doctrine on the Church. These theologians explain the relationship between predetermination and the agency of human action on one’s fate in the afterlife by referencing Hus’s idea that predestination is fulfilled through time and through the life of the Church, and loses its standing beside temporality. Everyone can be saved, but some waste their chance at salvation through their actions, and in the end are excluded from the Church. Kučera works with the hypothesis that Aristotelian philoso‐ phy, with which Hus was familiar, is the key to understanding here. This scholar bases this idea primarily on De ecclesia, a work he considers to have been decisive in Hus’s condemnation and the reason for contemporary antagonism towards Hus. In the article ‘Hus und Luther. Der Antichrist und die zweite reforma‐ torische Entdeckung’, Heiko A. Oberman, who specialized in medieval, Renaissance, and Reformation history, presents Hus’s understanding of the term Antichrist in his analysis of how Luther’s concept of Antichrist had progressed from Hus’s and what Luther thought about it. Oberman finds the main difference between these two reformist writers in Luther’s

40 Zdeněk Kučera, ‘Pokus o porozumění Janu Husovi. Ekleziologický výklad posledního soudu’, Teologické texty. Časopis pro teologii a službu církve: Jan Hus a ekumena, 8.3 (1997), 80–83. 41 Cf. the existential approach to Hus studies that Machovec sees already in Masaryk’s ideas and the polar opposite approach of Josef Pekař (Machovec, ‘Jan Hus’, pp. 210–11). 42 Kučera, ‘Ekklesiologický výklad posledního soudu — pokus o porozumění Janu Husovi’, p. 147.

25

26

INTRODUCTION

identification of Antichrist with the papacy, which Oberman marks as the Reformation’s second discovery. Oberman also examines Luther’s relation‐ ship to Hus’s doctrine on predestination and to Hus’s martyrdom. In the conclusion, he intentionally leaves open a question that in his opinion had not been asked within Hus scholarship, that is, ‘wie die mittelalterliche “Legende” vom Antichrist als erlebte Geschichte darzustellen und zu bew‐ erten ist — und zwar für beide, für Hus und für Luther’.43 We can find further information about Hus’s concept of predestination and Antichrist in Šmahel’s Husitská revoluce II.44 Although this book does not contain a chapter focused exclusively on these eschatological issues, in studying Hussite history the author deals with such matters in relative de‐ tail, specifically in the chapter titled ‘Husův ideál spravedlivé společnosti’ (Hus’s Ideal Model of a Just Society). Not only does the historian Šmahel marginally address eschatological issues in other works, but in the study ‘Das Purgatorium sompniatum in der hussitischen Topographie des Jenseits’,45 in which he contemplates fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Czech writers’ ideas about purgatory, he includes the understanding of purgatory presented by Hus in his interpre‐ tation of Lombard’s Sententiarum libri quattuor and in the sermon Dixit Martha ad Iesum.46 Thus, these two works by Hus are Šmahel’s main sources. In order to present a full list of Hus scholars who have engaged sig‐ nificantly with Hus’s eschatology in the 1990s, I must also mention the theologian František Holeček. Over the course of four years, he published three studies focused in particular on Hus’s doctrine on predestination and on Hus’s martyrdom. He wrote the first study, ‘Istis ultimis tempo‐ ribus… Husovo drama jako problém relativizace církevní autority v escha‐ tologickém modelu církve? Podnět k diskusi’ (Istis ultimis temporibus… Hus’s Drama as a Problem of Relativizing Ecclesiastical Authority in the Eschatological Model of the Church? A Point for Discussion), as a call to debate the possibility that Hus and his eschatological understanding of the Church (that is, as convocatio praedestinatorum, the mystical body of Christ) relativized the Church’s authority.47 Holeček examines the con‐ tents, evolution, and function of Hus’s statements. As a theologian, he

43 Oberman, ‘Hus und Luther’, p. 342. Although perhaps this question was never posed, scholarship predating Oberman’s paper, e.g., works by Molnár provided a partial answer to it. 44 František Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II(Praha: Karolinum, 1996). 45 František Šmahel, ‘Das Purgatorium sompniatum in der hussitischen Topographie des Jenseits’, in Eschatologie und Hussitismus, ed. by Patschovsky and Šmahel (Praha: Historisches Institut, 1996), pp. 115–38. 46 Šmahel, ‘Das Purgatorium’, pp. 121–23. 47 František J. Holeček, ‘Istis ultimis temporibus’… Husovo drama jako problém relativizace církevní autority v eschatologickém modelu církve? Podnět k diskusi’, Teologická reflexe, 4.1 (1998), 54–76.

INTRODUCTION

also tries to capture Hus’s personal experience of all the eschatological mo‐ ments. In doing so, he continues in the footsteps of previous scholars who attempted to open up Hus studies to address modern issues. In the end, he indirectly assesses Hus’s eschatology by deeming his ecclesiology to be something that does not belong to the apocalyptic visionary tradition but that was without a doubt ‘formed in an atmosphere of such visions […]. [Hus], integrates Lollard, Pauline, and Augustinian stimuli on the field of theological speculation into a boldly eschatological perspective […]. He takes important steps […] even under the pressure of these ‘signs’ […] and this ecclesiology unleashes a millenarian mentality’. This ecclesiology is ‘eschatological, consummate with the end times’.48 Holeček mainly draws from Hus’s De ecclesia and his correspondence. He also mentions Diliges Dominum Deum, Výklad Piesniček Šalamúnových, De libris haereticorum legendis, Knížky o svatokupectví, the Czech-language Postila, and Super Quattuor sententiarum. Although Holeček’s next article from 1999 is titled ‘M. Jan Hus a pro‐ roctví Giacoma Palladiniho z Terama’ (Master Jan Hus and the Prophecy of Giacomo Palladini da Teramo), the author focuses more attention on Giacomo and his prophecy than on Hus. In the end he leaves unanswered the question of if and how this prophecy made its way to Hus’s circle. He works with correspondence, documents, and De libris haereticorum legendis. In the 2001 article ‘“Ministri dei possunt in dampnacionem perpetuam papam male viventem detrudere…” (Hus a problém Antikrista)’ (‘Ministri dei possunt in dampnacionem perpetuam papam male viventem detrud‐ ere…’ [Hus and the Issue of Antichrist]) Holeček deals with Antichrist in the final decade of Hus’s life and in doing so addresses other topics such as predestination, Hus’s eschatological martyrdom, and his eschatological visions. The article is a published version of a paper given at the Interna‐ tional Symposium on Master Jan Hus.49 The author takes an approach similar to the one he applied in his 1998 article. This article appeared in a section titled ‘Husovo učení z ekumenické perspektivy’ (Hus’s Teaching from an Ecumenical Perspective) and once again, as in 1998, he examines the ‘inner motivation and dynamics’ of Hus’s actions, working with pri‐

48 Holeček, ‘Istis ultimis temporibus’, p. 76. 49 The symposium was held at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome on 15–17 December 1999 and organized by the Central Committee of the Great Jubilee of 2000 and the Czech Bishops’ Conference in cooperation with the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and Charles University in Prague. The papers presented at this conference were published in a special edition of Husitský Tábor. The Committee for the Study of Issues Associated with the Person, Life, and Work of Master Jan Hus was involved in organizing the conference. This committee was also behind a conference held in 1993 that focused on the same idea — that Hus is supposed to join nations and denominations together, not divide them. (Husitský tabor. Sborník husitského muzea – suppl. 1).

27

28

INTRODUCTION

mary sources and, in the conclusion, attempting to identify something applicable in the present day. He comes off as a commentator on Hus’s work and life. At the same time, the main focus remains the same — the understanding of the Church as communio praedestinatorum. The only thing that changed was Holeček’s opinion on the main problem — the author no longer examines the question of whether Hus’s ecclesiology might have stemmed from his disobedience to Church leaders, but instead studies the reason for this disobedience, that is, the idea that there is one church with Christ at its head and another church with Antichrist at its head. Here, he analyses more so then in 1998 Hus’s ideal model of martyr‐ dom, in which he sees a path of passive resistance specific to Hus, and takes greater notice of the fact that Hus directly identifies the pope with Antichrist. He further explores Oberman’s observation that, in Hus’s view, the Church had already been infected by Antichrist. Holeček justifies Hus’s drawing attention to the eschatological nature of the period as a warning and encouragement to his followers. He also considers Hus’s martyrdom to be eschatological. He draws from correspondence, De ecclesia, Diliges Dominum Deum, Super Quattuor sententiarum, his sermons from 1405, Knížky proti knězi kuchmistrovi, Contra octo doctores, and Sermo de pace. In the same year Zdeněk Kučera also published two articles. One — ‘Eschatologische ekklesiologie bei Johannes Hus’ — is essentially a German translation of his already-mentioned study from 1995. The second paper, ‘Husova nauka o predestinaci’ (Hus’s Doctrine on Predestination), was published in the same section of the same conference proceedings as Holeček’s study. Here, we learn the same about predestination as we did in his 1995 article. Once again, Kučera attempts to answer a question that arises from Hus’s work but to which Hus himself never provides an explicit answer. To the information contained in the earlier article he appends an analysis of the historical evolution of the concept of predesti‐ nation from the Bible until Wycliffe and adds an important note on the unequalled difficulty of this entire matter and, at the same time, on the enduring incompleteness of his own theory. In his opinion, despite the offered explanation using Aristotelian metaphysics, ‘Hus’s ideas [were] burdened with metaphysical determinism’50 because Hus understands the Last Judgement as being something beyond time. Here, once again, the author largely draws from De ecclesia. More recent works include a short, but important description of Hus’s thoughts on Antichrist that appeared in Bernard McGinn’s51 history An‐

50 Kučera, ‘Husova nauka o predestinaci’, p. 216. 51 McGinn is a theologian and historian of Christianity, focusing primarily on the Middle Ages. His work concentrates largely on apocalyptical thought, spirituality, and mysticism. More detailed information can be found on the webpage of the Spiritual Information: Knowing the Unknowable about God and the Universe conference held in April 2005 at Cambridge

INTRODUCTION

tichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil in a chapter focused on Hussitism.52 The objective is not to describe Hus’s eschatology as such but to capture the entire evolution of the Antichrist idea, of which Hus’s thoughts were a part of. In just a few paragraphs McGinn attempts to outline Hus’s point of departure and whether he was influenced by Wycliffe.53 He devotes particular attention to what led Hus to the idea of Antichrist. In 2001 and 2002, Ivana Dolejšová, a lecturer at the Protestant The‐ ological Faculty of Charles University, published two papers on Hus’s eschatology. The first to appear was ‘Eschatological Elements in Jan Hus’s Ecclesiology and Their Implications for a Later Development of the Church in Bohemia’ in which the author examines the relationships between Hus’s ecclesiology and his eschatology and notes the influence of Augustine of Hippo and Bernard of Clairvaux on these two important components of Hus’s ideas. The 2002 article ‘Eschatological Elements in Hus’s Understanding of Orthopraxis Introduction’ follows suit. Many sections even overlap with her previous publication. I shall also mention two other texts that examine Hus’s eschatology from the perspective of philosophy, but each in its own way. The first was published in 2002 by the historian and philosopher Vilém Herold, who specialized in philosophical thought in the Czech lands in the preHussite era. In the article ‘Philosophische Grundlagen der Eschatologie im Hussitismus’, he does not focus in particular on Hus’s eschatology but he uses it to analyse the eschatological views present in the Czech lands in the fourteenth and fifteen centuries, from Cola to the Hussites, and responds to, among other things, Molnár’s conclusion that reformist eschatology was one of the basic elements of this stream of thought. In this work, which draws from De ecclesia, we find only a few mentions of Hus’s eschatological expectations and his criticism of the Church. Zdeněk Pinc, a self-confessed ‘non-Hus scholar’, educator, philosopher, and opinion writer, offers up a second philosophical take, one that com‐ bines contemplation about the past and the present. In the article ‘Mistr Jan Hus v zápase mezi Kristem a Antikristem. Duchovní člověk nebo in‐ telektuál?’ (Master Jan Hus in the Struggle between Christ and Antichrist: A Spiritual Person or an Intellectual?) the author denies that he is a Hus scholar.54 I present Pinc’s paper not only as an interesting example of

University’s Trinity College, which was dedicated to questions about the mystery of God’s existence. 52 McGinn, Antichrist, pp. 183–87. 53 McGinn, Antichrist, pp. 184–85. 54 Zdeněk Pinc, ‘Mistr Jan Hus v zápase mezi Kristem a Antikristem. Duchovní člověk nebo intelektuál?’, Lidé města – revue pro antropologii, etnologii a etologii komunikace, 9.2−3 (21) (2007), 304–15.

29

30

INTRODUCTION

the interdisciplinary nature of this issue, but also as evidence that it has the potential to become a matter for discussion from an unconventional perspective. The author’s experience with Hus’s works and the manner in which he interprets them is quite different from that of the scholars I have thus far discussed. Pinc studied Hus’s works and the literature on them available in the 1970s and 1980s, when he was unable to continue working at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University and instead held other jobs, such as night watchman. Nonetheless, his ideas gained attention — both negative and positive. Thus, for example, Eva Kantůrková, outraged by the contents of one of his lectures given as part of an ‘underground home seminar’ on Hus, wrote a book about the reformer.55 After 1989 Pinc, who could return to his original profession, turned down an invitation to present a paper at an academic conference on Jan Hus held at the Vatican because he felt incompetent. He did, however, note that historical research had developed along a path that he had hinted at earlier; he later accepted an invitation to give the paper I have already mentioned at a small academic conference on Hus that was held in Odessa and organized by Česká rodina, a Czech diaspora group, with support from the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs.56 The author describes the subject of the article as ‘a philosophical attempt to show Hus’s efforts in the light of a risky Christian tradition, which led Hus to the edge and rendered an amicable, institutional end to his trial impossible. It is millenarianism […] that is closely associated with the myth of Antichrist’.57 Pinc bases his arguments on the study of Hus’s writings58 and on Rádl’s view of Hus. He presents Hus as one of the characters in ‘Prague’s Play about Antichrist’.59 He examines Wycliffe’s influence on Hus, contextualizes everything within the conflicts at Charles University, and attempts to intellectually categorize Hus. Pinc notes the eschatologically tuned atmosphere of the time as well as Hus’s own eschatological sentiments. He even views Hus’s appeal to Christ from an eschatological, even millenarian, perspective — according to Pinc, any other conclusion would be illogical. In the end Pinc deems

55 Pinc, ‘Mistr Jan Hus’, p. 304. Kantůrková recalls this event at the end of her book Jan Hus: Příspěvek k národní identitě, p. 451, when she contemplates her studies of Hus. She never names the lecturer though: ‘The fact that I began to read Hus came about because of one very superficial lecture given as part of a seminar; it was a good stimulus because I made three staggering findings that moved me to write a book about Hus’. (Note: Her three findings are as follows: According to Kantůrková, Hus does not fit into Preisner’s scheme of heretics; until 1988 when Kantůrková wrote this none of the authors who had written about Hus attributed to him adequate significance; and in 1988 she considered Hus’s philosophical-theological ideas to be relevant for the current day). 56 Vágner, ‘Hus v Oděse’. 57 Pinc, ‘Mistr Jan Hus’, p. 305. 58 He does not specify which writings. 59 Pinc, ‘Mistr Jan Hus’, p. 308.

INTRODUCTION

Hus to have turned into a modern intellectual with an individual con‐ science who ceased to be a ‘medieval, millenarian-oriented Catholic’ and tended towards the ‘Reformation’s understanding of modern godliness’.60 According to Pinc, in Constance ‘immediate […] eschatological, millenar‐ ian expectations’ left Hus; he knew ‘that he had no choice’. Appealing his sentence would have meant disappointing his hopeful fellow countrymen and failing out of fear.61 After 2012, when I first published my research findings,62 several new studies about Hus were written in commemoration of the anniversary of his burning at the stake. Of these works, in terms of Hus’s eschatology, Pavlína Cermanová’s monograph Čechy na konci věků (Bohemia in the End Times)63 is particularly notable, even though here Hus features only as a marginal topic. Cermanová, a historian, focuses her attention on Hussite apocalypticism and in the process presents Hus’s interpretation of the struggle of Christ’s party against Antichrist and his perception of the end times. She concentrates on how Hus engaged with the apocalyptic figures of Antichrist and false prophets, emphasizing the role of these figures in Hus’s correspondence with Richard Wyche and in contemporary events, such as the connection between Antichrist and the burning of Wycliffe’s books. In addition to correspondence, Cermanová also draws heavily from Hus’s De ecclesia, Sermo de pace, and De sanguine Christi. On the six-hundredth anniversary of Hus’s death in 2015, the same year I published my dissertation about Hus’s eschatology in book form,64 Cermanová65 produced a study titled ‘Využití apokalyptických figur v díle Jana Husa’ (The Use of Apocalyptic Figures in the Work of Jan Hus), in which she further elaborates on ideas that she first described in her previous monograph. She focuses on the extent to which Hus became a part of the apocalyptic current within (pre-)Hussite reform thought. Her main sources comprise Hus’s correspondence, De ecclesia, De sanguine Christi, Postilla adumbrata, and the Czech-language Postila, which she uses to demonstrate that Hus viewed himself as a member of the chosen few at the end times. Her conclusion is based on the study of Hus’s apocalyptic vocabulary. She claims that in Hus’s works apocalyptic expressions are not always metaphors but that they serve a deeper function because they often become an element combining ecclesiology at a theoretical level with current events and earnest expectations of the end times. 60 Pinc, ‘Mistr Jan Hus’, p. 313. 61 Pinc, ‘Mistr Jan Hus’, p. 314. 62 My dissertation on this topic was defended in 2012 at the Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University in Brno. 63 Cermanová, Čechy na konci věků (Praha: Argo, 2013), especially pp. 55‒59. 64 Mazalová, Eschatologie v díle Jana Husa (Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2015). 65 In several of her studies (including ones published in English) she mentions Hus only marginally. I refer to these texts elsewhere in this book.

31

32

INTRODUCTION

In 2016, likely in connection with the anniversary of Hus’s death, his eschatology was finally addressed by a scholar writing in English, the historian and theologian Thomas A. Fudge, in the chapter ‘The Eschatolog‐ ical Hus in an Apocalyptic Age’ contained in the monograph Time and Eternity.66 Here, Fudge concisely presents the ideas about Antichrist held by Milíč, Matěj of Janov, and Jakoubek of Stříbro before examining Hus’s understanding of Antichrist. He focuses on critical moments in Hus’s life, mainly the time he spent imprisoned in Constance. Therefore, he relies heavily on Hus’s correspondence. At the same time, Fudge makes the ideas of Czech-writing Hus scholars, such as Molnár and Nechutová, accessible to English-speaking readers. Following Molnár’s lead, he characterizes Hus’s eschatology as non-apocalyptic and emphasizes its moral aspect. He also compares Hus’s thought with the ideas contained in Anatomia Antichristi. Fudge also devotes several pages to Hus’s image as an eschato‐ logical figure after his death in the works of several authors. Besides the mentioned works, several publications marginally deal with certain eschatological issues (e.g., mentions of predestination and the eschatological moment of truth in Seifert’s study of Hus’s understanding of truth),67 and others have presented the findings of Czech scholars to an international readership (e.g., Thomas A. Fudge in his study of the concept of Antichrist in fifteenth-century Czech lands).68 We can find other important information in studies dealing with the final years of Hus’s life or his last works — in Molnár’s ‘Husovo odvolání ke Kristu’ (Hus’s Appeal to Christ),69 in Lášek’s ‘Kristův svědek Mistr Jan Hus’ (Christ’s Witness, Master Jan Hus’),70 and in Kejř’s ‘Husovo odvolání od soudu papežova k soudu Kristovu and Husův proces’ (Hus’s Appeal of the Pope’s Judgement to Christ’s Court and Hus’s Trial).71 Thanks to the interdisciplinary nature of Hus’s eschatology, it has become the object of various interests. Thus, we can observe a shift from studying Antichrist to examining Hus’s eschatology as a whole and grasping it as a bridge to understanding the eschatology of the entire Bohemian Reformation, and once again a return to studying individual

66 Fudge, Jan Hus between Time and Eternity, pp. 53‒75. 67 Joseph Seifert, ‘Pravda jako fundament svobody a svědomí (K etice Jana Husa)’, in Husitský tábor. Sborník husitského muzea – supplementum 1 (Tábor: Albis interantional, 2001), pp. 281–99. 68 Thomas A. Fudge, ‘The Night of Antichrist: Popular Culture, Judgment and Revolution in Fifteenth-Century Bohemia’, Communio viatorum, 37.1 (1995), 33–45. 69 Amedeo Molnár, ‘Husovo odvolání ke Kristu’, in Husův sborník, ed. by Říčan (Praha: Ústřední církevní nakladatelství, 1966), pp. 73–83. 70 Jan Blahoslav Lášek, Kristův svědek Mistr Jan Hus (Praha: Blahoslav, 1991). 71 Jiří Kejř, Husovo odvolání od soudu papežova k soudu Kristovu (Ústí nad Labem: Albis international, 1999) or Husův proces (Praha: Vyšehrad, 2000).

INTRODUCTION

last things, one of the most important of which is Antichrist. Additionally, predestination and Hus’s martyrdom have moved on from being issues that were only mentioned out of necessity and have become a focus of study. There has also been a shift in who studies Hus’s eschatology — in addition to historians and theologians, we now find philologists and philosophers interested in this matter. In fact, it seems that particular eschatological issues can no longer be studied from the perspective of just one academic discipline and that the studies that have been written are diverse in all respects. Scholars have become increasingly interested in aspects of Hus’s eschatology beyond just his eschatological statements — there has been an attempt to use them to better understand this historical period and to bring Hus’s teachings up-to-date for the present day. Two approaches to studying this material can also be distinguished — an approach that succinctly describes Hus’s statements without taking into greater consideration the psychology of the author (initially typical of his‐ torians and philologists) and a spiritual or psychological approach (most recently common among theologians). The second approach, however, is fast becoming popular among historians, too (e.g., T. Fudge). What have been the results of this type of research? Although schol‐ arship on Hus’s eschatology lacks a master plan, it has still managed to produce many significant findings, some of which are unequalled. The methods and outcomes of individual studies may at first seem quite dis‐ parate, but thanks to the interdisciplinary nature of these studies, they do not necessarily contradict each other and may even be used to come to new conclusions. Despite their seeming fragmentation, we can assemble a relatively rich portrait of Hus’s eschatology, and of some of his thoughts on each of the last things. If we wish to achieve this goal, we have to go beyond the original scope of these studies and not only answer important questions, but we must also ask them. The role of Hus’s eschatology in his other important works has not been analysed, nor have the relationships between Hus’s eschatology, his fate in life, and literary genre been mapped. Although Kybal has produced an unparalleled detailed list of the last things and Hus’s statements about them, there are still more important eschatological topics in Hus’s works to be explored. Since updating Hus’s ideas has come to the forefront of researchers’ interests, a notable lacuna has formed in scholarship on Hus’s eschatology: scholars have neglected to differentiate between what Hus actually said about the last things and what we have subsequently deduced from his statements.

A Note on Methods The study of medieval eschatology is an interdisciplinary endeavour. Therefore, scholars must take into consideration not only literary history

33

34

INTRODUCTION

and philology, the disciplines most typical of Latin medieval studies, but also theology, philosophy, and religious studies. Indeed, one of the reasons Latin philology even exists is because of such interdisciplinary coopera‐ tion.72 This does not mean that we, as medieval Latin experts, become theologians, philosophers, or other specialists when we study eschatology; we must, however, approach these disciplines with respect, for they make a necessary contribution to our work. Therefore, in my interpretation of Hus’s eschatology, I must take into account the linguistic, literary, his‐ torical, and cultural circumstances73 in which Hus’s statements emerged. I must also, following in the footsteps of Gadamer’s principles of interpre‐ tation, explicitly distinguish between Hus’s statements and answers and our own questions and answers about Hus and his eschatology.74 Thus, in this book I follow the principles of modern hermeneutics.75 I have also adopted a synthetical approach, and therefore my approach approaches that of historical semantics.76 Despite the theoretical nature of hermeneutics, it is still the ‘art’ of interpretation and not a fixed method. It provides only universally valid principles upon the basis of which we attempt to understand how the world of text is intertwined with our world, the world of interpreters.77 It cannot, however, provide a universally valid methodology because its essence prevents it from doing so. Therefore, I do not work with literary hermeneutics,78 nor do I suggest that Hus’s 72 On the interdisciplinary nature of contemporary Latin medieval studies and its potential, see Nechutová, Středověká latina, pp. 11–13. 73 On the circumstances affecting interpretations, see Červenka, Významová výstavba literárního díla, p. 32, see also more on the idea of codes in structuralism on pp. 20– 25. For classical philology, see Jäger, Einführung in die Klassische Philologie. Compare also the tradition of this approach described by Schleiermacher (Schmidt, Understanding Hermeneutics, pp. 10−28; Grondin, Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics, pp. 67−75) and also Winch’s term background knowledge, Mikulášek, Umění interpretace, pp. 214–22; on the tradition of hermeneutics, see also Schmidt, Understanding Hermeneutics or Hroch, Filosofická hermeneutika. 74 On the connections between our questions and the answers we expect, see Kratochvíl and Bouzek, Proměny interpretací, especially p. 26. 75 On the term hermeneutics, see Schmidt, Understanding Hermeneutics, pp. 1−9, Pokorný, Hermeneutika or Hroch, Filosofická hermeneutika. 76 Josef Macek describes historical semantics as ‘the historical study of the meaning of words and terms’. (Čornej, ‘Směřování Josefa Macka k historické sémantice’, p. 142 and Macek, ‘Historická sémantika’, p. 2). 77 Throughout the history of hermeneutics, the world of the text and the world of the interpreter have been called many things. I use the terminology found in Pokorný, Hermeneutika. For my purposes, taking into consideration the consequences of the intertwining of these two spheres is more important than prioritizing certain terminology. Pokorný speaks about this intertwining as a meeting of worlds; Gadamer, as the first in history to discuss this phenomenon, refers to it as the intersecting of horizons. The term discourse is also used to express this idea. 78 Cf., e.g., Szondi, Introduction to Literary Hermeneutics, especially pp. 3–4. The author notes the ambiguous genre and impracticality of today’s hermeneutics and criticizes its exclusive

INTRODUCTION

eschatology should be studied with one specific literary method.79 I use a combination of different analyses and compare their results. I examine pragmatics,80 terminology, Hus’s form of expression, primary sources, lit‐ erary genre,81 and psychological considerations. I also take into account quantitative aspects of the studied texts by observing the frequency of certain expressions. I do not, however, attempt to provide a thorough statistical analysis of all the eschatological expressions Hus’s works contain because in and of itself such an analysis would have no interpretive value in this case. Many of Hus’s writings contain statements about the last things in which typical eschatological expressions do not even appear. Alterna‐ tively, when Hus quotes other people, for example, he uses many originally eschatological expressions with meanings that are non-eschatological. We must also account for the influence of genre on Hus’s statements, which are sometimes inaccurate or logically inconsistent. I also compare my findings about Hus with my findings about the works of his predecessors and contemporaries that are relevant for interpreting Hus’s works. Therefore, we must connect several planes of the text, keeping in mind that Hus was not a systematic philosopher, theologian, or logician and that, despite this complex combination of various textual planes, we must still seek out the simplest possible interpretation of Hus’s statements. Hus’s texts, in and of themselves, warrant serious thought in many regards; many of the allusions they contain, however, are unintentional, sometimes the result of unwittingly quoting other authors. To help readers better understand the context of Hus’s eschatology, in this book I have included general chapters about medieval eschatology, eschatology in fourteenthand fifteenth-century Bohemia, the ecclesiastical and social situation in Hus’s day, and Hus’s life.

focus on principles and not on concrete, practical methods and rules. In my opinion, the focus of hermeneutics on principles and its inability to establish clear, universal rules logically stems from its very nature. On the variety of methods in contemporary literary studies, see Harpáň, Teória literatúry. On the impossibility of generalizing methods in historical semantics, see Macek, ‘Historická sémantika’, p. 27. 79 On a work’s right to a new interpretation and on the one-dimensionality and short-lived clear meaning of a work, see Kratochvíl, Proměny interpretací, p. 15. 80 Pokorný, Hermeneutika. 81 In the introduction and conclusion to The Sermon B. M. Kienzle examines the main characteristics of sermons, the problems of interpreting sermons, the problematic relationship between oral and written sermons, and the purpose of sermons (especially pp. 150–74 and pp. 963–83). Augustin Thompson deals with the relationship between sermons, their broader cultural context, and the preachers that give them; the relationship between the sermon, the preacher, and audience; and the fact that sources have different values (‘From texts to preaching: retrieving the medieval sermon as an event’, pp. 15–18, 22).

35

36

INTRODUCTION

There are some interpretive pitfalls we cannot avoid in studying eschatol‐ ogy.82 Recognizing and respecting their existence, however, will suffice.83 Defining the term eschatology is one such problematic issue. This term today signifies a general concept84 and thus does not call to mind a specific list of items or a particular method of study. By the same token, it does not place any specific restrictions upon scholars. The most specific universal feature85 of contemporary definitions of this term is that eschatology is the doctrine of the last things.86 This narrower definition of eschatology as a doctrine is the starting point for my examination of Hus’s works, for I am primarily interested in gaining a comprehensive overview of the last things. Dictionary and encyclopaedia87 definitions of the term eschatology are not 82 As Figal has observed, interpretation is done where the text is ‘silent’ − Figal, Für eine Philosophie, p. 9. In this regard, Figal emphasizes the simultaneous stability and ambiguity of texts, which, when combined, give birth to material suitable for interpretation. However, such interpretation cannot be validated with any detail. He also notes the ‘unrepeatability of every game of interpretation’ (p. 11). Josef Macek views in a similar light the interpretation of historical evidence of material and immaterial culture in his attempts to study day-to-day life; he considers this evidence to be primarily symbols and not information ‘about human mindsets and historical reality’ (Macek, ‘Historická sémantika’, p. 1). 83 On the hermeneutic circle, which was already hinted at by Augustine, see Stodola, ‘Rekonstruktivní hermeneutika jako obecná metodologie informační vědy’, Schmidt, Understanding Hermeneutics, pp. 14−15 or Grondin, Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics, pp. 74−75; G. Vico also deals with this concept, which was later defined by Schleiermacher; see, e.g., Hroch, Filozofická hermeneutika and Szondi, Introduction to Literary Hermeneutics. This is also an appropriate place to pose the question of how to deal with intercultural comparison, cultural translation, and describing preternatural things with natural language. 84 I would like to thank David Zbíral from the Department for the Study of Religions of Masaryk University in Brno for insight into the contemporary view of the issue in religious studies. 85 See, e.g., the entry ‘Eschatology — Contemporary Issues’ by Roger Haight, p. 220. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the term eschatology broadened significantly in scope and started to appear in religious studies, natural science, and philosophical contexts; see Cancik, ‘Eschatologie’, p. 342, or the entry for ‘Eschatologie’ by Josef Finkenzeller, pp. 137−138. 86 The term eschatology is derived from the Greek words ἔσχατος, ‘last, final’, or τὰ ἔσχατα ‘last things’, and λόγος, ‘word, teaching’. The term ἔσχατος is used in Greek to refer to space, time, state, and degree; see Cancik, ‘Eschatologie’, p. 341, or easily accessible dictionaries of Ancient Greek, e.g., Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. See also this term’s use in the Greek of the New Testament; see biblical dictionaries such as Tichý, Slovník novozákonní řečtiny; Souček, Řecko-český slovník k Novému zákonu; Kittel, Friedrich, and Bromiley, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; Friberg, Friberg, and Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament; Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains; and Arndt, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Until the term eschatology was officially introduced, in Christian works written in Latin the common terms for referring to the last things were res novissimae and res extremae and any section devoted to this topic was called De novissimis. 87 Monographs usually do not deal with the term itself, but ones that do contain no more information than dictionary entries. Accessible dictionaries and encyclopaedia provide

INTRODUCTION

universally applicable, unlike the basic definition I have outlined above. They merely provide specific examples of different forms of eschatology (or, in light of the diversity of definitions, we could perhaps even speak of eschatologies) or their classification.88 The fact that the term eschatology has usually been applied retrospec‐ tively to describe past theories of the last things has played a large role in this state of affairs. The idea of eschatology as a category has not existed for as long as most of the ideas it encompasses. Although eschatology was originally just a theological category, it has undergone a certain evolution since its emergence,89 and today in its most basic definition it is a category that incorporates diverse ideas about all the last things. Attempts at apply‐ ing this category to the past and present have meant the creation of a truly broad concept that with the emergence of new theories has had to expand even further. The term eschatology is a neologism coined in seventeenth-century Christian dogmatic works.90 It was first used by the Lutheran theologian Abraham Calov (1612–1686)91 in 167792 in the dogmatic work Systema locorum theologicorum, which at its core was the equivalent of medieval summae and sententiae.93 In the twelfth book titled Ἐσχατολογία sacra he elaborated on death, resurrection, judgement, and the end of the world:94 De novissimis in genere, De morte et statu post mortem, De mortuorum resur‐ rectione, De extremo iudicio, De consummatione seculi, De inferno seu morte aeterna, and De vita aeterna. Calov established eschatology as a separate field within theology and in doing so helped assign it a special place within Christian thought. In his view, although the last things occupy the last place in this systematic theology, they should be the first thing on every Christian’s mind. It is also in this vein that Calov gives his opinion on the meaning of a doctrine of the last things: according to Calov, thinking about

88 89 90 91 92 93 94

similar information despite differences in age and country of origin. Differences occur only when eschatology is more closely defined in keeping with the focus of the given publication, e.g., Christian eschatology, New Testament eschatology, or Jewish eschatology. See, e.g., Lexikon der katolischen Dogmatik, ed. by Beinert; The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, ed. by McGrath; Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, ed. by Lacoste; Český slovník bohovědný, ed. by Podlaha; and Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. by Jones. Various examples of personal and collective eschatologies from different religions and different times can be found in Lanczkowski, ‘Eschatologie — Religionsgeschichtlich’. It has evolved in response to knowledge from disciplines outside of Catholic theology, including the natural sciences. Cancik, ‘Eschatologie’, p. 341; also Vorgrimler, Hoffnung, p. 11. Appold, Abraham Calov’s Doctrine, p. 2. Cancik, ‘Eschatologie’, p. 341 note 1 (this work was written in 1655–1677). Appold, Abraham Calov’s Doctrine, p. 16. Finkenzeller, ‘Eschatologie’, p. 89.

37

38

INTRODUCTION

one’s own death leads to disdaining worldly things and to contemplating heavenly things.95 The term eschatology came into common use in religious history only in the nineteenth century.96 Before then, the doctrine of the last things had been a mere ‘afterthought in Christian theology’,97 that is, until Friedrich Schleiermacher began using the term more to denote theological treatises on the last things. He imbued it with greater meaning and introduced it into the general nomenclature of theology.98 From the turn of the eigh‐ teenth and nineteenth centuries onwards this term also became associated with history and philosophy, as well as with the theology of revelation, but it had not yet been fully adapted for use in these fields and served only as a convenient, comprehensive label for ideas about the end of the world.99 Eschatological views vary between religions100 and non-religious theo‐ 101 ries (mythical, philosophical, scientific)102 and may even differ within a given religion or non-religious viewpoint, as individual authors may voice different opinions, or ideas may change over time. There may be dif‐ ferences between what is listed among the last things and the way they are spoken about and the motivation behind doing so. The problematic gen‐ eral nature of eschatology as a category can be overcome by, as mentioned above, respecting how ideas about the last things arose and worked in real life and in practical situations. To understand Hus’s eschatology, we must study not only his works, but also the eschatological context of medieval eschatology, particularly fourteenth-century and early fifteenth-century Czech eschatology; ecclesiastic, social, and political circumstances; and Hus’s personal and public life. As part of this introductory note on methods, I still need to address the principles I applied for citing primary sources. Throughout this book I cite various editions of Hus’s works, which leads to a certain visual non-uniformity. The only changes I have made to introduce uniformity in citations of modern or relatively modern editions is to insert biblical references directly into the text by way of square brackets. Whenever cited editions include references to the Bible or other non-biblical sources, I checked them and where necessary supplied references to the biblical

Abraham Calov, Systema locorum theologicorum (Wittenberg: Johannes Wilkius, 1677). Cancik, Handbuch, p. 341. Rowland, Christian Origins, p. 109. Finkenzeller, ‘Eschatologie’, p. 89. Cancik, Handbuch, p. 341. Examples from various religions and times can be found in The Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. by Herbermann. 101 On respecting scientific views of theology, see Murphy, in ‘Hints from Science for Eschatology — and Vice Versa’, especially pp. 155–57. 102 Cancik, Handbuch, p. 342; cf. also Vorgrimler, Hoffnung, p. 15. 95 96 97 98 99 100

INTRODUCTION

sources (I use the edition Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, ed. by Roger Gryson, 4th edn [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994]). I also note whether it is an exact quote or just an allusion. I also provide references to non-biblical sources contained in modern editions. I have made corrections where necessary (I only do so on a few occasions, and therefore I do not call particular attention to these changes). By doing so, I attempt to ensure uniform conditions for analysing and comparing sources. All the biblical references that I have added to cited Latin and Czech works use the Latin abbreviations. A different approach was called for when I cite Ioannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et monumenta. Here, I could not draw from a critical edition, and therefore I have added punctuation, introduced references to the Bible and other non-biblical texts, and made other mod‐ ifications as I saw fit. In most respects, I have attempted to follow the edition Positiones – recommendationes – sermones: Universitní promluvy as a model, and here, too, I have indicated Bible passages in square brackets to at least approximate uniformity, even if maintaining it throughout the book was impossible. Where I felt it was appropriate, I have changed the case of the first letter of words; otherwise, I have left printed works in their original form, which means I have also left abbreviations of Bible passages as they are in the original. I took a similar approach when citing modern and older editions of the works of other writers, such as John Wycliffe, Milíč of Kroměříž, Matěj of Janov, and Jakoubek of Stříbro. I usually use abbreviated titles for sources that I mention repeatedly.

39

ChAPtER 1

Hus’s Eschatology The Circumstances under which it Emerged and Developed

We can understand the eschatology presented in Hus’s works only if we are familiar with the various circumstances1 under which it was formed. The influences of other eschatologies — medieval Christian eschatologies, particularly Czech pre-Hussite eschatologies — as well as other factors, in‐ cluding the contemporary ecclesiastical, social, and political situation and Hus’s personal and public life, must be taken into account. The following overview thus acts as a prolegomenon not only to Hus’s eschatology but to Bohemian Reformation eschatology as well.

Medieval Christian Eschatology A basic understanding of Hus’s eschatology entails an understanding of its place within the eschatological framework, which was essential for the orthodox Catholic Church, to which Hus belonged, and in a certain regard also for those who were considered heretics. This framework defines me‐ dieval Christian eschatology and the context of Bohemian Reformation eschatology, in particular, because it was in this heavily reformist environ‐ ment that Hus spent most of his time. Medieval Christian doctrine about the last things has a long and dy‐ namic history. It is based on the linear Christian conception of time and history,2 the belief that Christ’s death and resurrection are fundamental eschatological events, and idea that the ‘ultimate fulfilment’3 of eschatolog‐ ical expectations will occur. In the Christian context, unlike in the Jewish one of the Old Testament, in which the first coming of the Messiah has not yet occurred,4 we must understand this climax as the final resolution of

1 Nechutová accepted Pekař’s thesis contained in Žižka a jeho doba I, pp. 15–16 that an ideological substrate of Hus’s era was formed under three spheres of influence — popular heresy (first and foremost the Waldensians), Wycliffe, and the Bohemian Reformation movement; Nechutová, ‘Matěj z Janova — M. Jan Hus?’, p. 71. 2 This idea is typical of biblical concepts of time. See Bauckham, ‘Eschatology’, p. 333. 3 Bauckham, ‘Eschatology’, p. 333. 4 Cf., e.g., McGinn, ‘The Apocalyptic Imagination’, p. 81.

42

CHAPTER 1

history.5 We can encounter all of the above ideas in the earliest Christian doctrines. It is the specific interpretation of the form and proximity of the last things which changed over the course of Christian history and that distinguishes medieval Christian eschatology. By saying ‘the form of the last things’, I do not mean just how people imagined them to be, but also how they interpreted the meaning and values of the last things and the final resolution of history possessed for Christendom. The first milestone that influenced medieval Christian eschatology can be found at the very beginnings of the religion — the emergence of the idea that the parousia would be delayed. The early Church considered the return of the recently deceased and the resurrected Christ to judge the world6 to be an imminent occurrence7 and believers pinned their hopes on it without further developing a doctrine about the final things (present eschatology).8 The expectation of an early second coming was one of joyful hope, as attested to by the exclamation ‘Maranatha’9 — ‘The Lord has come!’ or ‘Come, Lord Jesus!’10 (I Cor. 16. 22 and Apoc. 22. 17). But Christ did not come and would not come yet, and thus Christians began to pin their hopes on a more distant, ambiguous future, and they were left with more time to contemplate how things would look and take place. No specific teaching about the second coming had yet to be elaborated, although general ideas about the parousia (most commonly within the theology of history) and casual considerations about the exact place and time of the second coming did exist. The authors of eschatological texts sought answers by connecting various biblical passages with intertestamental and apocalyptic concepts and philosophical ideas about the end of the world. They were motivated not only by interest in the topic, but also by contemporary events — for example, the fight against Gnosticism and efforts to inspire Christians to behave better by evoking the Last Judgement and the punishments of hell.11 Following the same pattern, other eschatological themes with different emphases arose throughout the further history of Christianity, including during the Middle Ages.12 And thus this period between the first and second coming,

5 Bauckham discusses ‘the final resolution of history’ in ‘Eschatology’, pp. 335–36. 6 Bauckham, ‘Eschatology’, p. 335, on the term parousia, see there also p. 336; Finkenzeller, ‘Eschatologie’, p. 138. 7 Schwarz, Eschatology, pp. 71–72. 8 Finkenzeller, ‘Eschatologie’, p. 138; cf. also Bauckham, ‘Eschatology’, p. 335. 9 Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 5; cf. Dolista, Perspektivy naděje, p. 46. In note 62, he adopts Ratzinger’s idea. 10 Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 5. 11 Greshake, ‘Eschatology’, p. 488. 12 For more on how biblical passages were chosen and their relation to specific historical events, see Finkenzeller. ‘Eschatologie’, particularly pp. 137–39.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

today usually referred to using Cullmann’s words ‘already but not yet’,13 was ‘filled in’ with the fight between good and evil,14 which came in varying forms — this struggle was dominated by different motifs, featured diverse terminology, and since the patristic era was marked by the varying but important role of Christ in such thoughts.15 The first independent theological treatise on the last things was written by Bishop Julian of Toledo in seventh-century Spain and bore the title Prognosticon futuri saeculi. Julian is considered to be the first historically documented systematic eschatologist. His treatise comprises three parts: ‘De origine mortis humanae’, ‘De animabus defunctorum quomodo se habeant ante ultimam corporum resurrectionem’, and ‘De ultima corpo‐ rum resurrectione‘. In them, Julian relies on the doctrines of the Church Fathers.16 Henceforth, ideas about the last things gradually gained a place for themselves in Christian theology. However, it was not until the high Middle Ages that they acquired a significant position, in particular thanks to another key milestone that also had a significant impact on Hus’s eschatology. In 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council, Peter Lombard’s (b. 1095 or 1100 in Lumellogno, Novara; d. 20 July 1160 in Paris)17 escha‐ tological system18 was adopted, and Lombard’s summa Sententiarum19 libri quattuor20 became an unequivocal model and source for hundreds of other medieval summae and various other forms of theological treatises, not only on eschatology, but on the entirety of Christian theology. Its adoption

13 Oscar Cullmann coined this term for Christian expectations to describe the fulfilment of Christ’s first coming and his anticipated return; Cullmann, Heil als Geschichte, particularly p. 153. 14 McGinn, ‘The Apocalyptic Imagination’, p. 84. 15 See McGinn, ‘The Apocalyptic Imagination’, p. 88. 16 Julian of Toledo, Prognosticum futuri saeculi, ed. by Stancati, pp. xi−xiii. 17 Peter Lombard was an Italian bishop who taught at the cathedral school of Notre Dame. Thanks to his most famous work he was referred to as Magister Sententiarum, or in short form as Magister (Hödl, ‘P. Lombardus’). 18 Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 3. 19 The sententiae were selected and systematically arranged statements made by Church Fathers. They primarily comprise a teaching ‘about God…, about people and angels, about Christ and incarnation, about sin and salvation, about virtues and vices, about sacraments and Scripture, about the last things of man…’ (Flajšhans in the introduction to Svoboda’s Czech translation Mistra Jana Husi Sebrané spisy III. Spisy latinské 3, p. 5). 20 Lombard’s Sentences were likely written in 1145–1151. Although a manuscript from 1158 has been preserved, it was probably not the first (de Ghellinck, ‘Peter Lombard’). In all four of the books, Lombard deals with traditional questions in Christian theology, but in a new manner. In the first and second book he connects Abelard’s concept of theology with that of Anselm of Laon (‘sacra pagina’). In the third and fourth books he treats Christology, soteriology, the doctrine of the sacraments, and eschatology (Hödl, ‘P. Lombardus’). The composition of Sentences is influenced by the Decretum Gratiani of 1140. Other authors that were a major inspiration included Ivo of Chartres and Alger of Liège (de Ghellinck, ‘Peter Lombard’).

43

44

CHAPTER 1

was one of the most significant events related to the official eschatological literature of the medieval Catholic Church and Christian eschatology in general. Moreover, even before its official acceptance, Lombard had already inspired many authors21 and contributed to others contemplating eschatological themes.22 Hus was not only a man who proclaimed the early Church as a model and as such a man influenced by the more general principles of Christian eschatology that had already appeared in the early days of Christianity; some of the specific statements contained in Lombard’s Sentences also influenced him. At the time of Hus’s studies and during his years teaching at Prague’s Charles University, this work was a compulsory and important part of university theological education. Therefore, let us take a closer look at its eschatological content and complete our overview of the most impor‐ tant decisions made by ecclesiastical councils that members of Charles University would have also been familiar with. In his Sentences Peter Lombard presents a systematic interpretation of the last things and establishes De novissimis as the last part of the entire dogmatic theology.23 He places eschatology at the end of the work, where it symbolizes the Christian understanding of eschatology as the climax of history and the culmination of Christology. He included it in the fourth and final book, which is focused on the sacraments. This order would be followed in later Christian theology, although occasionally some authors would deal with eschatology in their theologies of creation or of mercy. Lombard’s Sentences became a model that defined nearly all aspects of many subsequent works (not just summae), including sources used (the Bible, Augustine, and other Church Fathers), content, and structure.24 Usually, subsequent eschatological treatises cover the same topics and use Aristotelian categories and terms. They attempt to deal with questions of ‘resurrection, general judgement, eternal life, [and] eternal damnation’.25 Although these were traditional issues, in Lombard’s Sentences they are connected to a certain order and gained greater value within the system of medieval theology. The eschata in subsequent treatises by other authors

21 Glosses on the Sentences emerged as early as in the second half of the twelfth century, e.g., Alexander of Hales’s gloss. (Hödl, ‘P. Lombardus’). 22 Until then, Lombard’s Sentences had been attacked by other magisters. They were defended by Lombard’s student Petrus Comestor. (Hödl, ‘P. Lombardus’). 23 On the title ‘De novissimis’, see Toner, ‘Eschatology’, and Pohle, ‘Dogmatic Theology’. Although Hugh of Saint Victor and Robertus Pullus had also concluded their summae with a chapter about the last things, they were not the ultimate issue in medieval theological doctrine (Wicki, ‘Eschatologie’, col. 4). 24 Wicki, ‘Eschatologie’, col. 4. 25 Wicki, ‘Eschatologie’, col. 5: ‘[…] Auferstehung der Toten, allgemeines Gericht, ewiges Leben bzw. ewige Verwerfung’.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

most frequently pertain to the entire cosmos26 and refer to the total end of worldly humanity and the end of the cosmos. The eschata of the soul appeared only indirectly in questions of resurrection and judgement (e.g., in Benedict XII’s Benedictus Deus27 of 29 January 1336). Lombard, in his approach to theological questions, combined the two main methods used in his day — referring to authorities (the Bible, Church writers) and engaging in speculation — and struck a balance between them.28 He created a summary of contemporary official doctrine and expanded it to include conflicting contemporary opinions about dif‐ ferent ideas. Lombard was also able to fully condemn interpretations that he found unacceptable. Hundreds of commentaries on this work were written, in which other writers continued in Lombard’s use of speculation and to a certain extent could express their opinions on dogma. This ‘certain extent’ was defined by universities, which kept a watchful eye on such matters. The Church checked, with some regularity, whether Lombard’s Sentences were in keeping with current Church doctrine, which was not fully inflexible, and thus the University of Paris issued a list of Lombard’s statements it considered to be invalid.29 Even though Lombard’s Sentences was occasionally a target of criticism, it remained in use as a theological textbook until the Reformation.30 Thus, Christian eschatology was, during a certain period of its exis‐ tence, in the official Catholic teachings in particular, retroactively influ‐ enced to a great extent by one concrete eschatological system that had emerged within it. After 1215 further shifts, mainly of a thematic nature, occurred in Catholic eschatology and are captured in official Church deci‐ sions issued by councils.31 In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council emphasized the resurrection of all people in their current bodies, in addition to eternal punishment and eternal life. We can see a main link to Hus in the emphasis on a system of eternal rewards based on one’s deeds. In 1254 Innocent IV introduced a novel element to Church doctrine at the First Council of Lyon — purgatory, as a place, outside of heaven and hell, where the soul is purified before resurrection and the Last Judgement. The Second Council

26 Wicki, ‘Eschatologie’, col. 5. 27 According to Zdeněk Uhlíř, this constitution introduced a clear separation between personal and general judgement, which Uhlíř considers to be an expression of individualization and personalization: Uhlíř, ‘The Bohemian Reformation’, p. 16. Joseph Alois Ratzinger considers the Middle Ages to be a period when eschatology focused on personal fate and issues of personal salvation and thus pushed aside the issue of ‘history as a whole’ (Ratzinger, ‘Eschatology’, p. 12). 28 De Ghellinck, ‘Peter Lombard’. 29 Bartoš, ‘Příspěvky k dějinám Karlovy university v době Husově a husitské’, pp. 44–45. 30 Hödl, ‘P. Lombardus’. 31 Finkenzeller, ‘Eschatologie’, pp. 139–41, presents an exact list and description of what was new or substantial in the eschatology pursued by the contemporary official Catholic Church.

45

46

CHAPTER 1

of Lyon in 1274 made a similar declaration, emphasizing intercession for the dead and the differences in rewards in the afterlife. The apostolic constitution Benedictus Deus from 1336 also mentions purgatory, as well as the immediate vision of God, the beatitude of the soul before the Last Judgement, hell, the resurrection of people in their own bodies, and the Last Judgement. It emphasizes the finality of death and the immediate nature of final judgement. Medieval Christian eschatology is not just orthodox Catholic eschatology, nor did Jan Hus come into contact with just these official interpretations, although they were authoritative for him. Official Catholic eschatological doctrine, however, could be interpreted differently. Before I examine other relevant medieval eschatological interpretations, I would first like to posit the question of whether Christian medieval eschatology as a whole shares common features, whether we are talking about official or heretical doc‐ trines or the eschatology of intellectuals or uneducated commoners. The most popular themes in medieval eschatology — the things that follow physical death (paradise, hell, limbo, the Bosom of Abraham, purgatory) — as well as themes related only to specific genres that are less frequent as general theological topics (e.g., Antichrist)32 do tell us something in general about medieval eschatology, but do not, in and of themselves, describe how eschatology works. As I have already hinted at, all eschatologies, not just medieval ones, fill that period between ‘already and not yet’ as needed. Bernard McGinn has described the situation in detail for apocalyptic medieval Christian eschatology: If we consider the eschaton as a great drama whose leading role of messiah and whose basic acts were laid down in the Bible and early Christianity, what is striking about the history of apocalypticism in the Middle Ages is the way in which new subsidiary roles and scenes come to be inserted into the overall scenario, most often as a response to unexpected and/or threatening events of world-historical significance.33 The basic Christian scenario of which McGinn speaks is a complicated combination of optimistic and pessimistic visions of the end of the world. Optimistic visions include faith in Christ’s worldly victory over the forces of evil, the resurrection of the saints, and the establishment of a millennial kingdom on Earth. Pessimistic visions include persecution by Antichrist, the horrible signs of the end of the world, and sorting the good from the wicked during the Final Judgement. Every era has tended towards one of 32 Cf. Wicki, ‘Eschatologie’, col. 5. 33 McGinn, ‘The Apocalyptic Imagination’, p. 84.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

these two views. Generally speaking, the Middle Ages, thanks to medieval apocalypticism, ‘…added many new details and further refinements to the gloomy side of this scenario, but… there were no essentially new creations. When it comes to the optimistic side of drama of the end, however, medieval apocalypticism did produce new creations, that is, players and acts for which there was no scriptural precedent’.34 In this light, Joseph Alois Ratzinger35 sees the Middle Ages as a con‐ trast to early Christianity and views dies irae — fear of judgement and end times marked with horror and threats to the soul’s salvation — as a typical belief of this period. But he also sees signs of the gradual individualization of Christianity in it as well. Ratzinger, however, considers his assessment to be a global one that does not necessarily encompass all medieval escha‐ tological ideas. One of the reasons for this is that Ratzinger’s evaluations represent just one point of view. He does not rule out evaluating the ‘mood’ that Jana Nechutová has observed in medieval eschatology. Within medieval European and Czech eschatology she sees an ‘optimistic and at the same time largely semi-fatalistic form of desiring and endeavouring for a better world beyond’ in theological and philosophical systems, heretical doctrines, and popular movements.36 Thus, she indicates the importance of both human behaviour and God’s mercy in the process of salvation. Nechutová also points out the medieval understanding of evil (referred to by many names and personified by Antichrist) as something real, but notes that medieval people expected a ‘good end’ and endeavoured for its realization. We shall see if Hus’s eschatology shares these characteristics or whether it has exceptional features already at this general level.

The Eschatology of Heterodox Doctrines in Bohemia in the Fourteenth and Early Fifteenth Centuries The eschatologies of the reformist movement and heretical sects present in the Czech lands underwent much greater shifts in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries than the official eschatology of the Catholic Church. The new theories developed within these circles had immediate practical effects37 on the life of laypeople and the Church.38 In both the pre-Hus era 34 35 36 37 38

McGinn, ‘The Apocalyptic Imagination’, pp. 84–85. Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 5. Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, pp. 2–3. Cf. e.g., Galík, Panorama české literatury, p. 41. Cf. Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 48, where the author describes the ‘basic line of the Bohemian Reformation pre-revolutionary stage from the perspective of its social orientation’ as ‘heading from individual towards general social ethics as a condition for salvation after death’. Šmahel, however, states at the same time this trend was not necessarily followed by the authors of the Bohemian Reformation.

47

48

CHAPTER 1

and in Hus’s day, the official Catholic Church did not feel the Final Judge‐ ment was an imminent threat.39 Although reformist eschatology joined new ideas with traditional approaches, it was more existential and Christ‐ centric than Catholic doctrine.40 Likewise, heretical eschatology, which ap‐ peared in the Czech lands even earlier than reformist ideas, diverged from Catholic dogma. Outside of official Catholic dogma, millennialist ideas emerged, mainly from the thirteenth century onwards,41 which located the reign of peace in this world even before the Final Judgement. Heretical millennialist eschatological42 ideas were condemned by the official Church at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).43 During Hus’s life, millennialist ideas were largely held by intellectuals and did not stimulate any greater activity,44 as Taborite eschatology would later. The spread of heretical ideas in the Czech lands not only led to some Czech thinkers adopting them, but also resulted in a conflict between the Church and those it condemned as heretics.45 In the Czech lands, such heretical doctrines specifically included those of Joachim of Fiore, John of Rupescissa, and other Spiritual Franciscans, Cola di Rienzo in particular; we should not overlook the Waldensians or the Lollards either. These doc‐ trines were mainly received within Prague’s cultural circle, most likely from the mid-fourteenth century onwards.46 Scholars have debated the extent to which the ideas of Joachim and his followers influenced Hus. Those who see no connection have at least examined what they see as coincidental parallels between the two streams of thought. There are, however, greater parallels between Joachim, Milíč, and Matěj of Janov, the latter two of

39 Molnár, ‘Endzeit und Reformation’, p. 74. Here Molnár also claims that the eschatological statements contained in apostolic sermons were mainly related to the individual history of man the pilgrim (homo viator) in the sense of meditatio vitae futurae of individual believers, whereas the superindividual, collective features of this message have not been theologically interpreted or applied in ecclesiology. He continues, ‘Menschlich gesehen war es ein Verdienst der ersten Reformation, dass die Kirche in ihrer geschichtlichen Existenz von neuem in einen eschatologischen Kontext gerückt wurde. Ein erneutes Wissen um die Endzeitsituation führte zur Entdeckung der absoluten Unerlässlichkeit der Predigt und der Fragwürdigkeit des kirchlichen Selbstbewusstseins. Das Thema Endzeit und Reformation wurde so erstaunlich aktuell’. 40 Greshake, ‘Eschatology’, p. 488. 41 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 13. 42 Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, pp. 5–6. 43 The doctrine of the Albigensians (Catharism in France) was condemned as was that of the Waldensians. 44 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 13. 45 Olivier Marin pursues another very specific plane of inquiry — how could the environment at the University of Prague support heresy, or, in contrast, how could it prevent it? — while also examining the role and attitude of Jan Hus (cf. Marin, ‘Libri hereticorum sunt legendi’). 46 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 13.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

which had a significant (if indirect) impact on Hus’s eschatology.47 I shall address elsewhere the somewhat different pathways of the Waldensian movement, which is associated mainly with Hus’s exile in south Bohemia. Unfortunately, much of the scholarship on heretical influences on Hus and on his predecessors48 and contemporaries is speculative in nature, for direct evidence is lacking. We encounter the greatest difficulties in tracing the influence of the Lollards, whose ideas in the Czech lands are first documented in the early fifteenth century, as well as that of John of Rupescissa. One of the heterodox doctrines that Hus was familiar with was that of Joachim of Fiore. According to some Czech scholars, this doctrine was likely introduced to the Czech lands by Cola di Rienzo in 1350,49 although not much is known about any concrete influence it had there.50 Moreover, some Czech manuscripts exist that originated in the 1340s, as we will see. During the reign of Charles IV, the texts of Joachim and the pseudoJoachim were meticulously copied in Bohemia by educated clerics in richly illuminated manuscripts; several other manuscripts were imported from France and Italy.51 They were products of the scholarly culture, which consisted of curia members and Latin and religion teachers from town schools.52 The problem, however, lies in the fact that none of these texts have a demonstrable connection to the Bohemian Reformation.53 The manuscripts that figured as direct evidence in studies by Howard Kamin‐ sky54 and Ruth Kestenberg-Gladstein55 have been marked by Kurt-Victor Selge as ambiguous, indicating no convincing evidence of the relationship

47 Šmahel has called into question the correctness of using the term Hus’s predecessors — cf. Šmahel, Jan Hus, pp. 26, 236, 262–63, which gives other literature on the relationship between Hus’s thoughts and the ideas of his ‘predecessors’.. 48 For basic information about Hus´s predecessors, see Herold, ‘The Spiritual Background’. 49 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 48 n. 8. Later Herold would incline towards Molnár’s view. Herold, ‘Philosophische Grundlagen’, p. 736. 50 Nevertheless, we must also consider the potentional influence of Joachim’s or joachimistic ideas in the Czech lands before 1350 through John of Ropescissa, who was probably influenced by Peter Olivi (cf. Lerner, ‘Millenialism’, p. 352; for Olivi’s teaching, see McGinn, ‘Apocalypticism and Church Reform’, pp. 94−95, and Andrews, ‘The Influence of Joachim in the 13th Century’, pp. 253−57). Reeves also raised doubts found in medieval chronicles notes about the spread of Joachim’s reputation to north of the Alps soon after 1200 (Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages, pp. 39−40). 51 Selge, ‘Handschriften Joachims von Fiore in Böhmen’. 52 Selge, ‘Handschriften Joachims von Fiore in Böhmen’, p. 60. 53 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 13. 54 Kaminsky, A History of Hussite Revolution, pp. 352–53; specifically inquisition records from Brussels from 1411 and Thomas Müntzer’s Prague Manifesto of 1521. 55 Kestenberg-Gladstein, ‘A Joachimite Prophecy concerning Bohemia’; specifically two Prague manuscripts include the text of Prophecia abbatis Joachim de regno Bohemie.

49

50

CHAPTER 1

of these texts to Bohemia.56 Selge draws from other sources. The first group of sources comprise isolated Czech manuscripts from the 1340s, that is, manuscripts that slightly predate Konrad Waldhauser and Milíč, but which show no sign of being connected to the great Bohemian reform‐ ers. The first such text is Codex reginensis 132 preserved in the Vatican Library. The second source is Exhortatorium Judaeorum in codex C 95 of the Metropolitan Chapter, which, according to Selge, did not influence Czech millennialism. However, Selge is unable to trace how the codex came to be in Prague (from Rome or Avignon). The third source is a fourteenth-century manuscript stored in the Czech National Museum XIV B 17 that contains early Joachimite texts. It is impossible to determine the origins of this manuscript or who might have read it. But Joachim’s ideas might have found their way to, and influenced, Hus from elsewhere. In any case, Hus was familiar with Joachim as attested to by De libris haereticorum legendis.57 These facts, however, do not attest to any actual inspiration from Joachim. On the other hand, the similarity to Joachim’s ideas demonstrated in the work of Czech reform authors, includ‐ ing Hus, cannot be denied. The earliest such thinker, Milíč of Kroměříž, was even employed by the Royal Chancellery in Prague at the time when Cola di Rienzo brought acta detailing Joachim’s trial to this office; Milíč thus had a singular opportunity to acquaint himself with Joachim’s ideas58 and to pass them on to others. Milíč’s conversion to spiritual and reformist thought would occur nine years later.59 Now let us present a brief introduction of Joachim and his doctrine. Joachim of Fiore (b. 1135, Celico near Cosenza, Italy; d. 1202 in San Marino of Casale, Italy)60 first worked in the Chancellery of William I; later, on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem he underwent a spiritual conversion, lived for several years as a hermit, and eventually joined the Cistercian Order and lived at monasteries in Sambucina and Corazzo. He is known primarily as a mystic and theologian, who attempted to explicate the connections between biblical prophecy, history, and the contemporary Church in the following works: Liber Concordiae Novi ac Veteris Testamenti, Expositio in Apocalipsim, and Psalterium Decem Cordarum.61 Based on his interpretation of Revelation 14. 6, he theorized about an eternal gospel.

56 Selge, ‘Handschriften Joachims von Fiore in Böhmen’, pp. 53–55. 57 Holeček, ‘Istis ultimis temporibus’, p. 75. On Hus’s ideas in De libris haereticorum legendis and on Hus’s position at the university, compare Marin, ‘Libri hereticorum sunt legendi’. 58 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 48, n. 8. Herold agrees with this view, Herold, ‘Philosophische Grundlagen’, p. 736. 59 Bartoš, Dantova Monarchie, p. 11. 60 Gatto, ‘The Life’, pp. 20 and 39; Gardner, ‘Joachim of Flora’ gives his lifespan as 1132–1202; Pásztor, ‘Joachim v. Fiore’, col. 485 gives his lifespan as 1135−1202 or 1205. 61 Gardner, ‘Joachim of Flora’; for more about these works, see Gatto, ‘The Life’, pp. 24−28, and about his other works, see pp. 28−40.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

The world is divided into three historical ages (each corresponding with one of the persons of the Holy Trinity), which he identified with the history of salvation. Each epoch is ruled by one of the persons of the Holy Trinity: the first, the Age of the Father, corresponds with the Old Testament; the second, the Age of the Son, represents the New Testament and the existence of the Catholic Church; and the third, the Age of the Holy Spirit, was an impending era in which the rule of no institution would be necessary as only the universal love that springs from the Gospel of Christ would rule. The second epoch was coming to an end, with the third expected to begin after a major catastrophe that would strike in 1260.62 Then a spiritual reunification would occur between the Latins and the Greeks, between Catholic and Orthodox believers. It was the third age that was at the centre of Joachim’s attention; its advent would be marked by the coming of the first Antichrist. A Church figure was supposed to defeat this Antichrist; although Joachim never identified this person, Franciscan Joachimites saw this victor in Saint Francis, whom they considered to be the second Christ. The Franciscans, who made up the Joachimite sect, went even further than Joachim himself had. They believed the Antichrist had already come and identified him with Frederick II.63 Holeček has found certain elements of Joachim’s eschatology directly in Hus’s thoughts — primarily the idea of there being several active Antichrists, deep speculation about the foreknown and the predestined, an evaluation of the impacts of the Donation of Constantine, and the develop‐ ment of the ‘motif of persecuting the just in the last days’.64 Nonetheless, Holeček’s claim becomes less convincing when we consider the lack of evidence as well as the fact that these same ideas can be found in other pre-Hus authors (compare especially with Milíč and Matěj of Janov) and in Wycliffe; they are not exclusive to Joachim. Nechutová65 and Šmahel66 find elements of Joachim’s eschatology in the ideas of Milíč of Kroměříž and Matěj of Janov, figures who had a great influence on the forming of Czech thought. Both of these Hus scholars also emphasize that many elements found in Joachim’s thought do not appear at all in those of these Czech writers; Šmahel gives the teaching about the third age, which would influence Taborite millenarianism, as

62 Gardner, ‘Joachim of Flora’. 63 I also draw the other mentioned information from The Catholic Encyclopedia and Lexikon des Mittelalters. 64 Holeček, ‘Istis ultimis temporibus’, pp. 74–75, citation p. 75. 65 Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 9. 66 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 13.

51

52

CHAPTER 1

the most important example.67 Therefore, these Czech authors were not directly dependent on Joachim’s doctrine.68 Milíč of Kroměříž might have drawn Joachim’s ideas not only from the information he received about Joachim’s trial, but also from the work of Cola di Rienzo (d. 1354).69 Cola was heavily influenced by Joachimite ideas and was active for a relatively long time at the court of Charles IV. He was found guilty of heresy during his stay in Prague, where he did not shy away from admiring John of Rupescissa’s Vade mecum directly in front of an inquisitor.70 František Michálek Bartoš was convinced about the connection between Cola’s stay in Prague and Milíč’s conversion to the path of Christ.71 Milíč had read Cola’s writings, especially his admiring description of the Spiritual Franciscans, Dictamina Tribuni. He was also highly familiar with Oraculum Cyrilli, which drew from the book of the Spiritual Franciscans and which Cola had brought to Charles IV in Prague. Jana Nechutová sees in Cola’s ideas the same critical tone present in Czech opposition to the Church and the social hierarchy. In Milíč’s work she finds expressions of such influence in ideas about the coming of Antichrist and about ‘the necessity of evangelization as preparation for the coming of the Lord’.72 Molnár confirms that there is no direct connection between Cola and Milíč; he also points out Joachim’s search for Antichrist within the Christian community as well as fundamental differences in who would bring renewal (Cola expected it of the emperor; Milíč had not lost all faith

67 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 13. 68 Cf. Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, pp. 8–9. 69 Cola di Rienzo — Roman statesman and humanist. He was involved in the revolt in Italy. His idea about a revolution that was supposed to be undertaken by a certain social group was religiously inspired. It was to be guided by God’s arrangement and justice and was supposed to create an order and state of being that Cola associated with Joachim’s Age of the Holy Spirit. Besides cultivating such idea, Cola also actively participated in Italian politics and endeavoured for the country’s sovereignty. He later had to leave Italy, however, and he set off for Prague to inform Charles IV and Arnošt of Pardubice about the coming of the Holy Spirit. Charles, however, did not take to his ideas. Cola was tried for heresy but was eventually acquitted. (Manselli, ‘Cola di Rienzo’, cols 26–28). 70 Bartoš, Dantova Monarchie, p. 8. Of the recent works that deal with the influence of this work on Milíč’s ideas, compare, e.g., Cermanová’s paper ‘Eschatologie a apokalyptika’, especially pp. 516–19 and p. 524. Cermanová finds the same elements in the works of Milíč and John of Rupescissa and examines the possible influence of other prophetical texts on Milíč’s thinking. The same conclusions are also contained in this author’s latest monograph, Čechy na konci věků. In it she also applies the findings of her previous studies although she does not call particular attention to them. 71 Milíč attributes his conversion to Matthew 19. 21, a biblical passage that also had an effect on Waldo and Francis of Assisi. Milíč’s other influences include Simon Fidati of Cassia, a Florentine Augustinian, John of Rupescissa’s Vade mecum, and Petrarch (Bartoš, Dantova Monarchie, pp. 11–12). 72 Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 7.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

in the pope) and the differing views of monastic orders (Cola viewed them positively, Milíč negatively).73 To Nechutová the influence on Matěj of Janov seems much clearer; she highlights his orientation towards the Roman environment. There are no ‘verbal matches with Joachim’s writings’ in Regulae; in contrast, the works of these two authors differ vastly in some respects. Matěj of Janov never makes direct reference to Joachim, ‘even though the robust eschatologism of Janov’s works elicits the impression of the existence of such an influence’. This impression was enhanced by the fact that at the time several prophecies about the Kingdom of Bohemia attributed to the pseudo-Joachim were in circulation in the Czech lands.74 Unlike Gandev, Nechutová does not think that Matěj of Janov’s concept of the freedom of the Holy of Spirit was influenced by Joachim’s notion of the Kingdom of the Holy Spirit.75 I will just add that Matěj also sought out Antichrist within the Church and that thanks to the incorporation of Milíč’s eschatological writings into Regulae the question of to what extent Matěj was inspired by Milíč might arise. We can conclude that this complicated debate about the reception of Joachimism by stating that the works of the mentioned Czech authors contain some parallels with Joachim’s ideas, but based on current scholarship we know only that they are not the direct result of dependence on Joachim’s doctrine. Another heretical movement that played an important role in the Czech lands and which might have had an influence on Hus was the Waldensians. The Waldensians first emerged in the twelfth century. This heresy grew out of orthodox attempts at poverty and out of the preaching movement, which Waldo had stimulated.76 Already during the lifetime of this former merchant from Lyon, the Waldensians had spread through the Germanspeaking countries to Bohemia. Waldensian preaching was characterized by Donatism and Biblicism. It was ‘founded upon vernacular translations of the Bible and on prioritizing ethics. It was associated with the sharp criticism of the medieval Church, with rejecting parts of the orthodox rite and forms of religious practice that were considered to be excesses (purgatory, icons of the saints, pilgrimages), and with the rejection of oaths and lies, as well as high justice. Above all stood the requirement to

73 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 48 n. 8. 74 Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 8. 75 Nechutová, ‘Gioacchino da Fiore ed i principi della riforma Boema’. The author responds to a study in which Gandev provides no concrete, literal evidence for his claims (Gandev, ‘Joachimitské myšlenky’); in contrast, Nechutová claims that for formulating the idea about freedom in the Holy Spirit, Scripture may have sufficed for Matěj of Janov. 76 Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 400.

53

54

CHAPTER 1

follow the literal word of the Scripture and the life of the Apostolic Church in its true fundamentals’.77 The Waldensians also rejected intercession for the dead.78 Records indicate that they had a relatively strong position in the Czech lands in the early fourteenth century.79 Adherents of the Waldensian doctrine were most likely exclusively Germans80 and were concentrated mainly in south and east Bohemia. They managed to maintain their strong position for a relatively long time despite the fact that in 1318 an inquisi‐ tion was launched in the Czech lands. Attempts to fully wipe out the Waldensians began in earnest in the 1340s. These efforts were officially sanctioned and pursued with great zeal as demonstrated by Charles IV’s proposals for a legal code that involved eliminating heresy in the Czech lands and by the establishment of a permanent inquisitorial court in Prague by Arnošt of Pardubice, who was strongly interested in south Bohemia. In keeping with the official Church, Hus, alongside his university followers,81 condemned the Waldensian doctrine as heretical.82 Hus main‐ tained this view until his death; after his death, some of his followers changed their minds, even about eschatological issues. If we disregard Hus’s judgement of the Waldensians and the possibility that they might have had a direct influence on him, we can find certain similarities between his ideas and those of this movement. Hus, however, did not necessarily have to notice this closeness. For example, Amedeo Molnár believes that after 1412 (when Hus could have encountered Waldensian ideas in the

77 ‘Der Inhalt der Predigt in den Familien, häufig ein einfacher Donatismus und Biblizismus, basierte auf volkssprachlichen Übersetzungen der Bibel und auf einer betont ethischen Wertung. Verbunden war dies mit einer scharfen Kritik an der mittelalterlichen Kirche, mit der Ablehnung von Teilen des orthodoxen Ritus und der Formen von religiöser Praxis, die man als Auswüchse ansah (Fegefeuer, Heiligenbilder, Pilgerfahrten), mit dem Ablehnen des Eides und der Lüge sowie der Blutgerichtsbarkeit. Darüber stand der Anspruch, die Heilige Schrift buchstäblich zu befolgen und dem Leben der apostolischen Kirche auf deren wirklichen Grundlagen nachzufolgen’ (Lambert, ‘Die Häresie der Zeit’, p. 62). Lambert does not focus on Bohemia, but on all of Europe. For a Czech version, see ‘Předhusitské hereze’. 78 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 43. 79 According to Molnár, some Czech villages could have been fully Waldensian. Molnár mentions several sources of evidence from the 1330s (particularly, inquisition records; furthermore, in 1338 the persecution of the Waldensians led to their revolting). Other evidence of the Waldensians’ presence in the Czech lands come from the 1350s and the 1370s — e.g., from 1377 at Kozí Hrádek (Molnár, Valdenští, pp. 126–28). We can find evidence from the 1330s to the 1350s in Lambert’s study ‘Předhusitské hereze’. 80 Jerome of Prague claims that Czechs in the Czech lands were never convicted of heresy (Molnár, Valdenští, p. 129). 81 Moreover, Hus did not respect ideas that were not based on some kind of school method, and therefore, he did not realize how close he might have been to the Waldensians in regard. (Molnár, Valdenští, p. 189). 82 Molnár, Valdenští, p. 200.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

countryside) Hus’s ideas approached Waldensian vernacular Biblicism. Hus did not directly adopt any eschatological ideas from the Waldensians — his ideas on the question of the existence of purgatory and the efficacy of intercessions for the dead differed fundamentally. Despite parallels in how Hus and the Waldensians emphasized poverty and the related idea of obedience, Hus interpreted the ideal of poverty as following the example of Christ and incorporated it into his eschatology.83 Recent scholarship has weakened the hypothesis that the Waldensian movement could have influenced a large part of Hus’s ‘exile’ followers,84 and some aspects of Molnár’s monograph on the Waldensians must be viewed in perspective. Historian Pavel Soukup’s studies on the impacts of the Waldensians in the Czech lands in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries demonstrate that the Waldensians were not in a position to influence the contemporary preaching landscape in any significant way and that what exactly the Waldensians preached was likely known only by those closest to this sect.85 Additionally, there were also attempts during Hus’s life to connect Hus and his adherents to the Waldensians. Johlín of Vodňany, a member of the Canons Regular of the Holy Sepulchre, who from 1389 onwards served as the parish priest of the church of Saint Wenceslaus in Zderaz,86 was the first to point out a possible connection between Czech pre-Hussite preaching and the Waldensians. In his postil of 1403–1404 Johlín saw an unfavourable strengthening of the Waldensian heresy among churchmen who preached their reform theories to the people. Johlín, however, overes‐ timated the connection, for Waldensian ideas would find fertile ground only after Hus’s burning at the stake, when in the rest of Europe the Waldensian movement was dying out. The arrival of the Dresden masters in Prague after 1411 could have been of greater significance for the eschatology of Hus’s adherents.87 These masters found refuge in the Black Rose House School in Prague, which would later become the epicentre of Hussite propaganda. And thus, Eppinge, for example, in his defence of Hus at Charles University, spoke about Antichrists who were controlling the Church. Scholars have yet to sufficiently describe the importance of the arrival of the Dresden masters for the development of the Waldensian movement. Although Molnár has a clear opinion on this relationship and presents Nicholas of Dresden as

83 84 85 86 87

Molnár, Valdenští, p. 201. Cf. Molnár, Valdenští, p. 189. Soukup, Reformní kazatelství, pp. 61–67. Molnár, Valdenští, p. 129. Mutlová states that after 1411 they had to leave Dresden (Mutlová, ‘Vybrané prameny k existenci drážďanské školy’, p. 554).

55

56

CHAPTER 1

the person who introduced Waldensian ideas to Jakoubek of Stříbro,88 not only this opinion, but also many other claims about the Dresden masters seem to be outdated or at the very least their clear-cut nature has been called into question.89 Scholars have yet to shed sufficient light on the con‐ nection between the ideas of the Dresden masters and the Waldensians. Researchers are unsure of the relationship the Dresden masters as individ‐ uals had towards the Waldensian movement. It is also still unclear whether the Dresden masters even considered themselves to be members of the same school and whether they truly preached Waldensian ideas or if their ideas were merely received as being those of the Waldensians. It seems that each master had a different relationship to the Waldensians, and it was the subsequent reception of their ideas that played a large role in whether they were considered Waldensian or not. Therefore, the Dresden School cannot be described as Waldensian.90 All of these facts then complicate describing the relationship that Hus’s followers had towards the Waldensians. For example, Jakoubek of Stříbro considered the Waldensians to be the ‘limbs of Christ’, claiming that they were persecuted for the Gospel of Christ (and no longer for their heresy, as had been believed earlier), and stopped defining heresy according to the Church. For him the only criterion for truth and heresy was the gospel. Several years later, however, he changed his ideas about the Waldensians.91 For the sake of completeness, I should mention two other heretical doc‐ trines, which have been proven to be present in the Czech lands in Hus’s day, but about which we lack any relevant information for making a direct connection with Hus’s doctrine. We have very little information about the influence of Franciscan alchemist John of Rupescissa (died c. 1362 in Avignon). His unfulfilled prophecies and his bold criticism of abuses committed by the Church led to his imprisonment by Clement VI and Innocent VI. During his time in prison, he wrote Visiones seu revelationes in 1349 and Vade mecum in tribu‐

88 Molnár, Valdenští, p. 194. 89 Some recent works have examined the origins of the ideas of the Dresden masters and provide references to relevant literature. For example, Helena Krmíčková deals with Utraquism in K počátkům kalicha v Čechách (particularly her study ‘Attulit novam pestem?’ on pp. 61–85). Other such works include Mutlová’s already-mentioned study ‘Vybrané prameny’ as well as her dissertation, ‘Radicals and Heretics’. 90 Cf. Mutlová, ‘Vybrané prameny’, p. 557. Cf. another study by the same author, ‘Na okraji společnosti: valdenští a husité’, in which the author mainly supplies information about the Waldensians and each of the Dresden masters. 91 Molnár, Valdenští, p. 205. Šmahel also writes about how Jakoubek, in one phase of his career, publicly proclaimed himself an adherent of the Waldensians, but also describes his change of mind (Šmahel, Husitské Čechy, pp. 435–36).

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

latione and Ostensor in 1356. He also wrote commentaries to Oraculum Cyrilli, Fragmenta revelationum, and Apologus propheticus.92 The ideas of John of Rupescissa had been known for some time in the Czech lands. They have been documented in the pre-Hus era, and John of Rupescissa’s doctrine gradually gained such significance that it contributed to forming the environment in which revolutionary events would occur in Hussite Bohemia.93 In Bohemia he was already well known when he was imprisoned at Avignon, thanks to his close connections to the Prague court and the Roman Curia. Additionally, the chronicle (1345–1362) of Charles IV’s chaplain, Konrad of Halberstadt even contains a summary of John of Rupescissa’s proclamation and a detailed summary of the contents of his first treatise, which was written during his imprisonment, Liber secretorum eventuum (1349). Documentary evidence of knowledge in the Czech lands of another of John of Rupescissa’s heavily eschatological works, Vade mecum in tribulatione (1356), comes from approximately 1400, when his prophecies were discussed in the work of an anonymous author,94 who knew Vade mecum in its entirety and considered its predic‐ tions to be applicable in solving the Great Schism. John of Rupescissa drew from the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and predicted the destruction of Antichrist in 1370, when suffering would come to an end, and the coming of an angelic pope, who would usher in a millennium of peace. For comparison with Czech eschatology, it is also important to note that John of Rupescissa saw here wars, floods, famine, and plague as current signs of predicted suffering. His criticism was aimed primarily at the crumbling Church, at pride and power. The Church needed to be repaired. Although in Hus’s works we encounter lashing out against the decadence of the Church as well as the theme of Antichrist, there is no documented connection to John’s doctrine. Moreover, opinions on dealing with the crumbling Church and suffering and ideas about the future differ from the views of the early Reformation and contain descriptions of violence committed before victory over the debauched ecclesiastical leaders.95

92 Rudge, ‘John of Roquetaillade (de Rupescissa)’. 93 Lerner, ‘Popular Justice’. Lerner largely draws from John of Rupescissa’s Vade mecum in tribulatione. Lerner sees evidence of influence on revolutionary events in Bohemia mainly in a 1422 work by an unknown Czech cleric, who used Vade mecum to interpret contemporary and future events and who was captivated by John’s predictions of violence. A Latin copy that was in circulation in the Czech lands has been preserved. It was created nearby Prague and its authors were opponents of the Taborites. A partial translation into Czech also exists and contains a selection of the ‘violent’ version. 94 John of Rupecissa inspired him with millennialism and also encouraged expectations of reform; this author, however, rejected ideas about a people’s rebellion (Lerner, ‘Popular Justice’, pp. 44–45). 95 Lerner, ‘Popular Justice’, pp. 43–44.

57

58

CHAPTER 1

Likewise, we do not have sufficient information about Lollard doctrine to determine the influence Lollardy had on Hus.96 This movement, how‐ ever, was another important part of the Czech eschatological thought of the period in which Hus lived and wrote. The Lollard movement97 was the only English heresy that would become highly influential. At the core of its doctrine were Wycliffe’s teachings that could be applied to the contemporary situation. The connection to Wycliffe was also manifested in the rejection of the traditional doctrine of transubstantiation, as Anne Hudson has pointed out.98 Above all, the Lollards emphasized the role of the Bible in the life of all Christians.99 They rejected all ideas that in their opinion did not correspond with the gospel, which they considered to be at the heart of all thought; these ideas include papal primacy,100 the effi‐ cacy of confession and priestly absolution in contemporary ecclesiastical practice,101 icon worship and pilgrimages, which were closely connected to icons,102 and the worldly property of the Church and the involvement of Church leaders in temporal affairs.103 The term Lollard was first used in 1380 to refer to the followers of Wycliffe’s doctrine at Oxford.104 Most Lollards believed that only they could save the world, but before that could happen they would have to fight the clergy. Christ predicted signs of the apocalypse — destruction, earthquakes, famine, war, and conflict among men. The Lollards consid‐ ered the persecution of Wycliffe and his followers in England to be another

96 This question was posed, for example, by Anne Hudson in the book Lollards and Their Books (p. 41), although from the outset she states that given the state of knowledge this question cannot yet be answered. 97 Besides the following definition, it is necessary to note that Wendy Scase describes two extreme opinions about how to view the Lollards. On one hand there are scholars who see Lollardy as a movement based on the ideas of John Wycliffe that also spread these ideas. On the other hand are scholars who do not consider Lollardy a movement as such but ‘as a projection of the anxieties of the church or of the monarchy’ (Wendy Scase, ‘Lollardy’, pp. 15–16). This study also provides an overview of the main points of Lollard beliefs. 98 Hudson, The Premature Reformation, pp. 281–90; for basic information about Lollard eschatology, see also: Potestà, ‘Radical Apocalyptic Movements in the Late Middle Ages’, pp. 122−24. 99 Hudson, The Premature Reformation, e.g., p. 228 and the following detailed interpretation of the Lollard approach to the Bible. 100 Hudson, The Premature Reformation, pp. 237–334. 101 The Lollards primarily believed that priestly absolution would not be effective if a priest’s decision in such matters was at odds with God’s decision. Although Lollard ideas differed in their details, most Lollard texts come to the conclusion that absolution, at least in its current form, was senseless (cf. Hudson, The Premature Reformation, pp. 295–98). 102 Again Lollard ideas have been generalized; individual details differed. Lollards imagined a different form of pilgrimage — one connected with asceticism, penitence, charity for the poor, etc. (Hudson, The Premature Reformation, pp. 279, 304, 307–09). 103 Hudson, The Premature Reformation, p. 335. 104 Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 399.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

one of the signs of the end times. Lollard texts rarely mention John of Rupescissa and Joachim. Antichrist is identified with the pope or directly with the papacy. In sharp contrast stood praise and support for those who preached the gospel in their work, teachings, and sermons. Such preachers were following in the footsteps of the apostles and were persecuted. The similarities between Lollards (Opus arduum) and Hussites, however, may be the result of the source they share in common — Wycliffe. He had an enormous, direct influence on the Lollards; his impact on the Hussites was less marked, but still greater than that of the Lollards themselves.105 The first known Czech-produced manuscript of the Lollard work Opus arduum, which is the only known Lollard commentary on Revelation and was written between Christmas 1389 and Easter 1390, was created in 1415, that is, in the year Hus was burned at the stake. The first known Czech author to display the clear influence of this doctrine was Jan Želivský (from 1419 onwards); the preservation of this work in Hussite collections and its popularity in Hussite-era Europe are unquestionable.106 Nonetheless, we cannot ignore some of the similar elements contained in pre-Hussite thought and in Hus’s works; moreover, Hudson has demonstrated that the Lollard doctrine was known by those around Hus.107

The Eschatology of the Early Bohemian Reformation The term Bohemian Reformation was popularized by Amedeo Molnár, who used it to emphasize the influence early Czech reformers, the Waldensians, and Hussitism had on the European Reformation.108 The Early Bohemian Reformation includes ‘Hus’s predecessors’ (a term first introduced by Au‐

105 Hudson, ‘Lollardy and Eschatology’. 106 I draw this information from Hudson, ‘Lollardy and Eschatology’, pp. 99–113. The author of this article, who focuses on evidence for the influence of Lollardy on Hussitism, examines in particular the anonymous Opus arduum, the only Lollard commentary on Revelation, which was, however, not particularly popular among the Lollards themselves. The author was an educated Wycliffist, who wrote it in Latin. A fragment of a Czech version from 1528 has been preserved from the edition Commentarius in Apocalypsim ante Centum Annos editus and is evidence that Opus arduum was distributed by the Hussites, not the Lollards, and documents the former’s influence. Cf. also Van Dussen’s opinion on a Lollard−Hussite fellowship (Van Dussen, From England, especially Chapter 3, pp. 63−83). On the role of the Opus arduum in the works of Želivský, Jakoubek of Stříbro, and Nicholas of Pelhřimov and the concrete manuscripts preserved in the Czech archives, see Cermanová, ‘Constructing the Apocalypse’. 107 Hudson, Lollards and their Books, p. 41, where the scholar considers connections with the texts of Floretum and Rosarium. 108 For this conception and also the term ‘first Reformation’, see Molnár, ‘Husovo místo v evropské reformaci’, pp. 6–9. For reactions to this concept, see Marin, L’archevêque, le maître et le dévot, pp. 11−14 and the secondary literature mentioned on the page 11.

59

60

CHAPTER 1

gustin Zitte)109 and other reformers who were active before the emergence of Hussitism.110 Eschatology was always a key element in Czech reform thought. However, Molnár’s still highly cited claim that ‘eschatology is one of the most basic characteristic features of the Bohemian Reformation’ and that thanks to the Bohemian Reformation eschatology remained an important topic within the Church111 is somewhat misleading without fur‐ ther clarification.112 Molnár did not mean that the Bohemian Reformation focused with such intensity on the last things because they were interesting topics in their own right. He wanted to demonstrate that adherents of the Bohemian Reformation lived with an awareness that they were experienc‐ ing a crucial period, the end of days. They shared in common a feeling that they were in a terrible situation, immediacy of action, and, at the same time, hope in the coming of Christ.113 They came to this awareness in a similar way — by observing the current state of Christianity. Despite the commonalities shared by these authors, their eschatologies contain original elements that set them apart from others. We can distinguish several main tendencies in the eschatology of the Bohemian Reformation that cover both collective and individual eschatol‐ ogy.114 Or from another point of view we can talk about eschatology ‘in the narrower sense’ — the belief in the ‘imminent coming of Christ and in the establishment of the kingdom of God through metaphysical forces beyond 109 Zitte, Lebensbeschreibung der drey auszeichnesten Vorläufer. For the history of this term, see Krmíčková, ‘Předchůdcové’, p. 7. 110 Jana Nechutová in her Latinská literatura, p. 200 ranks to these predecessors Konrad Waldhauser, Milíč of Kroměříž, Matěj of Janov as the certain members and writes that there could be included Tomáš Štítný, Vojtěch Raňkův of Ježov, Jindřich of Bitterfeld or theologians Štěpán of Kolín and Matouš of Cracow. Nechutová is inspired by the study written by Herold and Mráz, ‘K dialektice ideových zdrojů’. 111 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická nadějnost’, p. 182. Similarly, Lochman (‘Eschatologický náboj české reformace’, p. 15) claims that Molnár’s thesis was already prefigured by Rudolf Říčan (but does not mention a specific work by Říčan). Lochman calls this mid-fourteenth-century state of affairs ‘an eschatologically motivated [state of] restored unrest’ and links it to the social and cultural crisis of late medieval society (first among theologians and later among the people). Cf. Herold, ‘Philosophische Grundlagen’, p. 735. 112 Clarification is necessary not only when speaking about Hus’s predecessors. Uhlíř notes the necessity to provide more details about the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in general. In his opinion, eschatological thinking is typical of this period only to a certain extent and ‘it cannot simply be equated with apocalyptic or millennialist ideas’. Uhlíř associates the eschatology of this period not only with socio-political criticism but also with mysticism — e.g., in De quaestionibus alterius vite from the first half of the fourteenth century, Bernardino of Siena’s sermon De gloria consubstantiali corporum beatorum, and Johannes Geuss’s homiletic tract Sermo seu tractatus de iudicio extremo (Uhlíř, ‘Poslední soud’). 113 Cf. Molnár, ‘Eschatologická nadějnost’, p. 182. 114 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická nadějnost’, p. 182. Cf. also Molnár’s contribution in the conference proceedings Od reformace k zítřku on page 14. In 1996, Nechutová confirmed this idea in ‘Eschatologie in Böhmen vor Hus’, in Eschatologie und Hussitismus. Cf. pp. 62, 68, and 69, in particular.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

this world or those in it’ (Milíč, Matěj of Janov, Jakoubek of Stříbro) — and eschatology as hopes containing ‘a moral call to live a life in keeping with the law of God, for which a Christian shall be able to answer on the day of final judgement’.115 These two perspectives do not necessarily con‐ tradict each other and may exist side by side. According to Jana Nechutová, the latter view is more typical of the Bohemian Reformation because this movement emphasized temporal life. This idea resonates with Molnár’s notion of a ‘living eschatology’.116 The eschatological topic that was most popular was Antichrist, whose growing power in the Church and society could no longer be tolerated.117 The fight against Antichrist was also most closely related to efforts at reforming the Church. Now we shall examine the eschatological thought of ‘Hus’s predeces‐ sors’. In reference to Hus’s first predecessor Konrad Waldhauser (d. 1369) we cannot yet speak of eschatology in the sense of a coherent exposition of the last things, never mind a doctrine. In the words of Jana Nechutová, his works contain only ‘conventional eschatological allusions… and only occasionally’.118 Konrad Waldhauser did not create a systematic commen‐ tary on Biblical passages on the last things, nor did he develop a coherent eschatological doctrine. He did not have a direct influence on Hus’s escha‐ tology in this regard. On the other hand, there can be no overlooking Waldhauser’s major influence on the formation of the strong preaching tradition in Bohemia and the main principles of the early Bohemian Reformation (we find among his ideas the primacy of Scripture, criticism of simony, emphasis on truth, living according to Christian ideals, and the morality of the clergy), which would later have a fundamental influence on Hus’s eschatology, as I will attempt to demonstrate. A proper eschatology, moreover a very robust one, can be found in the work of the preacher Milíč of Kroměříž (d. 1374). Expectations of the coming of Antichrist were not only central to several of Milíč’s works — his Sermo de die novissimo, his short text Libellus de Anticristo, and the treatise Epistula ad papam Urbanum V — but this idea also guided his life. Milíč established Jerusalem, an asylum for ex-prostitutes. Molnár views this act as an expression of the hope that the Spirit would remake all that people had ruined. Milíč travelled to Rome to clear up his confusion in eschatological matters and in order to speak to the pope about the necessity of reforming the Church and about Antichrist. Milíč had a tendency towards asceticism, which Hus also shared.119 In my study of

115 116 117 118

Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, p. 179. Molnár, ‘Eschatologická nadějnost’, p. 182. Lochman, ‘Eschatologický náboj’, p. 16. Nechutová, ‘Eschatologie in Böhmen’, p. 63: ‘[…] konventionelle eschatologische Anspielungen […] auch dies nur vereinzelt’. 119 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická nadějnost’, p. 183.

61

62

CHAPTER 1

the eschatology contained in selected works by Hus, I will examine in greater detail the possibility that Milíč could have influenced Hus with his understanding of Antichrist, the signs of the era of Antichrist, the essential role of preaching in the fight against Antichrist, and his criticism of the morality of Church leaders. Matěj of Janov (d. 1393) incorporated Milíč’s Libellus de Anticristo into his Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti.120 He also included a treatise written by William of Saint Amour, De periculis novissimorum temporum, which was primarily an attack on the mendicant orders.121 Unlike Milíč, who lived according to his eschatological expectations, Matěj took a systematic approach to Antichrist and analysed this topic more objectively.122 Molnár refers to Matěj as a biblical theologist and claims that he enriched Milíč’s eschatology with ‘the radical reformist ideas of even braver contemporary, and recent, thinkers’.123 In my analysis of Hus’s works, I shall deal in greater detail with the possible connections with Matěj of Janov’s conception of Antichrist, his idea about dissension within the Church, and his presenta‐ tion of the antithesis of Christ and Antichrist. Matěj of Janov made a major contribution to the formation of the Czech philosophical substrate of which Nechutová speaks.124 Other Czech reformers that are not considered to be ‘Hus’s predeces‐ sors’ also wrote about eschatology, for example, Vojtěch Raňkův of Ježov (d. 1388). His eschatological ideas are contained in his Apologia (c. 1386), in which he covers purgatory and criticizes the Archbishop Jan of Jenštejn’s opposing view on the matter.125 This work had no influence on Hus. Jakoubek of Stříbro (d. 1429), one of Hus’s colleagues at the University of Prague, emphasized eschatology in his works as did Milíč and Matěj. Jakoubek’s ideas about the last things were similar to Hus’s but they were far more radical. A major shift occurred in Jakoubek’s thought after Hus’s death, when he began to draw from Waldensian teachings. He gradually became uncompromising in his opinions. Hence, he was not only one of the thinkers of the Bohemian Reformation, but also, as Nechutová notes, the first theorist of Hussite eschatological doctrine.126

120 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 17. 121 Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 206. Cf. also Kaminsky, A History of Hussite Revolution, p. 14. 122 This fact, however, does not negate Skalický’s observation about the heavily explosive nature of Janov’s theology, which arose out of thinking about the presence of Antichrist in the world (cf. Skalický, ‘Církev Kristova a církev Antikristova v teologii Matěje z Janova’). 123 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 17. 124 Nechutová, ‘M. Matěj z Janova’, p. 71. 125 Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 209. For more details on Vojtěch’s and Jan of Jenštejn’s conflicting understandings of purgatory, see Kadlec, Leben und Schriften, pp. 31–33, 50–51; see pp. 277–329 for an edition of Vojtěch’s Apologia. 126 Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 10.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

I would first like to examine Jakoubek’s works predating 1415 in which the subject of Antichrist plays an important role. They include Tractatus responsivus (1412), in which the author frequently mentions Antichrist’s presence in the world and sees greed, debauchery, and hypocrisy as its signs.127 Jakoubek became sure of Antichrist’s presence after the ‘crusade’ against Ladislaus of Naples, which convinced him that the pope was Antichrist. These opinions are clearly presented in the sermon Dilexerunt of the same year, in which Jakoubek deals with the mysterious symbolism of Revelation.128 He treats the subject of Antichrist most boldly in the university quodlibet Posicio de Antichristo ( January 1412). He declares Antichrist to be already in the midst of Christians and points the finger mainly at he who has the greatest power above the clergy and is rich and famous. He is clearly referring to Pope John XXIII.129 In the autumn of the same year, he preached about Antichrist several times, and this subject was significantly reflected in his Ad bellum (1413).130 Jakoubek draws his ideas about Antichrist mostly from Matěj of Janov’s Regulae.131 Jakoubek also dealt with purgatory. He focused on this matter in his annual mass for Emperor Charles IV of 1413,132 in Opusculum de purgatorio animarum,133 and the text Sermo de purgatorio (1415).134 Jakoubek became a more visible figure after Hus’s death in 1415, one particularly known for his eschatological ideas. In 1415 he wrote Sermo habitus in Bethlehem in memoriam novorum martyrum M. J. Hus et M. Hi‐ eronymi, in which he calls Hus a second Elijah.135 According to Jakoubek, Hus as a preacher fought against Antichrist136 on God’s command and such behaviour was exactly what the current situation demanded, that is, God’s martyrs, who would fight against deviation from the practices of the original Church.137 Jakoubek called for opposition to the secularized institutional Church.138 He also continued to comment on the havoc wreaked by Antichrist — for example, in Výklad na Zjevenie sv. Jana (A

127 De Vooght, Jacobellus, pp. 8–9. 128 Bartoš, Literární činnost M. Jakoubka ze Stříbra, no. 27, p. 30. 129 For more, see, e.g., Holeček, ‘Ministri dei’, particularly p. 238. Holeček even claims that Jakoubek came to the same conclusion as Hus, that ‘the pope is the great Antichrist’ (p. 238). 130 Soukup has conducted a detailed analysis of the motif of militia Christi in this work (Reformní kazatelství, pp. 272–79). 131 On the content and structure of Regulae, see Lahey, ‘Matěj of Janov’. 132 De Vooght, Jacobellus, pp. 212–14; the sermon Factum est ut moreretur. 133 De Vooght, Jacobellus, pp. 214–18. 134 De Vooght, Jacobellus, pp. 218–19. 135 Herold, ‘Philosophische Grundlagen’, p. 740. 136 Holeček, ‘Ministri dei’, p. 232. 137 Holeček, ‘Ministri dei’, p. 243. 138 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, cf., e.g., p. 83.

63

64

CHAPTER 1

Commentary on St John’s Revelation)139 — and called Christians to a spiritual battle against Antichrist. Although Tomáš of Štítný (b. between 1331 and 1335; d. between 1401 and 1409) was an influential author during Hus’s lifetime, he likely had no impact on Hus’s eschatology. I must at least mention him, however, because it is necessary to present all of the fundamental streams of thought that could have influenced Hus’s listeners. Although Tomáš did deal with eschatology among other things, he had a different view of it than Hus. He dealt with the individual aspect of eschatology140 in his Czech-language O smrti, o pohřbu (On Death, on the Funeral), which he considered to relay his main ideas about the last things. He took a similar approach in another of his works, Knížky o smrti mládence bujného (Booklets on the Death of a Wanton Youth), which belongs to the ars moriendi genre. His Czech translation of the famous medieval prophetical texts contained in Bridget of Sweden’s Visio contributed to the growth of eschatology in the Czech lands. It is not that the content of the translation was unrelated to the Bohemian reform movement’s emphasis on social and ecclesiastical themes, but once again, in comparison to the works of pre-Hus Czech reformers, elements of individual eschatology predominate in it.141 Another of Hus’s contemporaries, Matouš of Cracow (d. 1410), inter‐ preted the visions of Saint Bridget in the work Revelaciones beate Brigitte de Swecia de passione Cristi. He was previously considered to be the author of De arte moriendi, and hence one of the earliest representatives of the popular ars moriendi genre.142

The Eschatology of John Wycliffe Another important source that contributed to Hus’s eschatological think‐ ing was John Wycliffe (c. 1330/1331–December 1384), whose attempts at reform were known in the Czech lands, particularly in the university environment. Hus was introduced to Wycliffe by his teacher, Stanislav of Znojmo. Hus took a critical approach to Wycliffe’s ideas, adopting only those that were in keeping with official Church doctrine.143 He para‐

139 De Vooght, Jacobellus, pp. 264–76. Bartoš (Literární činnost, no. 99, p. 64) refers to it as Česká postila na Apokalypsu [A Czech postil on Apocalypse]. 140 The same claim is made in Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 20. 141 I have drawn information on Tomáš of Štítný from Nechutová, ‘Eschatologie in Böhmen’, p. 70. 142 Another contender for the author is Mikuláš Magni of Javor: Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 340 n. 543. 143 He did not, for example, adopt Wycliffe’s opinions on remanence. For more on the relationship between Hus and Wycliffe’s teachings, see, e.g., Kalivoda, ‘Hus a Viklef ’; cf. also Lahey, ‘Wyclif in Bohemia’, pp. 77−81.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

phrased and cited Wycliffe’s works; when he defended Wycliffe’s books at the university, he even mentioned the English reformer by name. Wycliffe’s understanding of the Church144 as a congregatio praedestinato‐ rum, of which Christ was the head,145 is often stated by Hus scholars to be one of the main influences on Hus’s view of the Church.146 Unlike Hus’s ‘predecessors’ and contemporaries, Hus cited Wycliffe directly.147 Accord‐ ing to Wycliffe’s concept, the true Church of Christ is indestructible, pure, and based on the grace of predestination and therefore could not be identified with the Church Visible.148 This notion of the Church draws from ideas going back to Augustine, whom Hus even directly references. Thus, the line between Augustine’s and Wycliffe’s influences is blurry. Unlike Wycliffe,149 Hus believed that the hierarchy of the Church Visible was justified even though its representatives were sinners. Every properly ordained priest has the ability to offer the sacraments, even if he has committed sin. God’s power can work even through an unworthy priest, who is just a conduit of His power.150 Hus’s ideas about the papacy are not as radical as Wycliffe’s because he did not wish to eliminate this institute.151 Wycliffe’s influence is also visible in Hus’s thoughts about Antichrist. Additionally, Hus uses the term the law of Christ (lex Christi), which he may have borrowed from Wycliffe. This term, however, also appears in the Regulae of Matěj of Janov.152

144 For the wider context of Wycliffe’s thinking about Antichrist, see Shogimen’s explanation of Wycliffe’s ecclesiology: Shogimen, ‘Wyclif ’s Ecclesiology and Political Thought’, and Levy, ‘Wyclif and the Christian Life’ (especially the chapter about the last things on pp. 359−63). 145 Töpfer, ‘Lex Christi’, p. 159. 146 Töpfer observes this influence in Hus’s 1410 sermon Ite vos in vineam meam. However, Holeček traces Wycliffe’s influence on Hus’s views on predestination back to the 1405 sermon Diliges (Holeček, ‘Istis ultimis temporibus’, p. 60). Even though Holeček references Ransdorf, Kapitoly z geneze, p. 92, this idea was first presented in Spinka, John Hus’ Concept, p. 253. 147 Cf. Nechutová. ‘M. Matěj z Janova’, p. 71. 148 Holeček notes here similarities with the idea of Vojtěch Raňkův of Ježov from the late 1380s that ‘in this schismatic division we must not assume that we are headless [acephalos], for our head is Christ, who pours into us, his limbs, the spirit of life and gifts the charismata of his mercy’ and that ‘Christ is our fundamental head and that no inferior, secondary head is needed’ (Holeček, ‘Istis ultimis temporibus’, p. 62. Holeček does not cite the source from which he has taken Vojtěch’s quotation). 149 For more on Wycliffe’s ideas about the Church, see Patschovsky, ‘“Antichrist” bei Wyclif ’, p. 739; also Herold, ‘Philosophische Grundlagen’, p. 739 calls attention to them. In De quattuor sectis novellis Wycliffe even expresses the desire to eradicate the papacy. 150 Töpfer, ‘Lex Christi’, p. 159. 151 Töpfer, in contrast, claims that Hus was convinced that the papacy was not necessary because it emerged only thanks to Constantine, and it was therefore not a part of the early Church (Töpfer, ‘Lex Christi’, p. 159). 152 For example, Matěj of Janov, Regulae, i. i., pp. 112, 161, 278; iv. iii, p. 237.

65

66

CHAPTER 1

Prophecies Prophetical writings may have influenced Hus’s eschatology. Jacobus de Teramo (b. 1349 Aversa; d. 1417 in Poland) was an Italian bishop who prophesized the second coming of Christ in 1409.153 Jacobus was an adherent of the Joachimite understanding that history is divided into three ages: the Age of the Father, the Age of the Son, and the Age of the Holy Spirit. Unlike the ideas contained in Joachimite texts from the second half of the fourteenth century, for Jacobus the rex novus was Christ and not a worldly mortal. We know of three of Jacobus’s writings in which this prophecy ap‐ pears. The first is De fine saeculi, which we know about only because it is mentioned in correspondence with Coluccio Salutati. We do have direct knowledge of another work, Consolatio peccatorum (or Lis Christi et Belial iudicialiter coram Salomone iudice a sede divina dato agitata super spolio et violencia per eundem Christum in inferno commissa or Processus Luciferi contra Jhesum coram iudice Salomone),154 which in 1382 Jacobus dedicated to Pope Urban VI. In it Jacobus borrows from Bartolo da Sassoferrato,155 presenting a court case in which Belial sues Christ, who had descended to hell in order to free the souls of the just; Jacobus, however, added new elements to this framework, including a history of the world and the Church interpreted from the perspective of Joachimite eschatological apocalypticism. Here, he tried to answer the question posed in Matthew 24. 3, that is, when will Christ come and what will be the sign of His coming and of the end of ages? Jacobus also drew from Luke 20. 20–22 and Daniel 12. 13–13 and calculated that the end would come in 1409, when human suffering would cease, and that this time was drawing nearer because the world was full of pseudo-Christs and pseudoprophets (accord‐ ing to 1 John 2. 18).156 He identified Avignon Antipope Clement VII and his prelates as Antichrists, informing believers that the end times had come and that persecution should be expected. In 1409 Giovanni Scrivani da Piacenza accused Jacobus of heresy for statements contained in the book Somnium Nabugodonosor sive Statua Danielis.157 It is from this accusation that we know about Jacobus’s third

153 Bishop Giacomo Palladini da Teramo served as a canon in Teramo. He achieved his highest ecclesiastical position in 1391, when he was appointed bishop in Monopoli. In 1401 he was transferred to Florence. He had an enduring interest in eschatological issues. (Holeček, ‘M. Jan Hus a proroctví’, pp. 111–12. See also Ott, ‘Jacobus de Teramo’). 154 Iacobus de Tharamo ab Ancharano, Processus Luciferi, ed. by Goldast. 155 The influence of this author has been observed in the Czech lands in the later ‘infernal novels’ (Solfernus, Beliál, Súd Astarótóv) — Galík, Panorama, p. 36. 156 Holeček, ‘M. Jan Hus a proroctví’, p. 113. 157 These charges were dropped in 1410. For more details, see Holeček, ‘M. Jan Hus a proroctví’, pp. 114–16.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

work, which might have had the biggest influence on Hus. Here Jacobus, applying the same method he used in Consolatio, establishes ‘the date of the Parousia [to be] 1409 or 1410’158 and mentions Charles IV in this context. Above all, he claims that the schism would come to an end in 1411, after the ‘Roman Empire, which was in the Kingdom of Bohemia for sixty-five years [since 1346], falls and the Kingdom of Christ rises’.159 The main problem in demonstrating Jacobus’s influence on Hus’s es‐ chatology is that the only evidence we have for it comes from the word of Hus’s accusers, who at Constance rebuked Hus for allegedly proclaiming the fulfilment of Jacobus’s prophecy that in 1409 a figure would rise who would attack the gospel, the epistles, and faith in Christ. Hus purportedly identified this figure with Pope Alexander V. According to Hus’s accusers, the Czech priest made this claim in a sermon given at Prague’s Bethlehem Chapel on 25 June 1410 on the occasion of a public reading of an appeal against Zbyněk’s proclamation prohibiting the preaching of Wycliffe’s false ideas and preaching in private spaces.160 Hus defended himself against the accusation by claiming that it did not reproduce his exact words. There‐ fore, we have no sure way to know whether he actually did in fact draw anything from Jacobus’s prophecy or not; he did not, however, explicitly deny it in his response to the accusations against him.161 Several other prophecies were popular in the Czech lands that might have influenced Hus. Prophecia abbatis Joachim de regno Boemie was writ‐ ten in the thirteenth century, during the reign of Přemysl Otakar II.162 Some prophecies related to three super flumina cities, Avignon, Rome, and Prague, appeared in the Czech lands in the second half of the fourteenth century.163 On the eve of the Hussite movement Vaticinium angelicum Cyrilli first appeared in Bohemia, brought there by Cola di Rienzo. There is a remarkable connection between this prophecy and Milíč’s letter to Pope Urban V. They seem to be so close that one can discern the words of Vaticinium Cyrilli in Milíč’s writing.164 In the fourteenth and fifteenth 158 Holeček, ‘M. Jan Hus a proroctví’, p. 114. 159 Holeček, ‘M. Jan Hus a proroctví’, p. 115. Holeček moreover notes Milíč’s allegedly analogical approach in Libellus de Antichristo, which is based on Daniel’s prophecy. Milíč identified Antichrist with Emperor Charles IV. It is also worth mentioning that Palladini considered various types of catastrophes as signs because after the liberation of Satan in 1304, ‘one-hundred years of war, plagues, famines, and persecution broke out’. 160 Holeček, ‘M. Jan Hus a proroctví’, p. 111. Sedlák had noted this earlier (Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 177 and the Latin text on p. 342* in the appendices). 161 The text of the accusations from 1413 and 1415 and Hus’s responses to them: Responsiones ad deposiciones testium, Responsiones breves ad articulos ultimos. Thus far, only Sedlák is convinced that Hus definitively drew from this prophecy (Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 177). 162 Nechutová, ‘Eschatologie in Böhmen’, p. 71. 163 Holeček, ‘Istis ultimis temporibus’, p. 75. 164 Holeček, ‘Istis ultimis temporibus’, p. 71. Cermanová has also dealt with the influence of various prophetical texts on Milíč’s thinking in the already-mentioned article ‘Eschatologie

67

68

CHAPTER 1

centuries, besides John of Rupescissa’s already-mentioned Vade mecum, we can also encounter the German Sibylline oracle.165

Other Eschatological Ideas in Contemporary Czech Literature In order to produce a comprehensive overview of the situation in the Czech lands, we must also examine eschatologies that appear in other Czech literature of the era, even ones that did not capture Hus’s attention but that were otherwise influential in their day. Jana Nechutová provides a basic overview of the three eschatological streams present in pre-Hussite literature.166 She differentiates between es‐ chatologies found in literature written by theologians and intended for the public, including the writings of Hus’s predecessors in the narrowest sense; in works that were earlier traditionally focused on individual eschatology; and in statements about the future made in visionary and prophetical literature, which is in terms of content most similar to the first-mentioned stream. In the Czech lands the main spiritual changes that would gradually lead to the formation of these streams occurred in the late thirteenth century, when ‘a new ascetic and mystical understanding of godliness took hold’,167 which ‘was brought to us on the one hand by new reformist orders, the Cistercians and Premonstratensians, and on the other by the Franciscans’. This more emotive approach to faith had great potential for reaching the ears of contemporary Christians accustomed only to excessively formal church practices, particularly in an era of social adversity and, perhaps, cri‐ sis. People sought out ‘anchorage and refuge in a true, deeper, emotional, mystical godliness that was also ascetic and charity focused’.168 This change was reflected in literature through the popularity of Marian themes, the growing popularity of eucharistic devotion, and the already-mentioned popularity of prophecies foreseeing the coming of Antichrist and the end of the world. Eschatological and millennialist expectations also appeared in theological works and sermons. In this period, sects, which had come to the Czech lands in the early thirteenth century from France, Italy, and Austria, also reached the zenith of their activity. The already-mentioned Waldensians were the most prominent such group. Sects had an impact

165 166 167 168

a apokalyptika’, pp. 515–31 and in many places in the monograph Čechy na konci věků (especially in the chapter focused on prophecies). Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 9. Nechutová, ‘Eschatologie in Böhmen’, pp. 71–72. Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 191. Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 192.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

on the countryside, too, where old pagan practices and magic also grew in popularity.169 Efforts to reach out to people also meant a growing number of homiletic works (by Franciscans, Dominicans, and secular priests). Ac‐ cording to Nechutová, two types of godliness important for literature emerged and developed: a monastic godliness that was part of the reform stream within the Church (particularly among the Cistercians and the Augustinians) and a godliness within a more lay reform stream, which in‐ cluded Hus’s ‘predecessors’ and which would later grow into the Bohemian Reformation: ‘Within orthodox reform streams the Cistercians […] and Augustinians […] were most active […]; in intellectual and academic circles […] [it was] the Dominicans, Franciscans, and again the Augustini‐ ans’.170 Many representatives of the reform stream typically wrote in a style that was intense and serious. For them, eschatology was an issue worthy of special consideration. Above all they introduced a new perspective on eschatology. In comparison with the monastic focus on the individual and moral self-perfection, reformers espoused greater extroversion and emphasized social issues. Therefore, many focused on ideas such as the imminent end of the world and the second coming of Christ, or the presence of Antichrist171 — that is, topics that can be subsumed under collective eschatology. Even here though one must avoid generalization because within this stream we can also encounter individual eschatology, for example, in the works of Thomas of Štítný,172 who was also motivated by ecclesiastical and social factors and attempts at reform. We find works from the monastic current of godliness dealing mainly with just heaven (and contemplating its beauty) in efforts to improve the individual and emphasize ascetical ideals. We encounter individual eschatology in Jan of Jenštejn’s writings about death in De bono mortis (Paralella de mortis presura or De morbo suo from 1391–1393). In 1380 Jan, the archbishop of Prague, suffered through a serious illness, and in the same year his friend, the metropolitan of Magdeburg, Ludwig, died suddenly. These two events most likely spurred him to such thoughts and to pursuing an ascetic and contemplative life.173 De bono mortis is Jan’s

Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 192. Nechutová, Latinská literatura, pp. 192–93. Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 200. Nechutová, ‘Eschatologie in Böhmen’, p. 69. She does not find personal eschatology in the works of ‘Hus’s predecessors’ although she does identify it in some of his contemporaries ( Jan of Jenštejn in particular). Another theme that is recorded in Latin literature from the Czech lands from the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is the personification of death – Planctus Marie Magdaleny (Planctus of Mary Magdalene), Chronicon Aulae Regiae, Chronica Domus Sarensis. (Nechutová, ‘Eschatologie in Böhmen’, p. 68). 173 Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 184.

169 170 171 172

69

70

CHAPTER 1

personal confession of his anxieties at a time when he was convinced he was dying. He tries to take a deeper examination of death and emphasizes the worthlessness of property and worldly fame, while drawing inspiration from biblical texts and ancient literature.174 In addition to Jan of Jenštejn, I must also mention the individualist concept of faith and eschatology contained in the Malogranatum, a mystical treatise about how to get closer to God most likely from the 1350s.175 In our consideration of the Czech lands in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries we must also take into account another matter, the matter of popularity, and in doing so foreshadow the importance of the social context of Hus’s eschatology. The world of intellectuals and educated people must be distinguished from that of the common people. In the pre-Hussite era individual eschatology, visions, and prophecies had a much greater influence on them than did theological treatises and homiletic literature. Prophecies placed the end of the world in a vague future and did not anticipate the imminent end. Although sermons did have a substantial influence on people, preachers in the pre-Hussite era did not preach about the end of the world with as much intensity as they later would preach to lay people. Initially, lay people did not typically hold eschatological sentiments, that is, not until Jakoubek of Stříbro was able to convince them about the impending end of the world.176 Although the works of Hus’s predecessors must have also had some influence, contemporary scholars are not sure if the spiritual texts we have available were fundamental for the laity of the era.177 Moreover, lay people were not particularly literate,178 nor were they fre‐ quently open-minded: ‘The Christian catechism was limited to the prayers “Our Father” and the “Apostles’ Creed”, and biblical facts and doctrinal admonishments contained in sermons often went in one ear of the tired, distracted, and noncomprehending listeners and out the other’179 and preachers inserted various other materials to catch the people’s attention. And because Hus also modified his works for different audiences, his presentation of eschatology often differs from work to work (especially in his sermons). Collective eschatology became a matter for the lowest and most popu‐ lous layers of society only in the late fourteenth century and in the first decade of the fifteenth — for example, in John of Rupescissa’s Vade mecum,

174 175 176 177 178 179

Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 186. Nechutová, Latinská literatura, pp. 196–97. Nechutová, ‘Eschatologie in Böhmen’, p. 62. Nechutová, ‘Eschatologie in Böhmen’, p. 62. Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 16. Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 15.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

according to which the common people will play the main role in end times, or in the revival of the Waldensians‘ preaching against Antichrist and their anticipation of the coming of Enoch and Elijah.180

The Possible Influence of Crisis Factors in the Fourteenth Century To a great extent, Hus’s eschatology reflects the contemporary ecclesiasti‐ cal and social situation and was influenced by Hus’s personal experiences and education. Jan of Husinec was most likely born in 1371 or 1372181 to a poor family in Husinec nearby the south Bohemian town of Prachatice. He received his basic education at the parish school in Prachatice,182 before moving to Prague, where he, already known as Jan Hus,183 likely attended a parochial school (beginning in 1386) and lived a normal student life, like most of his peers.184 His university studies guided and formed his life’s work and his ideas about the last things (as we will see in the following chapters). They im‐ parted him with contemporary philosophical and theological knowledge on the one hand, and also provided him with the opportunity to more closely observe the situation within the Church and society. He gradually came to the conclusion that the situation was grave, and this understand‐ ing was the driving force behind all of his efforts at reform and his escha‐ tology in particular. Although modern historians have labelled Hus’s era one of crisis marked by disease, crop failure, other natural catastrophes, economic problems, and schism, we are unsure if issues besides schism had any significance for Hus. In the 1980s Ferdinand Seibt introduced the concept of ‘the crisis of the late Middle Ages’.185 Peter Segl, inspired by Seibt, focused on the idea of crisis in Europe in the second half of the fourteenth century.186 He notes that the concept of crisis does not have just a negative connotation — al‐

180 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 27. 181 Kejř, Jan Hus známý, p. 22 or p. xii (a chronological overview of Hus’s life). Cf. Machovec, ‘Jan Hus’, p. 207, which gives only 1371. We can also find sources that give earlier dates: Novotný (M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 1) gives 1369, which was the established date until the early twentieth century. Sedlák (M. Jan Hus, p. 76) gives 1370. 182 Machovec, ‘Jan Hus’, p. 207. 183 A nickname he acquired as a student (Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 2, p. 11). 184 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 2, pp. 8–9. 185 Seibt, ‘Die Hussitische Revolution’, p. 38. 186 The crisis in Europe is generally dated to 1250–1500. Peter Segl describes the typical features of the situation around 1400 using the terms schism, crisis, heresy, and the Black Death (Segl, ‘Schisma’, p. 27).

71

72

CHAPTER 1

though in many areas of life the traditional order fell apart, in the resulting ‘disorientation and changes in the leading traditional political, economic, social, religious, and artistic ideas the world did not fall apart, but instead in spite of uncertainty and despair (or perhaps because of them) new direc‐ tions and new models for order emerged. Therefore, whenever discussing the crisis of the late Middle Ages, one must think about both depression and vitality’.187 Therefore, we should be interested not so much in the crisis itself but in the outstanding nature of the individual ideas and entire streams of thought that emerged in this era. The influence of disease, crop failures, and other natural catastrophes has certainly been a popular theme among historians, but one whose im‐ portance can be easily overestimated. Historians of the Czech lands have most frequently discussed plague and its possible effects on Czech society and on the Bohemian Reformation. During Hus’s life the plague struck in 1369–1371, 1380, 1390, 1394–1395, and 1413–1415.188 The plague was long considered to have had made a substantial contribution to the late medieval crisis.189 Indeed, whenever this disease broke out it resulted in ‘a sense of danger, fear, and pain’190 and intensified the religious beliefs of the people. This initial broad-stroke analysis of the plague’s influence, however, has proven to be unsustainable for two reasons: first, scholars have been unable to agree on the timing, localization, and intensity of these outbreaks.191 Second, (as Martin Nodl notes), epidemics, hunger, and natural catastrophes were present in the Czech lands from the very early Middle Ages.192 In the article ‘Mor z roku 1380 a příčiny husitské revoluce’ (The Plague of 1380 and the Causes of the Hussite Revolution) Jaroslav Mezník outlines three of the main views present in contemporary historical schol‐ arship — two of which are extreme and one moderate.193 In Čornej’s Dějiny zemí Koruny české (History of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown) Mezník finds the belief that the plague had a fundamental impact on the 187 Segl, ‘Schisma’, p. 34: ‘[…] in dieser Desorientierung und Veränderung der herkömmlichen politischen, wirtschaftlichen, gesellschaftlichen, religiösen und auch künstlerischen Leitvorstellungen die “Welt” nicht zerfällt, sondern trotz — oder gerade wegen — Unsicherheit und Verzweiflung neue Orientierungen und neue Ordnungsmodelle entwickelt. Jedes Reden über die große Krise des Spätmittelalters hat deshalb Depression und Vitalität gleichzeitig zu denken’; cf. Seibt’s idea that Segl is making reference to in Seibt, ‘Die Hussitische Revolution’, p. 38. 188 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 22. 189 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 22; Čornej, Dějiny zemí koruny české. 1, p. 133. 190 Mezník, ‘Mor z roku 1380’, p. 703. 191 Cf. Mezník, ‘Mor z roku 1380’, pp. 702–09. Čechura, ‘Mor, krize a husitská revoluce’, pp. 288−303. 192 Nodl in the afterword ‘Strach, ďábel a muka pekelná českého středověku’ to Delumeau, Strach na Západě ve 14. – 18. století, pp. 275–76. 193 Mezník, ‘Mor z roku 1380’, pp. 702–09.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

mentality and religiosity of people.194 According to Čornej’s original idea presented in this book, the plague of 1380 resulted in steep population decline and major shock as ‘the country was cast into a deep economic and demographic depression’195 and caused the all-penetrating crisis that emerged during Václav IV’s reign. Čornej would eventually take a more moderate stance; in his Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české196 (A Big History of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown) of 2000, although the plague is still at the centre of his attention, he claims that specific geographical areas and situations should be studied. He contextualizes the plague within the wider array of other problematic factors of the era197 and even admits that the plague’s impact is up for debate.198 Mezník tends to agree with the moderate viewpoints of František Šmahel199 and Eduard Maur,200 who attribute great importance to the plague but also recognize that its effects varied significantly from place to place. Thus, in Husitská revoluce II (The Hussite Revolution II) Šmahel clearly sees the plague as one of the major contributing factors to this period’s major crisis. In the eyes of contemporary people the plague was ‘a punishment from God, a test of faith, and an apocalyptic occurrence foreshadowing the impending end of the world’; more specifically, ‘the mass psychosis of existential uncertainty brought about by schism, politi‐ cal conflicts, small-scale wars, and the Black Death in particular externally supported Hussite stirrings’.201 The other extreme viewpoint that Mezník notes is Čechura’s idea that, because people of this era knew about the plague, individual outbreaks could not have had such a major impact on them and suddenly change their attitudes.202 Jaroslav Čechura also rejects the idea that an all-pervasive 194 Čornej, Dějiny zemí koruny české 1, pp. 133–34. 195 Čornej, Dějiny zemí koruny české 1, p. 120. 196 Čornej, Velké dějiny, e.g., p. 24. Despite the book’s focus on the period between 1402 and 1437, Čornej’s analysis is generally applicable to the turn of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 197 Čornej, Velké dějiny, e.g., p. 36. 198 Čornej, Velké dějiny, p. 40. 199 Šmahel, Dějiny Tábora I, 1, especially pp. 180–81, where he writes primarily about the situation in and around Tábor. 200 Maur, ‘Příspěvek historického demografa’, particularly p. 106; Maur, ‘Příspěvek k demografické problematice’, especially pp. 49–50. 201 Šmahel, Husitská revouce II, p. 22. Čornej has also written a study on the relationship between the crisis and Hussitism: ‘Husitství: katastrofa, nebo východisko z pozdně středověké krize?’. 202 Mezník rejects this view by stating that ‘there is something of a difference between knowing about a catastrophe that has occurred elsewhere and experiencing this catastrophe. […] One can also not forget that the amount of information we have today is incomparable to the information that simple medieval people had. Thus, there is some question of whether a plague affecting another country was something many people would have heard about’ (Mezník, ‘Mor z roku 1380’, p. 706).

73

74

CHAPTER 1

crisis, bigger than the crises faced in other European countries, broke out in the Czech lands due to the plague of 1380. He does, however, recognize the possibility of a crisis in some areas of economic and social life (whose causes were not the plague), although even here he is quite sceptical.203 Martin Nodl, who has found no reactions to the plague in literature or art made in the Czech lands, also agrees that the plague did not send shock waves through the country. In his opinion, fear of the devil, God’s wrath, punishment, damnation, hell, purgatory, sin, and death emerged in the Czech lands for other reasons. There was a growing sense that the devil was physically present in our world, and he could be defeated through unshaking faith in God and by constantly battling sin.204 The plague’s impact varied from place to place, and people also differed in how they reacted to it. Hus does not deal with such natural catastrophes in the works studied in this book. Milíč205 though does mention them as signs of the end of human history, signs of Antichrist. Matěj of Janov and John of Rupescissa also refer to them. The whole matter can also be viewed from a different point of view — there is the fact that there were several plague epidemics during Hus’s lifetime and the fact that Hus, in his commentary on punishments, the afterlife, and all the other threats to sinners, does not particularly engage in naturalistic descriptions of such horrors and refrains from sensationalism. František Šmahel has noted a similar approach to such threats in the writings of Hus’s peers, arguing that contemporary preachers felt that peo‐ ple were already frightened enough by the abundance of natural horrors (particularly the plague) that they could witness around them every day. He states, among other things, that Matěj of Janov still felt the need to point his finger at the sinister spectre of plague; later that would not even be necessary, for everyone would come into contact with it from time to time. Death did not select its victims; no one felt safe from it. […] For this reason, the day-to-day experience of the plague could not be directly used in reform propaganda. The plague cut down the good and the bad; it was not just a punishment for Antichrist’s accomplices. But fear of the plague helped contribute to creating an eschatological climate.206 The problem with Šmahel’s hypothesis is that Matěj of Janov in reality never provides naturalistic descriptions of horrors and does not mention the plague very often. In the works of Matěj of Janov and even in those of Milíč we do not encounter a significant tendency towards naturalistic

203 Mezník, ‘Mor z roku 1380’, p. 706. 204 Nodl in the afterword ‘Strach, ďábel a muka pekelná českého středověku’ to Delumeau, Strach na Západě, pp. 275–76. 205 Milíč of Kroměříž, Epistula ad papam Urbanum V. 206 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 22.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

descriptions; although their writings do mention the plague, these authors refer to it only rarely and see schism as a much more important sign of the age of Antichrist. The plague is not an important component of their works and, in this regard, there is no major difference between them and Hus. In Hus’s and Matěj’s writings we find another logical justification for the absence of naturalistic descriptions — the gravity of another crisis factor that trumped all others, the schism within the Church. Despite several unanswered questions, the plague had no documentable direct influence on the eschatology of Hus or the early Bohemian Reformation. Does the idea that increased mortality, due to plague, wars, and wide‐ spread capital punishment, sparked a social crisis hold any water?207 Unde‐ niably, death for the medieval person was not so much a matter of theory but a day-to-day reality. Wide-scale death has, unfortunately, been present in almost every era of history. Moreover, in the Middle Ages physical death did not mean the end, as it does for many people today,208 and thus the negative emotions of survivors may have been intermixed with hope. And thus hope in reaching the Kingdom of God and viewing death as a step towards God intermingled with fear of the Final Judgement and seeing death as a punishment from God.209 Most frequently medievalists describe crisis as an overall feeling of unease arising from multiple ongoing catastrophes.210 Thus, the plague itself could likely not elicit the feeling that the situation within society and the Church was critical, and scholars such as Holeček therefore consider other epidemics, famines, and political conflicts and the poverty that arose 207 See Holeček, ‘Eschatologická úzkost’, p. 2. Ohler (Sterben und Tod, p. 31) claims that in the Middle Ages people regularly encountered death around them and hence were more thick-skinned and accustomed to it. Ohler, however, does not refer here to especially critical moments in medieval history. 208 Ratzinger writes about earlier Christianity that it presented a reality on the basis of which one could live and die (Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 21). According to Šmahel, signs of conscious atheism have not been demonstrated in European medieval thought; heretics were considered to be enemies of society (Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 9). However, Peter Dinzelbacher in Unglaube im ‘Zeitalter des Glaubens’notes that the generally accepted idea that before the Enlightenment people were incapable of functioning without thinking of God (e.g., A. Gurjevič), although applicable to most people, cannot be considered to apply to everyone. There are some outliers in this regard; they either came to their unbelief through some kind of rational process or they were disinterested in God’s existence and transcendence. Medieval glossaries and encyclopaedia make no mention of atheism. Although atheism was not typical of the Middle Ages, it did exist in various forms and among various classes of people, not, however, as a movement, but in the minds of individuals. Sources give only fragmentary evidence because most atheists did not admit their belief out of fear for their lives (Dinzelbacher, Unglaube im ‘Zeitalter des Glaubens’). 209 Cf., e.g., Holeček, ‘Eschatologická úzkost’, p. 2. 210 e.g., Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 192; or Cermanová, ‘Čas nynější den pomsty’, pp. 234–35.

75

76

CHAPTER 1

from all of these things. Šmahel has identified multiple causes for the ‘crisis phenomena’ during the reign of Václav IV:211 The contentious concept of crisis lost its supposed unambiguity in lying at the crux of the reform and revolutionary process and thus became an auxiliary concept describing prevalent phenomena, the common denominator of the visible conflicts and maladies that not only intensified during Václav IV’s rule but also began to crossbreed. Their reflection in the contemporary social conscious long remained a hodgepodge of individual and collective viewpoints, which were unified only by the prevalence of murky views of the present and the future. Nonetheless, the inconstant feeling that ‘something has to happen’ became, bit by bit, a gravitational force that attracted to itself social evil in its various forms. It was the secularized, schismatic Church [where reform needed to take place] […] At first, these revivalist streams of varying scope came only from a narrow group of perceptive learned men and discontent clerics. But the more the Church lost the support of the king’s and the nobility’s power, the greater reception reform ideas had among the laity […].212 Šmahel thus highlights, besides the plague, the schism in the Church (by this term I do not mean just the Papal Schism,213 but the overall adverse situation within the Church as a whole) as another phase of or factor in the crises that gave rise to the early Bohemian Reformation. Zdeněk Kučera even sees it as the most burdensome factor in Hus’s day and considers the reformist struggle against the schism to be an extreme situation, for it was a struggle over the existence of the Church, of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, and even of Hus and his followers.214 Similarly, Malcolm Lambert claims that the schism is the basic background for understanding the Bohemian Reformation.215 The schism even had an impact outside of the Bohemian Reformation — for example, Jan 211 Mezník, ‘Mor z roku 1380’, p. 709. 212 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 7. 213 The Papal Schism occurred during the pontificate of Urban VI in Rome, when French cardinals elected an antipope, Clement VII, who resided in Avignon (for details, see, e.g., Bobková, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, IV.a., pp. 451–55). According to Segl, many contemporaries considered the schism of 1378 to be the most damaging of all schisms up until that point. For the present study, his findings about the situation in Europe, particularly in German-speaking lands, are interesting. Segl claims that at first the schism was an affair that affected politicians and had no impact on daily life. He found nothing in late-fourteenth and early-fifteenth-century sources to indicate widespread belief in the impending end of the world or that the schism made a major contribution to any such apocalypse. Such beliefs, however, would later become very strong and are well documented in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries (Segl, ‘Schisma’, pp. 28–30). 214 Kučera, ‘Ekklesiologický výklad posledního soudu’, pp. 150–51. 215 Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 291.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

of Jenštejn dealt with it in several writings, even from an eschatological perspective, and in this context posed questions related to predestination and predetermination.216 Hus was considered to be a ‘contemporary of as well as a witness to the great Western Schism’.217 As we shall see in an analysis of his works, he viewed the schism within the Church as a critical situation, and, similarly to Matěj of Janov, his thoughts on various topics, including eschatological ones, conformed to this belief. Besides the existence of a purely ecclesias‐ tical crisis, one could also consider the existence of a secular political crisis or an economic crisis, but even here there is no consensus among historians218 — there is no unanimous agreement about the state of the Czech economy compared to that of other countries219 and the degree of influence it had on sparking the Hussite revolution.220 If we look at Hus, he frequently commented upon poverty and politics, but never directly associated them with the ecclesiastical and social crises.

Hus’s University Education A large part of Hus’s life was connected with Charles University, where Hus was first a student at the Faculty of Arts and then at the Faculty of Theology, and later a teacher and administrator. In Hus’s day university education had certain rules and boundaries, which contributed to the forming of eschatology. Although Hus devoted himself to reading Bernard of Clairvaux and Hildegard’s prophecy, these were not required texts at the university. We can also not assume that Hus was already familiar with the basis of contemporary learning and the main sources of citations — Lombard’s Sentences and Gratian’s Decretum — before he was assigned these texts at the Faculty of Theology.221 From the beginning philosophy and theology were at the forefront of Hus’s interest. Over the course of his studies he became acquainted with the natural sciences and history, the latter of which interested him slightly more than the former, but never studied either in depth. He was also familiar with liturgical and papal statements. We cannot ignore Novotný’s claim that Hus received ideas that were ‘erroneous and fantastical’, such

216 Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, pp. 59–60. 217 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 25. John XXIII and Benedict XIII would only be deposed at the Council of Constance, where a new pope, Martin V, was elected. 218 Cf. the concept of the ‘crisis of the Late Middle Ages’: Seibt, ‘Zu einem neuen Begriff’. 219 Mezník, ‘Mor z roku 1380’, p. 708. 220 Mezník, ‘Mor z roku 1380’, p. 709. 221 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 19.

77

78

CHAPTER 1

as the existence of underground dragons, sorcery, and magic, although his reception of them was in some ways critical.222 What kind of philosophical and theological thinking emerged from Charles University in Hus’s era, how did it relate to contemporary escha‐ tology, and how was Hus’s preference for these two fields of studies and his perhaps above-average education223 in them reflected in Hus’s eschatologi‐ cal thinking? Like every student of the Faculty of Arts, Hus, too, had to read Church authors as the core of his education. He read many works in their entirety, but, in keeping with custom, he was also familiar with citations drawn from particular collections. He also, of course, knew the Bible and had a limited knowledge of ancient literature thanks to his university readings. There was a strict order to the study of philosophy that had been established in the 1360s in the faculty’s statutes.224 Although all of the disciplines of the trivium and the quadrivium were represented, the natural sciences and philosophy were prioritized. The most important source of philosophy was Aristotle’s writings,225 as well as commentaries on them from Porphyry, Boethius, and Peter of Spain. As part of the quadrivium, Aristotle’s writings on the natural sciences, ethics, and social philosophy were read most, far more than his metaphysics.226 At this time, a ‘second Augustinian school’ also existed in Prague.227 Hus’s exegesis of Aristotle’s writings from the Faculty of Arts has not been preserved.228 We only know that in 1393 he become a bachelor of liberal arts and in 1396 a master of liberal arts.229 We also know that he passed examinations on Aristotle’s books and that as a master he taught Aristotle to other students. It seems, however, that Hus did not stray from the standard philosophical interpretations,230 nor did he deviate from the traditional theological teachings, for example, in his commentary on

222 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 16. 223 Novotný considers Hus to have received an above-average education in philosophy and theology. (Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, pp. 12–15). 224 Herold and Mráz, ‘K dialektice’. 225 Scholastic Aristotelianism at Charles University was a given. It was taught here from the beginning as it had already been fully defended and incorporated into the university curriculum (Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 29). 226 Herold and Mráz, ‘K dialektice’, p. 727. 227 Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 29. 228 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 99. 229 e.g., Flajšhans, Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, p. 4; Pavlíček, ‘The Chronology of the Life and Work of Jan Hus’, p. 14. 230 See Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 63.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

Lombard’s Sentences231 (although in the Middle Ages the line between philosophy and theology was not clearly defined). Scholars have been unable to come to a consensus about how original philosophy developed in general at Charles University and about what the specific goal and nature of commentary on Aristotle’s writings were. Herold and Mráz believe that it was not ‘just a mechanical interpretation and a fruitless rehashing, but a creative development of questions that were thematized by the great Stagirite, although the answers were not necessarily, and in fact, were not always, respected’.232 Herold and Mráz have deemed philosophical scholarship at Charles University in this period to be overall of high quality.233 In their opinion, the philosophical thought of Hus’s teachers was at a very high level. Hus’s instructors included Jan of Mýto, Štěpán of Kolín, and Stanislav of Znojmo, the latter of which was the first to introduce Wycliffe’s works and the problem of universals234 to Charles University. Herold and Mráz speak about Stanislav as a thinker who, in his works, on more than one occasion surpassed the university curriculum in form and content and note his ‘accuracy in thought and [his] unquestionable philosophical independence’.235 Medieval philoso‐ phy, however, does not always entail typical academic topics, such as the problem of universals. Herold and Mráz consider ‘Hus’s predecessors’ to be critical to the development of Czech philosophical thought and see an inclination towards social issues in Czech philosophy at Charles University. Václav Flajšhans has expressed a different opinion on the matter; he believes that students of the Faculty of Arts learned Aristoteles by heart, often from various summaries; most importantly they learned the exact words the ancient philosopher was purported to have said. They did not engage in further analysis or extrapolation.236 This form of study was believed to ensure students gained not only basic knowledge about each subject, but also ‘training in thinking and speaking’.237 Zdeněk Uhlíř presents his own particular view on the originality of philosophical work at Charles University, beyond mere commentary on Aristoteles. He assumes that if expounding Aristotelianism was compul‐ sory, ‘the lecturer, the interpreter, the commentator, the glossarist did not have to express his own ideas at all, for all he had to do was superficially 231 For the content and structure of Hus’s commentary, see Lahey, ‘The Sentences Commentary of Jan Hus’. 232 Herold and Mráz, ‘K dialektice’, p. 727. 233 Herold and Mráz, ‘K dialektice’, p. 728. 234 For general information about the history of this problem and Wycliffe’s opinion, see Lahey, John Wyclif, pp. 93−101. 235 Herold and Mráz, ‘K dialektice’, p. 731. 236 Flajšhans, Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, p. 3. 237 Flajšhans, Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, p. 3.

79

80

CHAPTER 1

reproduce the teaching of the Stagirite to simply comply with his teaching duties’.238 Examining the originality and, to a certain extent, the purpose of philosophical thought at Charles University is important for considering the extent to which members of the university could and wanted to stray from the officially established framework in their eschatological thinking. Uhlíř also notes the differing understanding of happiness in Aristotelian ethics (happiness is ‘in this world and in this life’) and in moral theology (happiness is ‘beyond this world and this life’).239 He is surprised how these two differing understandings could exist side by side without any conflict and proposes possible reasons for this situation: it might have marked the beginning of ‘specialization, a sort of precursor to modern professionality’, or, in contrast, it could have been a mere ‘libation’, per‐ haps to the more secular segments of the student body that did not desire a university career.240 He also fittingly considers how this problem extends beyond the university, overlapping with questions dealing with, for example, how purgatory is related to inner-worldly happiness or ‘how the Aristotelian-Scholastic concept of time is related to the idea of “living saints” and “dead saints” and the ideologization of the transcendental world’.241 Thus, eschatological questions were significantly imbued with a philosophical quality in many regards. We do have, however, very good information about Wycliffe’s influence, particularly of his philosophical writings, on events at Charles University, and on Hus’s work. Hus first became acquainted with Wycliffe’s philosoph‐ ical writings while still a student at Charles University in the 1390s.242 He 238 Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 29. 239 Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 31. 240 It is necessary to add that the Faculty of Arts was just a stepping stone to studying theology, but studying theology was often not a realistic main goal (Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 29). 241 Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 31. 242 Van Dussen, From England, p. 69. Wycliffe’s ideas were known in Prague from about the 1380s before his books arrived there (Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 58). Van Dussen writes about Mikuláš Biceps’s having knowledge of Wycliffe’s eucharistic doctrine even before 1380 although Mikuláš did not have any of Wycliffe’s books (Van Dussen, From England, p. 68). Pavlíček deals with this question in detail in his examination of Biceps´s commentary on the Sentences and tends to agree with Zega’s dating of one of the manuscripts into 1380−1381 (Pavlíček, ‘Wyclif ’s Early Reception’, pp. 90−93). Researchers commonly hold that Wycliffe’s ideas about the Eucharist spread to the Czech lands in 1381, and other ideas and writings followed in 1382 (e.g., Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 74). Wycliffe first became problematic in 1403 before Hus had become the leader of the reform movement and before he had publicly advocated for Wycliffe. Twenty-four of Wycliffe’s writings were prohibited in England in 1382; in 1403 Johannes Hübner banned another twenty-one texts and declared this set of forty-five articles to be heretical. This condemnation was adopted by Charles University, although Czech masters stood up for Wycliffe’s writings (Sedlák, M. Jan, Hus, p. 94). Stanislav of Znojmo defended Wycliffe, stating the English reformer was not a heretic.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

even copied some of them. Wycliffe’s influence on Hus, however, remains a complicated question. For Hus, reading Wycliffe’s writings was important, but not paramount. It went hand in hand with Hus’s observation of the domestic situation, particularly within the Church. Reading Wycliffe also complemented the generally high interest in questions surrounding schism as well as Hus’s personal experiences, such as his accompaniment of Wenceslaus IV to a meeting with the French king to discuss a solu‐ tion to the Papal Schism (1398), where he witnessed the unacceptably worldly behaviour of Rhineland bishops. It also corresponded with the long tradition of preaching in the Czech lands that had come to focus on the problems of the contemporary Church. Searching out direct and singular influences on Hus’s eschatology, however, is not possible. All of these factors likely influenced Hus’s eschatological ideas in some way, more or less concurrently. And all of them were in keeping with Hus’s main objective — preaching and proclaiming the truth to the people. As far as adopting Wycliffe’s ideas is concerned, although we can find entire statements by Wycliffe in Hus’s work, Wycliffe nonetheless merely inspired Hus, complementing other influences and ideas. He was not a universal or an a priori flawless source of thought. In Hus’s era it was not exceptional for Christian thinkers to engage in philosophizing. Besides Wycliffe,243 we could also mention Nicholas of Dresden, who in turn drew from Hus. In the late Middle Ages philosoph‐ ical ideas were dealt with at theological faculties, for example, through studying and commenting upon Lombard’s Sentences.244 Jerome of Prague, in contrast, wanted to deal with such issues at the Faculty of Arts, for this institution was supposed to provide students with the basic knowledge necessary for considering this matter. Herold spots in this viewpoint the liberation of philosophy from theology. In the late Middle Ages faculties of arts shifted their focus on certain philosophical subjects: for example, in the pre-Hussite era texts about the natural sciences and economics were emphasized over those on metaphysics. Less time was spent reading Aristotle’s Metaphysics than his Nicomachean Ethics or his works of natural philosophy.245 The period when Hus finished his studies and began his teaching career saw the ‘academic level of learning in Prague culminating, in the spirit of via moderna emphasizing in particular the philosophical

Stanislav was also an adherent of the doctrine of remanence and defended it as a Catholic belief. In the end though, Stanislav declared his defense of Wycliffe to be a mere exercise. For more on Wycliffe’s ideas at Charles University, see Marin, ‘Libri hereticorum sunt legendi’, pp. 33–58. 243 For more on his philosophy, see Herold, ‘Kultura, vzdělanost a filozofie’, p. 124. 244 Herold, ‘Kultura, vzdělanost a filozofie’, p. 125. 245 Herold, ‘Kultura, vzdělanost a filozofie’, p. 125.

81

82

CHAPTER 1

aspects of learning’. To put it somewhat simply, this meant a shift in methods, from interpretive commentary to modo questionis and interest in new streams of thought emanating from the learned world of Western universities. This is true of Wycliffe’s writings, for example.246 The relation‐ ship between philosophy and theology, the understanding of philosophy itself, and the importance of various philosophical disciplines changed in the second half of the fifteenth century. Was Hus even a philosopher? First and foremost, Hus was a preacher.247 Nonetheless, we still find him in the modern Slovník českých filozofů (Dictionary of Czech Philosophers) due to the broad scope of medieval philosophy, its connections to other subjects, and also, perhaps, because Hus translated Wycliffe’s Trialogus and in doing so contributed to spreading Czech philosophical terminology.248 Václav Novotný writes that philosophy captivated Hus.249 It would perhaps be most accurate to say that Hus, like many of his predecessors, contemporaries, and followers, was not a philosopher in the true sense of the word, that is, he did not engage in thinking that was consistently systematic and logical. Although like others he was strongly influenced by some philosophical ideas,250 he normally did not address issues of systematic philosophy, for philosophy was not his main interest, and even though he is sometimes classified as a moral philosopher, it is up for debate whether such categorization is not forced. Hus was a preacher in spirit and in action (including in his sermons and writings), and this role outweighed any other roles and interests he might have had. It had a major impact on his eschatology in terms of substance and delivery. Let us leave detailed discussions about where the boundaries of moral philosophy lie to the authors of philosophical dictionaries. For our purposes, something else is important — the way in which Hus thought, which usually touched upon many subjects. If we speak then about the philosophical aspects of Hus’s works studied in this book and his eschatology (and here philosophy does not play a major role as it is a formally theological issue), then I am convinced that Hus is far from being a philosopher. His works are simple due to his tendency to present everything from the preacher’s point of view. This simplicity is not related to thoroughness or consistency.

246 247 248 249 250

Malý, ‘Mistr Jan Hus a Univerzita Karlova’, p. 397. Jeschke, ‘K theologickým předpokladům’, p. 21. Herold, ‘Kultura, vzdělanost a filozofie’, p. 131. Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 58. The papal bull of 1377 criticized Wycliffe for using ‘slightly changed wording [to develop] the teachings of Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun. […] Hus, in his masterpiece De ecclesia, inspired by Wycliffe’s work of the same name, also borrows entire passages from Defensor pacis’. (Herold, ‘Kultura, vzdělanost a filozofie’, p. 129). It should be noted that such borrowings (often made without much thought or originality) were common among Church authors.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

After completing his studies at the Faculty of Arts, Hus began to study at the Faculty of Theology, most likely in autumn 1398.251 A student undertaking a bachelor’s of theology had to attend five years of lectures on Scripture and Lombard’s Sentences — the two main works for medieval theology. Then he had to attend a cursus, that is, a lecture on parts of the Bible determined by the Faculty of Theology, which he read cursorily, not thoroughly. It lasted two years and reading was conducted under the supervision of a master. When Hus completed his Bible readings, he was awarded the degree of baccalarius cursor or biblicus. Upon completing the first two books of the Sentences, he became a baccalarius sentenciarius, and later a baccalarius formatus for studying the third and fourth books of the Sentences.252 In his readings of the Bible he took into account the four senses of Scripture — the literal sense and the three spiritual senses of the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses.253 French theologian Nicholas of Lyra’s biblical exegesis of the mid-fourteenth century was based on all four senses; at Prague university they ‘almost literally’ adhered to his inter‐ pretation of Scripture.254 Hus continued to study the Bible until 1405.255 Working with the Bible was not just a pedagogical exercise, but it also had a meditative function. Exegeses differed from bachelor to bachelor because each student had to perform his own independent interpretation without reproducing materials from textbooks or manuals.256 In addition to cursory interpretations, students at Charles University’s Faculty of The‐ ology also worked on biblical texts ‘that broke free and took on a life of their own as prayers or as the explicit formulation of a moral code as well as of attempts at harmonizing the Gospels in reference to matters of salvation’.257 Hus’s explications produced at the Faculty of Arts did not place him among ‘the eccentrics rushing thoughtlessly to beat their heads against the wall’.258 Nevertheless, even in Hus’s earliest theological explications we can notice an important peculiarity, his strong emphasis on morality, including is his obligatory explication of the seven canonical epistles (Super canoni‐

251 Coufal gives this new dating in the introductory study to Enarratio Psalmorum, an edition of Hus’s writings (Enarratio Psalmorum [Ps 109–18], p. xxii). Traditionally, Hus was believed to have begun his studies in 1400. 252 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 121. 253 Flajšhans, Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, pp. 4–5. 254 Flajšhans, Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, p. 5. 255 According to Coufal (in the introduction to Enarratio Psalmorum, p. xiv), Hus was granted the title cursor biblicus no later than in autumn 1404. 256 Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 33. 257 Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 34. 258 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 63.

83

84

CHAPTER 1

cas, 1404–1405),259 in which ideas about the disobedience of prelates first appears in his writings. Here, we also encounter thoughts about ‘tempus novissimum’, where the evils of the world, particularly schism, are signs of the final hour, and therefore Hus must criticize sins. Here we also read about Antichrist. Eschatological statements, too, are closely related to Hus’s ideas about morality. Another of Hus’s obligatory works, his exe‐ gesis of Psalms 109–18, Enarratio Psalmorum (c. 1405),260 also bears the hallmarks of moral criticism; in this work he more frequently encourages and exhorts his readers to preach. Hus mentions the pupils of Antichrist in connection with avaricious priests; he complains about good people being persecuted and speaks about martyrdom. This exegesis also tells us that we can find even in works created during Hus’s time at university not only his central moralism, but also eschatological elements that were associated with it. Like every baccalarius cursor who wanted to receive the degree of baccalarius formatus and become a candidate for a doctorate or a master of theology, Hus was required to read Lombard’s explication of systematic theology.261 Those who held a baccalarius cursor first studied the Sentences for two years by themselves before teaching it to other students for another two years. Hus accomplished the former in 1405–1406262 and in 1407 he began to publicly read Lombard’s Sentences.263 The most important subjects of theological study and sources of theological thought in the Middle Ages were the Bible and Lombard’s Sentences.264 To better remember the ideas contained in the latter work, various summaries and rhyme mnemonics were created. The tradition of reading the Sentences at Charles University’s Faculty of Theology was ‘a manifestation of the endurance of medieval Christian tradition, for they maintained a connection with theological thought before the great Scholastic summae of the thirteenth century […]. Whereas the summae presented systematized thoughts, books of sententiae […] attempted the

259 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 122. I have adopted this traditional dating from Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 3, p. 67. 260 Bartoš and Spunar suggest a dating of 1405–1407 (Soupis pramenů, no. 4, p. 68). Libor Švanda writes in detail about the dating, writing, and contents of Hus’s Enarratio Psalmorum in ‘Enarratio Psalmorum: k Husově metodě’; I have adopted this more conservative dating given on p. 37. Hus’s commentary on Psalms 109–18 is contained in the edition Iohannes Hus, Enarratio Psalmorum (Ps 109–18), ed. by Nechutová and others. 261 Flajšhans, Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, p. 3. 262 Here Bartoš disagrees with Flajšhans, who dates Hus’s private study of the Sentences to 1405–1407 and his public lectures at Charles University to 1408–1409 (Flajšhans, Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, p. 5). Sedlák dates Hus’s public lectures to 1407–1409 (M. Jan Hus, pp. 147–48). 263 This process was known as lectura — Bartoš, ‘Příspěvky’, p. 45. 264 Flajšhans, Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, p. 4.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

systematization of the traditions of the Scholastic and proto-Scholastic eras’.265 As new commentaries were constantly being written, traditional top‐ ics were constantly being updated.266 Lombard’s Sentences were usually applied to the present, and thus in different periods the popularity of certain themes addressed in commentaries fluctuated. As a result, entire subjects, even entire books, were sometimes left out entirely.267 Such sepa‐ rate commentaries (e.g., ones that commented upon just one book) mostly focused on the fourth book of the Sentences — on the sacraments and resurrection, that is, on personal eschatology. The same quotes were often used to support different claims and objectives. In the early Bohemian Reformation, the fourth book was favoured, and (according to preserved manuscripts) there was a tendency towards connecting ‘personal eschatol‐ ogy with a model of the juridical Church as an institute of salvation, that is, towards a sacramental and devotional conception of blessedness’ that contradicts the Aristotelian understanding of happiness.268 Hus’s explication has been preserved in the notes of his students.269 It was successful and was disseminated. Four other doctoral candidates also participated in Hus’s lectura in 1407–1408 — two secular bachelors, Štěpán of Páleč and Mikuláš Stoer, and two monks, the Dominican Jan of Hora and Petr Mangold270 — and three others in 1408–1409, Jan of Hora, the Cistercian Matouš of Zbraslav and the secular bachelor Jan of Frankenstein in Silesia.271 Not only does Hus’s commentary to Lombard’s Sentences lay out his current eschatological ideas, but it is also an irreplaceable document of the extent to which Hus was influenced by the contemporary boundaries of eschatological and theological thought. He was highly studious in his approach to explicating the Sentences. A bachelor of theology could make things easier by recycling the commentary of respected scholarly authori‐ ties. Hus, however, did not do so. It was assumed that the commentator would take the opportunity to criticize Church authorities or opponents of his ideas. Hus did not avail himself much of this chance.272

Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 37. Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 37. Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, pp. 37–38. Uhlíř, Mistři a studenti, p. 38. Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, p. 5. This commentary was first published in 1904–1906 as Super quatuor Sententiarum by Flajšhans and Komínková-Bydžovská. 270 According to Bartoš, Mangold was also likely a Dominican. He is probably the same person as Petr of Uničov (‘Příspěvky’, p. 45). 271 Bartoš, ‘Příspěvky’, p. 45. 272 An overview of the authorities Hus praises and criticizes in his exposition of the Sentences is found in Bartoš, ‘Příspěvky’, pp. 46–50. There is great disagreement among scholars about the nature of Hus’s commentary. Bartoš believes that Hus, in his commentary from

265 266 267 268 269

85

86

CHAPTER 1

In his lecturing, Hus did not make any exceptional contributions to theology.273 It is not clear whether Hus drew directly from primary sources or whether he copied his ideas from another work; no probable source had been determined.274 Nonetheless, his explication is considered to present a clear overview of his personal beliefs in matters of medieval theology.275 He was critical of Lombard’s ideas,276 for to Hus Lombard was a teacher of ‘Scholastic forms of thought’.277 But once again Hus’s interest in moral reform dominated over theological ideas,278 and he often selected statements based on this priority. In his commentary on the fourth book, Hus provides a lively response to contemporary events. Novotný refers to it as ‘a spirited sense of the problems of the era’.279 For example, he speaks about funeral rituals in order to criticize the Church’s ritual formalism.280 Another typical trait of Hus is his unwillingness to diverge from the official

273 274 275 276

277

278 279 280

1408–1409, does not fully express his own thoughts (‘Příspěvky’, p. 55). At that time, many serious changes were under way, including the trial of Stanislav of Znojmo, and according to Bartoš, Hus, despite his inner convictions, held back his own true beliefs about purgatory when he expressed the orthodox idea that purgatory exists, even though he was already familiar with the Pseudo-Chrysostom reasons that Nicholas of Dresden had used in 1405 to deny the existence of purgatory. Here he disagrees with Flajšhans’s statement that Hus ‘does not skip over anything in silence and despises nothing’ (Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, p. 6). Moreover Flajšhans claims that the only goal of studying the Sentences was to learn them by heart. Students were not expected to intervene in the text (Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III, 3, p. 5). Sedlák, on the other hand, thinks that Hus’s commentary bears traces of his struggles: he proclaims his support for Wycliffe, borrows entire passages from Impugnantibus, thus addressing the dispute about the nature of the Eucharist, and touches upon the issues of punishing monks, excommunication, and binding and loosing. According to Sedlák, these were contemporary issues (M. Jan Hus, pp. 148–49). Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 147. Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 148. Bartoš, ‘Příspěvky’, p. 45. Jeschke, ‘Husova věroučná závislost’, p. 308. To a certain extent, Hus drew from Wycliffe in the first two books, but only where it was appropriate, and he did so very cautiously. He also might have drawn from Stanislav of Znojmo’s exposition (Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 201). Hus went against some of Lombard’s ideas — e.g., on the issue of whether sinful priests were sanctified, and on the excommunicated and heretics (Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 358). Hus’s theology was supposedly ‘a theology of selection’ ( Jeschke, ‘K theologickým předpokladům’, p. 23). Although Hus drew from various Church authorities, he took a critical approach to selecting their ideas and did not adopt anything without consideration. He was also capable of criticizing these authorities over certain matters. Jeschke examines specific examples of how Hus did this in the study ‘Husova věroučná závislost’, pp. 298–311. Jeschke, ‘Husova věroučná závislost’, p. 308. Of course, the Sentences was not the only source to influence the way Hus thought. It can be assumed that Hus had access to other literature that contained patristic ideas, for example. See Hlaváček, Středověké soupisy knih. On Hus’s book collection, see Hlaváček, ‘Husovy knihy’. Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 201 and Jeschke, ‘K teologickým předpokladům’, p. 24. Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 352. Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 359.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

views of Church dogmatists and his explicit rejection of going into detail about things. According to Hus, ‘it needed to be left up to God’.281 A more complete section focused on the last things begins in Hus’s com‐ mentary on distinction 43 of the fourth book, in which he shifts from the topic of healing the wounded man, who is imperfect and sacramentally initiated (inperfecta et sacramentaliter iniciata, i.e., ‘per sacramentorum de‐ votam percepcionem’)282 to perfect healing, accomplished through the su‐ pernatural (i.e., ‘per corporum resumpcionem et iudicialem discussionem’; Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 43. 1, p. 705). In his commentary on distinction 43, Hus addresses the different aspects of the resurrection of the dead; in other commentaries he speaks about the state of the resurrected (dist. 44); the state of the soul after being separated from the body (dist. 45), including discussion about where it resided (and thus hell); the state of the damned (dist. 46; particularly the idea of eternal punishment); the final trial of the resurrected (i.e., the Last Judgement, fire; dist. 47); Christ the Judge (and also the signs of the judgement; dist. 48); the two cities after the judgement (dist. 49); and the damnation of the godless (dist. 50). This part of Hus’s commentary is viewed as a coherent doctrine about the last things, and here Hus does not stray from the themes presented in Lombard’s distinctions, although some details may differ (e.g., on the theme of purgatory). In Hus’s commentary we can also find statements that are not part of this section (and which are not presented as a full doctrine), but which today we would consider to be statements about the last things. They are related to various aspects of predestination and predetermination — Hus speaks about many subjects: a church of the predestined and a church of the reprobates (in the preface to the first book, where he reacts to Lom‐ bard’s term ‘odibilis ecclesia’ from the prologue to the Sentences,283 although Lombard, unlike Hus, does not say anything else about the churches of the predestined and of the reprobates in the prologue), the foreknowledge of God (book i. dist. 38–41), preordainment (book ii. dist. 41), God’s will to redeem mankind (book i. dist. 46), meriting eternal life (book ii. dist. 27), and mortal sins (book ii. dist. 35 and 42; book iv. dist. 21). All of these topics can be found in Lombard’s distinctions, which, with a few rare exceptions, share the same numbering as Hus’s. By comparing Lombard’s work and Hus’s explication of it, the contem‐ porary definition of the last things appears before us. Hus’s most system‐ atic analysis of eschatological matters also comes into view. Hus meticu‐ lously sticks to the topics and order of Lombard’s distinctions. Here, he 281 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 335. 282 Super IV Sententiarum, iv. dist. 43. 1, p. 705. 283 Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, ed. by Brady, prologus, p. 4.

87

88

CHAPTER 1

also adheres to all of Lombard’s statements and ideas, as I will show in my examination of Hus’s works and specific themes in them, where I will compare how he deals with certain subjects in these works with how he deals with them in his systematic commentary to the Sentences, and how this commentary differs from Lombard’s Sentences. Now I can mention something about how Hus selected eschatological issues and other theological questions to address and give some examples of one typical element of Hus’s method for explicating eschatological questions. In Hus’s commentary to the Sentences, I have noticed one very important phenomenon that is also present in his eschatological views shared in other works — Hus’s unwillingness to discuss some of the details of eschatological subjects. In his commentary, this mainly pertains to purgatory. According to Novotný, Hus’s tendency to shy away from details is not the result of his efforts to be concise. Instead, it indicates his scepticism and suspicion about ‘the scope of theological knowledge’, or at least his tendency to eliminate nonessential questions. Novotný notes that Hus tends to behave this way whenever he lacks sure footing in Scripture. For Hus, the only certainty is living a proper Christian life in keeping with what Scripture says.284 Hus’s interest in moral reform still constantly guides his interpretation: ‘Practical morality dominates over speculative functions’.285 Despite Novotný’s evaluation, although Hus’s brevity of ex‐ plication can indeed be explained by this reason, I think that in many cases Hus simply did not focus on things he did not consider important for his objectives,286 particularly for his moral aims. In fact, in contrast Hus often knows things that he should not know, that is, if he was following his own criteria (the ones emphasized by Novotný), for example, the number of days one spends in purgatory as described in Dixit Martha (e.g., Positiones, p. 174). Here, I shall give several examples of Hus’s statements that are not taken from Lombard’s Sentences: • When Hus speaks about the inability to understand God’s mystery (although he rarely mentions this topic in this work), for example: Quis enim nostrum explicare possit baptismi efficaciam, que mens comprehendere, que hanc graciam lingua narrare valeat, ubi in inno‐ cenciam redit iniquitas et in novitatem vetustas […] (Super IV Senten‐ tiarum, iv. Inceptio. 4, p. 504)

284 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 199. 285 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 202. 286 Cf. Hus’s statement made after a detailed commentary on the merits of the dead and the prayers of the living for the dead: ‘Ista videbantur michi audientibus utilia, ideo prolongavi’. (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 6, p. 719).

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

• When Hus defends Wycliffe from accusations of heresy and, in doing so, mentions purgatory and recognizes its existence, but also says that we cannot know if Wycliffe is predetermined, if he is in hell or in purgatory: Essent aliqua dicenda de sera penitencia, quam pulcre tractat Augusti‐ nus in sermone De penitencia, qui incipit ‘Penitentes’, ut adducit Magister in litera, eciam de igne purgatorio, de quo ego modicum loqui scio; melius ergo videtur michi, quod discam bene vivere, quam incerta de igne huiusmodi seminare. Si enim bene vivens sufficienter penituero, ignem supplicii non timebo […] (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 20. 3, p. 621) He makes a similar statement about the same topic in the following distinction.287 • When Hus does not mention the location of hell: Sed adhuc ista omnia michi locum inferni certum non indicant […] Certus ergo sum de hoc, quod infernus est et quod ignis eternus est, sed non sum certus, ubi est et si illum effugiam; pro illo debeo instare bonis operibus, ut illum experiencialiter non senciam cum dolore. (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 3, p. 714) • And in a way this statement that everything we need to know we can find in Scripture: […] quidquid queritur ad salutem, totum iam adinpletum est in scrip‐ turis: qui ignarus est, invenit ibi, quod discat; qui contumax est et peccator, invenit ibi futuri iudicii flagella, que timeat; qui laborat, inve‐ niet ibi epulas promissionis vite perpetue, quas manducando amplius exercetur ad opus; qui pusillanimis est et infirmus, inveniet ibi medioc‐ res iusticie cibas, qui etsi pinguiorem animam non faciunt, tamen mori non permittunt; qui magnanimus est et fidelis, invenit ibi spirituales escas continenciores vite, que perducunt eum ad angelorum naturam; qui percussus est a dyabolo et vulneratus est in peccatis, inveniet ibi medicinales cibos, qui eum per penitenciam reparent ad salutem. (Super IV Sententiarum, i. Inceptio. 1. 8, p. 7) Hus often concludes his commentaries by stating that we will have com‐ plete certainty ‘after death or on Judgement Day’.288 In Super Quattuor sententiarum we can find such statements in the following places: in book i. dist. 13. 5 (p. 95), when Hus speaks about the conception of the Son and whence the Holy Spirit proceeds; in book ii. dist. 33. 6 (p. 332), where he speaks about damned children; similarly in book iv. dist. 44. 5 287 There two places are noted in Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 359, notes 2 and 3. 288 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 200, note 2.

89

90

CHAPTER 1

(p. 711), where he speaks about the details of the last things; in book iv. dist. 48. 5 (p. 730), where he speaks about the exact appearance of the Final Judgement; and once again in book iv. dist. 50. 6 (p. 739), where he speaks about the damned and the exact nature of the fire that shall punish them. These are purely Hus’s comments; in Lombard’s work we only occasionally find rather brief statements that Lombard does not have the answers because he did not find them in Scripture: ‘[…]fateor me ignorare, quia in Scripturis non memini me legisse’. (Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae, iv. 48. 5. 7, p. 547). I have found no other concordance in the other examples I have mentioned. Hus’s theological ideas and his theological foundation were in keeping with medieval theology. Hus’s theology was closest to Augustinism, partic‐ ularly in terms of the doctrine of the Church.289 According to Machovec, who mentions Hus’s criticism of the Church and his ideas about An‐ tichrist, nothing about Hus’s criticism was new in the Middle Ages; the only new thing was just how acute the situation had become. In terms of theoretical foundations, the only differences between Hus and medieval theology in general were differences in what was emphasized, not overall differences in doctrine. Hus’s doctrine featured two emphases that were, at the time, foreign to most theologians: the omnipresent, nearly mystical Platonic-Augustinian cult of the ‘truth’ as something transcendental and divine, and his constant personal search for the truth.290 I should mention that these two emphases are also fundamental to Hus’s eschatology. The curriculum was not the only thing that influenced Hus during his time studying and teaching at Charles University. Hus’s teachers and other people from the university may have had a personal influence on him, as we have observed with his encounters with Wycliffe’s teachings. But none of these figures directly influenced Hus with their eschatologies. Instead, they reaffirmed Hus’s focus on morality and reform, which would be the foundation of Hus’s eschatology. Here, I should at least mention Štěpán of Kolín, who criticized the situation within the Church and was a proponent of Wycliffism, in addition to Jan of Mýto and Stanislav of Znojmo. Stanislav, unlike Hus’s other two mentioned teachers, did deal in part with eschatology; however, we cannot say that Hus adopted any of his ideas. Stanislav only delved deeper into this subject in his criticism of Hussite apocalyptical eschatology in the text De Antichristo (contra M. Jacobellum de Missa).291

289 Machovec, ‘Jan Hus’, p. 208. 290 Machovec, ‘Jan Hus’, p. 208. 291 Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 222.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

Milestones in Hus’s Life, Hus’s Personality, Works, and Career I have named several factors that had or most likely could have had an influence on the formation and content of Hus’s eschatology. These factors though are more or less external ones. Now, we must examine an internal factor, that is, Hus’s personality — what was Hus like, what was his outlook on life,292 what was his life like, and how did these factors influence his way of thinking? We shall start with Hus’s public life. What role did Hus play? He primarily considered himself to be a preacher. But he did not see this job as one of many; he viewed preaching as his lifelong, most central mission, an indisputable priority laid out in Scripture. A preacher helps show people the way to salvation and turns them away from the road to damnation. A preacher is an intermediator between God and people. In the tense environment of the early Bohemian Reformation the role of preacher grew in importance because, suddenly, the fate of Czech society as a whole and the entire Czech Christian Church was at stake, not just the fate of select groups of believers or a closed group of parishioners. In this regard, we should recall Milíč, who dedicated his life to preaching, although in a different way than Hus but essentially for the same reasons. And we should also recall how Milíč’s preaching was strongly influenced by his personality and the effect it had on his works. For the sake of comparison, we could also recall Matěj of Janov, who, unlike Hus, was a great theorist, which was manifest in his public appearances, in his thoughts, and in the nature of his works and eschatology. Hus’s personality made him well suited for a career as a preacher; it subsequently had an impact on his other roles in society and his writ‐ ings. He was not a systematic theologian, the kind that remains on the side-lines. He was a very eager, perhaps even impatient, man who followed what was going on in the Church, society, and politics and who attempted to react to these events as soon and as robustly as possible,293 whether in his sermons or in another form, such as in polemical or systematic tracts, which always bore traces of his preaching. Václav Novotný aptly described Hus’s characteristics as ‘eloquence and fervour for things’.294 Hus was a preacher through and through, in his overall lifestyle, in his thought, in his public speaking, and in the way he wrote. Similar to Milíč,

292 For various interpretations of Hus’s disposition (whether he was an optimist or pessimist) and of his possible roles (heretic, saint, prophet, martyr, national hero, the first promotor of Marxism-Leninism), see de Vooght, L´hérésie, i, pp. v−xvii. 293 Cf. Šmahel’s evaluation of Hus as a tribune of the word and a man of action (Husitská revoluce II, p. 62). 294 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 101.

91

92

CHAPTER 1

he experienced things quite personally, although in Hus, unlike in Milíč, we do not find any kind of mystical whispering of the Spirit, but rather a personal conviction about the correctness of Hus’s own actions stemming from reading the Gospel. Recently, Zdeněk Uhlíř, and Jiří Kejř have also studied Hus’s profes‐ sional life and, to a lesser extent, his personal characteristics. In Hus’s preaching, Uhlíř295 sees a connection between ‘intellectual simplicity and reform rigour’. He continues, ‘Jan Hus was not a theologian in the true meaning of the word; he was more an ideologue who, as a preacher, became a propagandist and agitator’. This scholar, based on various indica‐ tors, deems Jan Hus to have had ‘the preaching style of an agitator’, a claim for which there is no credible evidence in the extant texts. Kejř,296 a legal historian, notes Hus’s inveteracy, tenaciousness, and inability to accept arguments that counter his own.297 In trying situations, Hus would typically demonstrate his rashness and spontaneity.298 Several factors contributed to Hus developing his preaching career. Hus had long dreamt of becoming a preacher;299 he considered this profes‐ sion to be one of the things that really meant something in life. Thus, besides Hus’s emphasis on Scripture, we can also view preaching as one of the most significant traits of Hus’s endeavours. The popularity and long domestic tradition of preaching at the time certainly played a role in this.300 In Hus’s era many priests had strayed so far from moral ideals that it began to affect the workings of the entire Church establishment. Therefore, bold ideas about the depravity of the Church were already being preached during Hus’s youth. Hus’s so-called predecessors were not the only critics of the Church; there were other preachers who sympathized with them — Matouš of Cracow, Jan known as Marienwerder (of Kwidzyn), Henry of Bitterfeld, and others.301 The public’s interest in preaching was also on the rise. In 1391 the Bethlehem Chapel was established in Prague as a place for sermons to be given exclusively in Czech, that is, in a language the people could understand.302 The content of these sermons was modified to meet

Uhlíř, Středověké kazatelství, p. 85. Kejř, Z počátků české reformace, pp. 12–48. Kejř, Jan Hus známý i neznámý, esp. p. 101. Kejř, Husův proces, esp. p. 98. For more information about Hus’s career, see Soukup, ‘Jan Hus as a Preacher’. For a brief overview of Czech reformist preaching and its significance, see Lambert, Medieval Heresy, esp. pp. 289−98. 301 Polc, ‘Duchovní proudy’, p. 61. Jeschke even speaks about a general appearance ‘in the fifteenth century in southern Germany and Switzerland, from where it had an impact on the Czech lands’ ( Jeschke, ‘K theologickým předpokladům’, p. 21). 302 e.g., Čornej, Velké dějiny, p. 65. For general information about preaching in this period, see Morin, ‘The Early Bohemian Reform’, pp. 38−44.

295 296 297 298 299 300

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

the current needs of the people; preaching always touched upon the events of daily life.303 Although Wycliffe too emphasized the preacher’s role, he did not influ‐ ence Hus’s decision to take up this profession, for Hus only became famil‐ iar with Wycliffe’s ideas after he had made his career choice. Thus, Wycliffe essentially supported Hus’s already started preaching career.304 Hus also found encouragement in realizing that he was a successful preacher. From the very beginning, his sermons were popular (delivered at the Church of Saint Michael the Archangel in Prague in 1401), that is, they were widely attended and were later copied and read.305 This is one of the reasons Hus became the main preacher at the Bethlehem Chapel on 14 March 1402 and why he preached more often than was required of him. From the beginning the intent of Hus’s criticism in his sermons was ‘true reform of the life’306 of clerics and the laity, which was possible only through rectifying current morals. At first, Hus did not attack anyone in particular, not even the clergy; he only positively stated how things should be.307 However, he always preferred to react to current issues and was not afraid to express his opinion (at least on questions of morality). But because, as Hus claimed, problems were growing increasingly worse, his criticism evolved, growing stronger. After 1400, when he was ordained, his opinions formed ‘in constant dialogue with his adherents, both those influential and common, through the pulpit’ and the main centre of not only his preaching activities, but also his ‘writing and, in part, teaching’308 became the Bethlehem Chapel. He also studied theology, fulfilled his duties at the faculty, and actively corresponded with his students and his adherents and opponents in the countryside. Thus, we can never view him as a preacher isolated from normal life. Preachers in Prague were tradition‐ ally broadly critical, but Hus was often more direct in his addresses from the pulpit. ‘Invectives that targeted people by name, ironic insinuations, and current commentaries were titillatingly attractive, but at the same time they were aimed at a growing number of pluralists and simonists’,309 and in reaction, accusations were made against Hus. The main thrust of his preaching310 — attempting to enlighten audiences about the necessity of a living a good life — remained the same throughout his career and can be

303 For more on this issue in fourteenth-century Bohemia, see Morée, Preaching, particularly pp. 76–99. 304 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, e.g., p. 72. 305 Hus was ordained in 1401 (Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 69). 306 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 93. 307 Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 87. 308 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 64. 309 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, p. 65. 310 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 93. Purely moralistic sermons are typical of Hus’s time at Bethlehem Chapel (Machovec, ‘Jan Hus’, p. 207).

93

94

CHAPTER 1

found in both the sermons and letters focused on in this study. Therefore, Hus is most often presented as a moralist, and this element of his doctrine is focused on in particular. These efforts are, of course, most visible in his preaching. Hus devoted himself to writing mainly when he could not preach, and sometimes his writings, especially his letters, served as a substitute for preaching. He initially wrote about subjects popular at the time (e.g., in Gesta Christi and Passio Christi) and thus aligned himself with the domes‐ tic reform movement. Most of his writings, like his sermons, were created as more or less direct reactions to current events in society or the Church. Hus’s priority was always morals, particularly those of Church figures. It was from this same angle that he viewed other things that never caught his attention so much as to make him stray for long from the topic he saw as his life’s mission. Therefore, I cannot present here an overview of his works focused exclusively on eschatology as I have done for other authors. There is no specific work by Hus that is closely linked to eschatology; instead we find eschatological themes dispersed throughout his body of work.311 After his early, purely moralistic sermons, he began to write his first works: scholastic university disputations, speeches, and Czech-language books. Harsh criticism of the clergy would come later, although scholars have yet to come to a consensus on when this shift occurred. Sedlák claims that Hus’s criticism became more radical starting in 1409.312 He consid‐ ers 1410 to be a crucial year, in which Zbyněk, instigated by the pope, examined Wycliffe’s books and deemed them heretical. He also criticized Wycliffe for his heresy about the Eucharist. An appeal against Zbyněk’s decrees was submitted to the new pope, John XXIII. The Bethlehem Chapel became a centre of resistance, and at Charles University lectures were given in which Wycliffe’s writings were defended. Hus’s first truly great test came in summer 1412,313 when he split with Václav, and Stanislav and Štěpán of Páleč renounced their Wycliffite past. Šmahel refers to this situation as a critical moment in the reform movement. Hus reacted by rigorously continuing to rail against the views of his opponents. His preacher’s disposition affected nearly everything he did, and he managed to apply it at the high posts he held at Charles University, which he also considered to be important. In 1398 he served as an examinator of bachelor’s examinations, in 1400 as a dispensator, and in 1401 as exami‐ nator of master’s examinations. On 15 October 1401 he became dean and

311 For a list of Hus’s works, see ‘The Chronology of the Life and Work of Jan Hus’. 312 The first interdict was imposed on Hus in this year and was followed by other complaints. Hus would later preach against the clergy and indulgences, and partly began to deal with the institute of the papacy. 313 e.g., Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, in detail from p. 258 onwards.

HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

then between 1402 and 1403 served as rector of Charles University. Hus also had several other positions at the university. He also held different positions within the reform movement. At first Hus was not a leading figure in the reform movement, and he was not as visible as people such as Stanislav of Znojmo or Štěpán of Páleč. He gradually made his way to the head of this movement, however. From the very beginning, thanks to his work at Bethlehem Chapel and his compassion for the urban and rural poor and their fate, he was the closest of the reform-minded university masters to the common people, and thus endeavoured for real reform.314 All of these circumstances contributed to the evolution of Hus’s escha‐ tology, which was often also part of his criticism. Hus’s eschatology and criticism changed as he experienced critical life moments, including falling out of the archbishop’s favour, falling out of the king’s favour, all external interventions in Hus’s preaching activities (beginning in 1408) and in the domestic Czech preaching scene overall, the various complaints and accusations made against Hus and the reformists, and finally the trial at the Council of Constance. I shall further analyse the events that affected Hus’s eschatology in the works studied in this publication. By putting all of these pieces together, we should gain insight into why Hus’s eschatology is the way it is.

314 Šmahel, Husitská revoluce II, pp. 64–65.

95

ChAPtER 2

Antichrist in Hus’s Synodal Sermons

Throughout history, grave historical events or dissatisfaction with social, ecclesial, or secular developments have most often stimulated Antichrist thought. Wars, threats from other nations, and natural disasters were the phenomena most frequently interpreted as being signs of the age of Antichrist, and thus Antichrist was identified with an external enemy. However, this was not always the case, and ᾿Αντίχριστος, ‘Christ’s oppo‐ site’, ‘Christ’s antagonist’, could also emerge from among Christians and people that were seemingly close. The fundamental biblical sources1 about the coming and the activities of Antichrist include the Johannine epistles, in which the term Antichris‐ tus and Antichristi appear directly (I Ioh. 2. 18, 22; 4. 3; II Ioh. 7) and other books of the Bible in which the term itself is not directly found — the Pauline epistles (II Thess. 2. 3–11), Revelation (Apoc. 13), the Book of Daniel (Dan. 11), the Gospel of Matthew (Matth. 24. 5, 24), and the Gospel of Luke (Luc. 21. 8). Authors elaborating on Antichrist also often find support for their claims in the prophecies of Ezekiel and Isaiah and in the Books of the Maccabees. These indirect Biblical references to Antichrist usually involve statements about false prophets or false Christs, who will come in the final days and lead astray some of Christ’s loyal fol‐ lowers. Such writers believe that the presence of Antichrist is discernible in the existence of apostasy and heresy, inevitable occurrences in the history of Christianity.2 But in the end, of course, Antichrist will be defeated. Many authors interpret Antichrist literally to mean the antithesis of Christ.3 Origen did so already in the third century; he claimed that An‐ tichrist lies, pretends to have the qualities of Christ, and poses as God.4 Augustine5 and his De civitate Dei also played a major role in forming An‐ tichrist thought. Augustine speaks about hypocrisy and how the adherents of Antichrist wrongly call themselves Christians. Hence, he became an 1 e.g., Boilloux, ‘Antichrist — Exegesis’, p. 73. 2 Novotný, Biblický slovník, p. 30. 3 The contrast between Christ and Antichrist was frequently applied in art, particularly in the sixteenth century. It should be noted, however, that the motif of ‘the world turned upside-down’ or ‘die verkehrte Welt’, which is often connected to Antichrist material, may have also been applied in non-eschatological contexts. (Scribner, For the Sake, pp. 148–89). 4 Chytil, Antikrist, p. 5. 5 Cf. e.g., La Due, The Trinity Guide, pp. 13−14.

98

CHAPTER 2

important authority for those who began looking for Antichrist within the Christian community. Although throughout history many authors have constantly returned to the Antichrist myth, which draws from the above-mentioned biblical sources, there is no rule that forces them to recount the entire myth,6 to focus on any of its particular features, or to connect the idea of Antichrist with millenarianism or apocalypticism. It was always an author’s given objectives and also the circumstances under which he or she wrote that de‐ fined the exact contours of the Antichrist myth. In the tenth century Adso of Montièr-en-Der, a monk and later abbot at Luxeuil Abbey, linked to‐ gether several ideas that had been present in various works on Antichrist7 in his De ortu et tempore Antichristi.8 He dedicated it to Louis IV’s wife, Queen Gerberga, who supposedly requested he write it.9 This work, the oldest known systematic treatise dealing with Antichrist’s life from the be‐ ginning to the end, became the basis of many other medieval treatises.10 It addresses many of the elements that are usually associated with Antichrist; nonetheless, the tendency to select only relevant parts of the Antichrist myth continued to endure even after Adso. These elements include the following: an explanation of Antichrist’s name, a comparison with Christ, a description of the great number of Antichrist’s helpers, and statements that many Antichrists now exist, that Antichrist is the servant of Satan, and that his origin is in sin, that is, in the sins of man. Adso also describes

6 I use the term myth to refer to a type of narrative that can be reinterpreted differently by different societies. In this book I do not use the term myth as a pejorative, nor do I see it as the oppositte of science or rational thinking (cf. Assmann, ‘Mythos’, pp. 179–80). 7 Information about Adso’s sources can be found in Emmerson, ‘Antichrist as Anti-Saint’, esp. pp. 176–84. See also the work of McGinn, who relies heavily on Emmerson’s findings (McGinn, Antichrist, p. 101). Emmerson, under J. A. Jolles’s influence, understands Adso’s work as an anti-legend; on the basis of this assessment, McGinn uses the term reverse hagiography (Emmerson, ‘Antichrist as Anti-Saint’, pp. 184–90; McGinn, Antichrist, p. 101) and Hughes, anti-hagiography (Hughes, Constructing Antichrist, p. 167). 8 Adso of Montièr-en-Der (c. 910–992) was a ‘hagiographist, poet, hymnist, grammarian, rhetorician, and dialectician’ (Vidmanová, ‘Adso Menasteriensis’, p. 69). The text was published as Adso Dervensis, De ortu et tempore Antichristi, ed. by Verhelst, pp. 20–30. Adso wrote this work between the end of 949 and September of 954 (Adso Dervensis, De ortu et tempore Antichristi, ed. by Verhelst, p. 2). 9 On questions surrounding authorship, see Verhelst’s ideas: Adso Dervensis, De ortu et tempore Antichristi, ed. by Verhelst, pp. 1–3 and the edition on p. 21. The reason the queen or Adso was interested in Antichrist has not yet been fully explained. Although Adso’s work seems to lack any clear political motivations, McGinn sees a connection with the Western Franks’ hopes of increasing their power (McGinn, Apocalyptic Spirituality, pp. 83–87). Emmerson also draws attention to Adso’s attempts at reform (‘Antichrist as Anti-Saint’, p. 177); Hughes, on the other hand, hypothesizes that the queen wanted to know if Hugh the Great, who had persecuted her husband, could have been Antichrist (Hughes, Constructing Antichrist, p. 171). 10 Chytil, Antikrist, p. 19.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

Antichrist’s travels around the world; his posing as Christ; his pride, power, and weapons; the persecution of Christians; and Antichrist’s final defeat by the true Christ. Adso believes Antichrist will arise from amongst the Jews, from the Tribe of Dan. Many other medieval authors, often independently of Adso, link this myth even more closely with contemporaneous events and focus on de‐ tails leading to the emergence of original theses or at least present already familiar ideas in a novel way. Jan Hus sees Antichrist primarily in the contemporary abuses of Church figures. His statements about Antichrist are heavily influenced by his moral thought, and regardless of the genre of the work they appear in, these statements come in three forms, those typical of the preacher: lessons, warnings, and threats.

The Development of Hus’s Ideas up to 1405 Jan Hus, with his own personal understanding of reformist criticism, sharpened the traditional focus of the Czech preaching tradition only to a limited extent (cf. especially the work of Milíč of Kroměříž and Matěj of Janov), and until 1405 his work never deviated from the established tradition, not even in terms of eschatology. The vast majority of his escha‐ tological statements are motivated by his moral teachings and his attempts to save as many people as possible. František Holeček dates Hus’s first possible references to Antichrist to 1401, when Hus allegedly stated that Antichrist had already become firmly rooted in the Roman Church.11 Holeček, however, does not use one of Hus’s works to support this claim, but instead draws from Protiva’s accusations from 1409. This information, therefore, cannot be considered reliable, a point that the author himself also points out.12 Holeček refers to Jan Sedlák’s conjecture put forth in M. Jan Hus on page 103. According to Sedlák, Jan Protiva claims in these accusations that, during a conversa‐ tion about the drowning of Jan of Nepomuk, Hus responded to Protiva’s objection that ‘in such cases ecclesiastical law prescribes an interdict’ by saying: ‘[…] quid Romana ecclesia? Ibi Antichristus fixit pedem, qui difficile potest moveri’.13 Hus allegedly gave this further explanation in his defence: ‘Romanam ecclesiam numquam abjeci […] et planum est, sicut sancti dicunt, quod nedum Antichristus i.e. homo malus, sed et caput malorum hominum, fixit pedem i. affectum suum, ut possit evertere fidem Jesu Christi, et praesertim in curia Romana’ (Doc., p. 166).

11 Holeček, ‘Ministri dei’, pp. 219–45. 12 Holeček, ‘Ministri dei’, p. 220 n. 8. 13 I cite the Latin original, whereas Sedlák quotes a Czech translation.

99

100

CHAPTER 2

Česká kázání sváteční (from 1401)14 clearly documents the develop‐ ment of Antichrist thought in Hus’s work.15 In these popular sermons that predate 1412,16 he does not yet use Antichrist terminology or work with the idea of Antichrist, but he does make critical remarks about sins that would later be considered typical of Antichrist and his age (pride, greed, lustfulness, hypocrisy). I shall provide examples from his sermons on Saint Catherine and Saint Andrew. Hus makes critical remarks about an era of pride, greed, drunkenness, lust, and hypocrisy in his sermon on Saint Catherine (Matth. 25. 6–13; Česká sváteční kázání, pp. 47–51), for example: Vyznávají sě znáti boha, ale skutky zapierají. Poněvadž sú ohavní a nevěřitedlní a ke všemu dielu dobrému zavržení. They proclaim to know God, but their actions deny Him. Because they are loathsome and sinful and have rejected all that is good. (cf. Tit. 1. 16; Česká sváteční kázání, p. 50) In his sermon on Saint Andrew (Matth. 4. 18), he says: Sú troje sieti. Jedny sú lidí lakomých, jimižto lovie sbožie tohoto světa, t. chytrostí, lstí, lží, násilím, krádežem, lichvú a neřádným obchodem a pochlebenstvím […] Druhé sú sieti pokrytstvie, t. zevnitřně svatost, a vnitř zlost […] Třetie jest sieť smilných. There are three nets. The first [is that] of greedy people, who use it to capture the effects of this world, that is, through cleverness, deception, lying, violence, theft, usury, unfair dealings, and adulation […] The second is the net of hypocrisy, that is, holy on the outside and evil on the inside. […] The third is the net of the lustful. (Česká sváteční kázání, p. 55) As Jana Nechutová has already pointed out, the Last Judgement and its proximity are frequently mentioned here thanks to the pericopes about which Hus preached, not because Hus was particularly interested in escha‐

14 Mistr Jan Hus, Česká sváteční kázání, ed. by Daňhelka, pp. 16–17. The dating of these sermons is not certain. František Šimek dates them to 1403–1405, and the Marian sermons to 1405–1409. Jiří Daňhelka dates them to 1401–1412, with the actual date most likely being somewhere at the midpoint (besides the Corpus Christi sermon and the second sermon on John the Evangelist, which are from after 1412). 15 The most important works from this period related to eschatology are discussed in Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, pp. 179–87. 16 The term Antichrist only appears in the sermon on John the Evangelist (Ioh. 21. 19–24), which Daňhelka believes is from after 1412. Therefore, it is more relevant for comparing Antichrist themes in Hus’s correspondence.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

tology or apocalypticism. These topics have a strict moralist function.17 Nonetheless, here Hus attempts to emphasize the contrast between posi‐ tive and negative qualities, which he will later do in his many comparisons of Christ to Antichrist — the contrast between purity and lustfulness; poverty and greed; humility and pride. He also refers to Bernard of Clair‐ vaux (Česká sváteční kázání, pp. 84–90), Hus’s main non-biblical authority documenting Antichrist’s present-day havoc. Thus, budding Antichrist warnings can be found in works intended ad populum. The university lecture Super canonicas18 (1404–1405)19 already contains Antichrist themes and terminology. Hus not only makes bolder criticisms, defines Antichrist, and claims that Antichrist is already amongst us and that there are many Antichrists, but he also sees a connection between Antichrist’s arrival and the impending end of the world (finis saeculi). It was the current days of evil — characterized by the disobedience of the prelates, the sins of all people (pride, blasphemy, disobedience, conflict, envy), and, most typically, schism, persecution, and lying — that brought Hus to the idea of Antichrist. These characteristics are also a sign of ‘novis‐ sima hora’, ‘novissimum tempus’, ‘tempora novissima’ (fols 157v, 181v).20 Here Antichrist appears in a moralistic-eschatological context. He embod‐ ies a certain set of moral characteristics — his age is characterized by persecution, which is carried out by hypocritical Christians, and schism — but at the same time Antichrist is a figure (or figures) appearing exclusively at the end of days and a harbinger of the definitive end. Antichrist is also a mortal sinner. For the time being, Hus does not yet mention the most supreme Antichrist. Et heu nunc est illud novissimum tempus, in quo homines sunt semper discentes et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes, seipsos amantes, cupidi, elati, superbi, blasphemi, parentibus non obedientes, ingrati, scelesti, sine affectione, sine pace, criminatores, incontinentes, immites, sine benignitate, proditores, protervi, invidi, voluptatum amatores magis quam Dei, habentes quidem speciem pietatis. (fol. 157v)21 Et patet hodie ex opere impietatis quo ad proximos, quorum fabu‐ lariorum sermo fabulosus serpit ut cancer, in quibus sunt invidiae, 17 Nechutová also sees in Česká kázání sváteční hints of later Antichrist thought and the germ of later ideas about the day of judgement. (Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, p. 180). 18 Op. ii, fols 105r–228v. 19 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 3, p. 67. 20 This place is noted in Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, pp. 122 and 123 and in the notes on these pages. Later Nechutová calls attention to the same place and Novotný’s note on it in connection with eschatology in ‘Hus a eschatologie’, pp. 180–81. 21 This is a commentary on I Peter 2. 1–2, which does not mention the end times.

101

102

CHAPTER 2

contentiones, blasphemiae et suspitiones, malae conflictationes. Et qui a veritate privati sunt existimantes quaestum pietatem — I. Timoth. ultimo [cf. I Tim. 6. 5]. Unde quia nunc sunt tempora novissima, iam tam in clero quam vulgo abiicitur veritas iuxta prophetiam Apostoli I. Timoth. ultimo dicentem: ‘Erit enim tempus, cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt, sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros prurientes auribus et a veritate quidem auditum avertent, ad fabulas autem convertentur’. [II Tim. 4. 3–4] (fol. 181v)22 In his commentary on the biblical text ‘filioli mei novissima hora est’ (I Ioh. 2. 18), Hus writes: Circa primum duo facit. Primo docet cognoscere haereticos ratione praesentis temporis et aetatis […] In prima tantum intendit: Plurimi haeretici venturi sunt et vix in ultima aetate. Sed nunc quoque multi sunt [cf. I Ioh. 2. 18]. Ideo fugiatis ab eis […] dico errores haereticorum fugiatis. Est enim novissima hora [cf. I Ioh. 2. 18]. Glosa: ‘Id est similis novissimae horae’.23 Quia persecutio haereticorum similis est persecutioni Antichristi futurae temporibus novissimis […] Numquid novissima non est hora [cf. I Ioh. 2. 18], cum et mundus in maligno sit positus? Sic etiam non alieni, sed domestici persecutionem faciunt in ecclesia […], qui non veretur maledicta scandala in ecclesia seminare. Taceo de Antichristo […] pestem schismatis […] ‘Et sicut audivistis, quia Antichristus venit’ [I Ioh. 2. 18], id est in tempore suo venturus […] Nunc id est, in hoc praesenti tempore, Antichristi […] facti sunt multi [cf. I Ioh. 2. 18], id est per varias haereses et errores divisi a Christo et ecclesia. Dicit autem multi, quia omnes dicuntur Antichristi, qui contra legem Christi peccant […] Unde, id est ex eorum praesentia, scimus certitudine fidei, quia novissima hora est [cf. I Ioh. 2. 18], id est instat finis saeculi […] (fol. 203r) In the last example, Hus is clearly elaborating on a Biblical theme that speaks directly about the last hour and by extension about Antichrist as well. Although Hus only introduces a single new detail into this context, it is a crucial one for this study, for that detail is schism. Hus, however, also documents the topicality of this biblical passage by incorporating further criticism of his present day in which he clearly demonstrates that the era of Antichrist has come. Thus, Hus does not deal with the issue of the end times and Antichrist at random; he intentionally mentions these topics, moreover in connection to schism. Super canonicas thus illustrates how the Antichrist idea permeates works from various genres. 22 A commentary on II Peter 1. 16. This biblical verse does have a clear eschatological context, also it does not mention the end times. 23 Biblia sacra cum glossa, ad locum I John 2. 18.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

In the university sermon Abiciamus opera tenebrarum (Rom. 13. 12)24 de‐ livered on 1 December 1404,25 Hus speaks about Antichrist and the age of Antichrist as phenomena evident in his time (hypocrisy, greed, lustfulness, and simony were the signs). Hus once again emphasizes the eschatological nature of the present, which he sees as the world’s final days, in which the devil is growing more powerful: ‘[…] invaluit dyabolus inimicus [cf. Thren. 1. 16], certe “propter peccata prophetarum eius et sacerdotum eius” — Tren. 4. [cf. Thren. 4. 13] […]’26 (p. 106). He sees the present as the final days:27 ‘Nunc, heu, sunt illi dies, de quibus predixit Apostolus: “Hoc autem”, inquit, “scitote, quia in novissimis diebus instabunt tempora periculosa”’ [II Tim. 3. 1] (p. 106) When Hus first introduces the themes of the sermon he says: Monet [Apostolus] autem nos ad declinandum a malis operibus forcius, quia sumus ‘in quos fines seculorum devenerunt’ [I Cor. 10. 11], ut dicit Apostolus I Chor. 10;28 secundo, quia ‘mundus totus in maligno positus est’ — I Ioh. ultimo [I Ioh. 5. 19]; et tercio ‘quia anticristus venit et anticristi multi facti sunt’ — I Ioh. 2. [I Ioh. 2. 18]. (p. 103) Hus makes statements in a similar vein about how Bernard’s predictions will now be fulfilled because the Church has been damaged by the shame‐ ful and greedy lives led by the clergy and, in particular, by their hypocrisy: ‘Olym predictum est et nunc tempus inplecionis advenit’ (p. 104).29 This sermon is also the ideal material for comparison with Hus’s nearly contemporaneous synodal sermon Diliges Dominum Deum, because this comparison will shed light on how Hus modified his sermons about Antichrist to fit his audience. The audience of Abiciamus was partly made up of members of the clergy; some scholars even consider Abiciamus to be a source for Diliges.30 A synod, however, is a unique event, and in the next chapter we will see that in Diliges Hus is far less open in his comments about Antichrist and that he mentions the end times much less. 24 In Positiones, ed. by Vidmanová, pp. 99–113. 25 Positiones, p. 234. Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 22, p. 82 gives the date 12 December. 26 Even when I quote scholarly editions, I add biblical references directly in the text in square brackets. 27 This is also pointed out in Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, p. 181. 28 Hus draws from Wycliffe’s sermon Hora, ed. by Loserth, p. 1. I use the titles of Wycliffe’s works that are given in the editions with which I work, including any abbreviated biblical references. 29 This quote is part of an extensive passage from Bernard, from which Hus borrowed many statements, particularly ones related to Antichrist: Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, 1, ed. by Leclercq, Talbot, and Rochais, 33. 16, p. 134. 30 For an earlier note on the repetition of ideas from Abiciamus in Diliges and in State succincti, see Sedlák, Jan Hus, p. 120.

103

104

CHAPTER 2

In the treatise De sanguine Christi glorificato,31 a work written in the second half of 140532 as a response to the Wilsnack miracle, Hus refers to the false Christians and prophets that had been foreseen for the end times.33 Here too Hus indicates that it is the current state of morality, particularly the prevalence of lies and covetousness, that is leading people astray and that has given birth to thoughts about Antichrist and the end times. Matth. × 24° ‘Multi pseudoprophete surgent et seducent multos. Et quoniam habundauit iniquitas (sc. illorum sacerdotum) et refrigescet karitas multorum’ [Matth. 24. 11–12] (sc. subditorum). Nam illi iniquitatem cumulant decipiendo et populus refrigescit in karitate, in ipsorum verbis et miraculis confidendo. (p. 29) Cum autem temporibus vltimis erit seduccio astutissima et fortissima, sic ut si possibile esset, electi seducantur, dicente Christo Mth. × 24°: ‘[…] nolite credere. Surgent enim pseudocristi et pseudoprophete et dabunt signa magna et prodigia, ita ut in errorem inducantur, si fieri potest, eciam electi [Mt 24. 23–24] […]’ (p. 30; similarly p. 32) Cum ergo seduccio fidelium erit tam astuta et est iam fortissima, quia iam secundum Apostolum ad Thess. 2 ca° 2° ‘est adventus “Anticristi” secundum operacionem Satane in omni virtute et signis et prodigiis mendacibus et in omni seduccione iniquitatis, hiis qui pereunt [II Thess. 2. 9–10]: […]’ Recte Christi fideles debent summam diligenciam apponere, ut viventes pure secundum legem ewangelii […] possent in fide quiecius stabiliri. (p. 31)

The Marks of Antichrist in Hus’s Synodal Sermons Diliges Dominum Deum (1405) and State succincti (1407) The synodal sermons are matchless sources for studying Antichrist, for Hus finds among the clergy both facilitators of Church reform and salva‐ tion and plotters of Antichrist’s evil activities and the doom of many souls. Hus first addressed a synod on 19 September 1405 with a sermon on Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex tota anima tua et in tota

31 Spisy M. Jana Husi, 3, De sanguine Christi, ed. by Flajšhans. Corrections to Flajšhans’s edition are found in Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 106 n. 5 (Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, p. 108). 32 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 60, p. 108. Hus is the author of this treatise as well as a questio of the same name. 33 This has already been pointed out in Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, which focuses on the Final Judgement.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

mente tua (Matth. 22. 37).34 His second appearance before a synod was on 18 October 1407 with a sermon on State succincti lumbos vestros (Eph. 6. 14).35 Both sermons were given before Hus had become the target of major personal attacks, which, if he had faced any, he would have considered to be from Antichrist. In contrast, his efforts at reform were supported by Archbishop Zbyněk Zajíc of Hazmburk and King Wenceslaus IV. He was, however, already fully aware of the daily manifestations of the havoc wreaked by Antichrist and their far-reaching impacts. He saw the workings of Antichrist in the disunity present in the Church and in the resistance to reform efforts. The worsening situation in the Church and society validated and contributed to his belief that Antichrist was a matter that needed to be addressed with urgency. The two years that separated Hus’s synodal sermons were critical. In 1406, reformers began being persecuted over Wycliffism and remanence. In 1407 simony among the clergy became a major issue, and in July Hus specifically preached against this practice. Hus also had growing obligations to adherents of reform who entrusted him with their hopes and who expected public criticism of the clergy.36 The shift in Hus’s perception of the era is reflected in the differences between his first and second synodal sermons, particularly in the greater emphasis on schism within the Church, the greater openness of statements about Antichrist, and the sharper rhetoric featured in State. In the pre-Hus era, synodal sermons sternly criticized priests who did not do their jobs well.37 The considerable moralist mood of these early synods was even supported by Archbishop Zbyněk; we encounter regular criticism of the clergy and the superficiality of the Church, particularly at the synods held in October 1403, June 1404, and June 1405.38 Hus had a reputation as a preacher and unwavering critic and was therefore offered the prestigious opportunity to speak in front of the synod by the archbishop.39 Hus’s synodal sermons, however, were distinguished from previous ones by their different emphases and by their use of certain rhetoric; Hus took the traditional moralistic structure of synodal sermons and expanded it in new directions. Eschatological statements, a prominent part of both Diliges and State, were certainly not required in synodal

34 Op. ii, fols 27v–31v (Op. ii 1715, fols 39a–47b). On dating, see Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 79, p. 128. 35 Op. ii, fols 32r–36v (Op. ii 1715, fols 47a–56a). On dating, see Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 80, p. 129. 36 In this period he also began writing works in Czech for the people and focused on Czech orthography (Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, pp. 180–81). 37 For more on pre-Hus synodal sermons, see Nechutová, ‘Reform- und Bussprediger’. 38 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, pp. 149–50. 39 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 153.

105

106

CHAPTER 2

sermons. No other contemporary synodal sermons dealt with Antichrist;40 Hus’s inclusion of this unusual theme in his preaching enhanced its crit‐ ical tone. Just like in Hus’s previous works, here too statements about Antichrist are part of his moral criticism and are shaped by his preacher’s mindset and form of expression. Accordingly, Antichrist is not an isolated topic in these sermons; it is a means for relaying lessons, warnings, and threats. Thematically, Hus draws from the strong Czech tradition (Milíč and Matěj of Janov) and finds inspiration in the work of John Wycliffe. Diliges can be classified as a higher type of sermon that resembles the popular sermon, or sermo modernus.41 In it, Hus works with three possible definitions of the Church — the Church as a spiritual home, as an assem‐ bly of the faithful, and, in particular, as an assembly of the predetermined — in order to show how the clergy is abusing its privileged position and in the process disrupting the stability of the Church and its hierarchy. He denounces clergymen for their lustfulness and simony, for improperly performing the Eucharist, and for violating the laws of God and the Church. The most visible sign that the clergy had fallen from God was schism, and Hus demands that the clergy be publicly rebuked for their sins. He makes no qualms about calling such mortal sinners Antichrist, or at the very least adherents of Antichrist: ‘ecclesia Antichristi’, ‘minister Antichristi’ (fol. 28r) or ‘praeambuli Antichristi’ (fol. 31r). In a short introductory section, the preacher reminds his audience how Antichrist can be recognized (fol. 28r). Although Hus is not as explicit here as in his earlier Super canonicas (fol. 203r), he does emphasize the term An‐ tichrist when he speaks about the Church’s degeneration, its abandonment of the ideal of imitating Christ (imitatio Christi), and the reprehensible sins committed by the clergy: Quod si utraque supradicta congregatio [i.e., ecclesia Romana et ecclesia Pragensis] in iam dictis degenerat [i.e., Christum Dominum in virtutibus non imitatur], tunc ex veritatis testimonio sunt fures et latrones — Ioan. 10 [cf. Ioh. 10. 8]. Et per consequens sunt ecclesiae Antichristi. (fol. 28r) With words borrowed from Wycliffe’s sermon Super evangelia domini‐ calia,42 Hus highlights the exceptional role of the clergy and at the same time the exceptional nature of their sins, for in committing sin they volun‐

40 For a detailed analysis, see Mazalová and Lukšová, ‘Gradus summus’. 41 For more on the ‘higher type of sermon’, see Schmidtová’s explanation in Positiones, p. 229. Hus’s Diliges is a freer type of higher sermon about which more is written e.g., in Uhlíř, Středověké kazatelství. On the popular sermon, see e.g., Wenzel, Medieval Artes praedicandi, p. xv. 42 In Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, ed. by Loserth, i, p. 253.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

tarily distance themselves from their role. The idea that the higher the position of the sinner in the Church, the greater the sin and the greater the Antichrist was already known in the Czech lands from the work of Matěj of Janov. The resulting notion of a hierarchy of Antichrists was also familiar. […] dum [clerus] efficaciter praeest officio, quod incumbit. Debet enim mundum relinquere, ecclesiam vivificare ut spiritus et undiquaque proxime sequi Christum. Si autem apostatat, nulla est peior vel austerior, nimirum Antichristus, quia ubi est gradus vel status altior, est casus gravior, ut patet de Lucifero et de sacerdotibus, qui crucifixerunt Dominum, et de Iuda. Sicut enim Moyses et Aaron sacerdotes primi legis veteris erant optimi et caeteri declinando erant pessimi, ut patet in fine successionis eorum, sic in lege nova Christus et sui apostoli sacerdotes erant optimi, sed declinando ab primaevitate et sic ab imitatione Christi ad saeculum sunt pessimi tempore Antichristi. (fol. 28r) The connection between Antichrist and the moral depravity of Christians is clear in other statements as well, such as the following: Christiani debent imitari Christum Dominum […] quia aliter in moribus forent degeneres, non filii Christi, sed filii Antichristi […] (fol. 28r) Although Hus had not yet begun searching for a supreme Antichrist, the idea of there being a hierarchy of Antichrists clearly points in the direction of his later reflections on the relationship between Antichrist and the sinful pope (although, unlike Wycliffe, Hus never identifies the institution of the papacy with Antichrist). This hierarchical notion is another firmly estab‐ lished part of Hus’s concept of Antichrist, which we find later in his famous systematic text De ecclesia.43 Hus works with this idea across genres and draws not only from Wycliffe but also from the already-mentioned premise about the privileged role of preachers in the process of salvation, which also appears in the earlier Czech preaching tradition (e.g., in the works of Milíč and Matěj of Janov).44 In Hus’s work we find hints of this idea already in Česká kázání sváteční (e.g., thanks to the biblical theme of the sermon ‘na Božie narozenie’, p. 73). In his works this idea gradually grows, and later it becomes a major topic, for example, in the correspondence or in the Czech-language Postila. In Diliges we find this idea after an introductory lesson about Antichrist that forgoes using the term Antichrist:

43 The spiritual power of priests exceeds royal power due to its ancient and dignified nature and its applicability ( Jan Hus, Tractatus De ecclesia, ed. by Thomson, p. 74). 44 For more on this idea, see Nechutová, ‘Reform- und Bussprediger’.

107

108

CHAPTER 2

Sed quia in imitatione Christi gradus isti degenerant, igitur ordo in gradibus huiusmodi fit perversus. Saepe namque status plebeiorum infimus supererogat reliquos in virtutibus excellendo. (fol. 28v) In State succincti Hus’s concept of Antichrist remains unchanged.45 Here, Hus also mentions a hierarchy of Antichrists in several places: Sicut enim clerici dicuntur principaliter Christi, id est uncti et sic Christiani, ut metipsi afferunt, sic principaliter armis virtutum debent indui et Christum Dominum immeditatius imitari. Cum alias in vanum nomen Dei sui Christi assumerent et nec Christi nec Christiani dicerentur veraciter, sed forent verius pessimi Antichristi. (fol. 32r) Et patet, quod quilibet homo, sed praesertim clericus debet hostem suum domesticum principaliter refrenare, per illum enim diabolus invadit fortius et devincit […] (fol. 33v)46 Considering the thema of this sermon, Hus now speaks about the obliga‐ tion of the three columns of Christian soldiers (i.e., the clergy, secular rulers, and their subjects) to wage a spiritual war against the devil. Spiritual war is nothing more than imitatio Christi as presented in Diliges. The army, however, is hurt (clerus vulneratus — fol. 32r), and just like in Diliges Hus warns against the Church’s further decline. Thus, it is necessary to take up Christ’s arms, that is, his virtues, as Paul the Apostle encourages: Ecce degradatio sacerdotum pestifera, ecce peccatorum scala,47 qua descendunt a virtute in vicium, a lumine in tenebras, a laetitia in moerorem, a vita in mortem, a vita aeternae gloriae in vitam miseriae infinitae. Quae singula horrentes, o sacerdotes, si ratione utimini, ‘state succincti’, etc. Ecce qui sancto fungimur sacerdotio, audivimus boni sacerdotis dignitatem et meritum, audivimus et mali sacerdotis indignitatem et interitum, audivimus ascensum gloriae, audivimus et miseriae descensum. Si ascensus, dignitas et fructus non allicit, saltem miseriae exterreat casus […] In verbis iam propositis [i.e., State succincti] monet Apostolus ad stabilitatem operis, ad effectionis puritatem et ad rectitudinem intentionis, ut opus sit stabile, affectio pura, intentio recta, quae sunt necessaria, cum simus in lubrico carnis, in luto saeculi et in bivio gloriae et gehennae. (fol. 33v)

45 This time Hus follows the principles described by Schmidtová somewhat more thoroughly (Positiones, p. 229; cf. n. 3). In State the sermon is divided into a more general introductory part and a second, more detailed commentary, which itself is further broken up into three parts. 46 Cf. Wycliffe’s sermon Confortamini in Domino, ed. by Loserth, lv, p. 478. 47 On the term peccatorum scala, see Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermo in nativitate beatae Mariae Virginis, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, p. 279.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

Hus continues to emphasize the moral features of Antichrist — he is a hypocrite, a false Christian, a false Christ (Pseudochristus48 — fol. 32r), the moral antithesis of Christ. Like in Diliges, Hus presents these features of Antichrist in the introduction to State. Because the matter of Antichrist is always timely, he adds to the topic of schism also the topical and discussed issue of escheat. Besides fornication, Hus most frequently mentions the sin of gluttony. Although in Diliges he only indirectly hints that many Antichrists exist, in State he openly proclaims this idea, drawing evidence from Matthew 24. 24 (Marc. 13. 22) and I John 2. 18 (he uses the latter to make the same claim in Super canonicas [fol. 203r] and in Abiciamus [p. 103]): ‘Nec est unus, sed multi sunt’ (State, fol. 32r). Wilhelm Bousset49 distinguishes between three main ideas about An‐ tichrist in history: Antichrist embodies evil as a concept, not as an indi‐ vidual; Antichrist is a person from the past; and Antichrist appears in a specific form that can be identified, for example, with the papacy. Raoul Manselli, Georg Jenschke, and Walter Ullmann50 distinguish between the mystical Antichrist and the actual Antichrist, both of which sometimes ap‐ pear simultaneously. In the synodal sermons, Antichrist is a timely topic51 and functions as a ‘collective body’.52 Despite the thus-far general nature of criticism and the possibility of viewing Antichrist as a collective body, Hus spotted Antichrist in his contemporaries: in concrete priests and later, as we learn from his correspondence, in concrete opponents of reform efforts. He reserves the label Antichrist specifically for the clergy, as he did before in his Super canonicas. The clergy — God’s most beloved sons, teachers of God’s word, a privileged class in the Church’s hierarchy — and its members’ behaviour were much more responsible for the Church’s decline than laics. Hus is so avid in his criticism that he even calls upon his listeners to search themselves for signs of Antichrist: Quare examinemus nos ipsos, o clerici, an simus Christianae legis apostatae, qui non solum uno percussi crimine, sed supra primum apostatam sumus carnis sceleribus irretiti. Nam secundum Salvatoris 48 In the Vulgate the term Pseudochristi appears twice, in Matthew 24. 24 and Mark 13. 22. 49 Maas, ‘Antichrist’; he does not specify which of Bousset’s works he is referring to; cf. Bousset, Der Antichrist in der Überlieferung. 50 Manselli, Jenschke, and Ullmann, ‘Antichrist — Theologie und Politik — I. Christentum’, col. 704. 51 Molnár deemed Hus’s eschatology to be topical (‘Eschatologická nadějnost’, p. 184). Nechutová (‘Hus a eschatologie’) later added more evidence to support this claim about Hus’s eschatology; she speaks about an ‘updated eschatology’ (p. 183) and an emphasis on temporal life (p. 179). 52 I have taken this idea from Nechutová (‘Hus a eschatologie’, p. 186), who applied it to Hus’s later synodal sermon State (1407).

109

110

CHAPTER 2

prophetiam Matt. 24: Nunc abundavit iniquitas, quia refriguit charitas in nobis [cf. Matth. 24. 12]. (fol. 29r) This challenge was first made by Augustine in In epistulam Iohannis ad Parthos tractatus,53 where he calls upon people to ask themselves whether they themselves are not Antichrists: ‘Et interrogare debet unusquisque conscientiam suam an sit antichristus’. Thus far, we have examined only the part of the sermon in which Hus uses the term Antichrist or synonymous terms denoting a falling away from serving God. In the introduction to State, we can observe an increased emphasis on Antichrist in comparison with Diliges. Unlike in Diliges, where Hus describes Antichrist in a few isolated statements, in State he speaks precisely and openly and arranges his statements in such a way that they create a short, yet complete commentary on Antichrist consisting of a clear question about a concrete Antichrist and a response: Istud autem praeceptum Apostoli Christianus falsus respuens assumpto Christi nomine induitur armis diaboli et prosequitur miliciam Antichristi confitetur se nosse Deum, factis autem negat, est Pseudochristus et verus Antichristus, nec est unus, sed multi sunt. Nam dicit Christus Matth. 24: ‘Surgent Pseudochristi’. [Matth. 24. 24] Et contestatur Ioannes Christi dilectus 1. Ioan. 2. dicens: ‘Antichristi multi facti sunt’. [I Ioh. 2. 18]54 Sed qui sunt hi? Revera praecipue illi, qui sub nomine Christi moribus Christi sunt contrarii et qui quod Christus colligit, ipsi dispergunt. ‘Qui non est mecum’ [Matth. 12. 30 or Luc. 11. 23] […] certe hic mihi est contrarius [cf. Matth. 12. 30 or Luc. 11. 23] et est per consequens Antichristus, hoc enim et vis vocis innuit huius nominis Antichristus. Dicitur enim Antichristus quasi adversans Christo vel ‘contrarius Christo’.55 Sed in quo, si non in moribus et operibus malignis, quibus homo transformatur in diabolum et induit Antichristum iuxta verbum Apostoli Rom. 12: Induimini Dominum Iesum Christum [cf. Rom. 13. 14]. Ipsum siquidem consequuntur necessario moralia indumenta […] (fol. 32r–v) Although we do not learn anything more about what Antichrist means to Hus than what we already knew from Diliges or Super canonicas, the explicit question and elaborate answer presented here are unusual for Hus’s works thus far, particularly for his sermons, and they attest to Hus’s extraordinary emphasis on this topic.

53 In Iohannis epistulam ad Parthos tractatus decem, ed. by Mountain, iii. 4, p. 152. 54 Cf. Super canonicas (fol. 203r) and Abiciamus (p. 103). 55 In Iohannis epistulam ad Parthos tractatus decem, ed. by Mountain, iii. 4, p. 154.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

In State Hus uses the same definition of Antichrist that Augustine used in his commentary In epistulam Iohannis ad Parthos tractatus, where he writes about a multitude of Antichrists, about the fact that Antichrist comes from within the Church, and that Antichrist is in most simple terms Christ’s opposite: […] antichristi multi facti sunt [I Ioh. 2. 18] […] Omnes haeretici, omnes schismatici ex nobis exierunt [cf. I Ioh. 2. 19], id est ex Ecclesia exeunt […] antichristi sunt […] Descripturus enim antichristos et designaturus est, et videbimus eos nunc. Et interrogare debet unusquisque conscientiam suam an sit Antichristus. Latine enim Antichristus contrarius est Christo. Non quomodo nonnulli intellegunt Antichristum ideo dictum quod ante Christum venturus sit, id est post eum venturus sit Christus. Non sic dicitur nec sic scribitur; sed Antichristus, id est contrarius Christo. Iam quis contrarius sit Christo nunc advertitis ipso exponente et intellegitis non posse exire foras nisi antichristos (In Iohannis epistulam ad Parthos tractatus decem, pp. 152– 54). Evidence of a connection between Hus and this passage from Augustine can also be found in the earlier Super canonicas (fol. 203r), where Hus speaks about a number of Antichrists, who ‘per varias haereses et errores divisi a Christo et ecclesia sunt […]’.

Evidence of the Coming of Antichrist: Biblical and Non-Biblical Authorities and Hus’s Own Experience In neither of these sermons does Hus ever directly say ‘now is the age of Antichrist’. For example, in Diliges the phrase tempus Antichristi only occurs once, in Hus’s above-mentioned citation of Wycliffe (fol. 28r). Hus the preacher does not attempt to provide an exhaustive definition of the term Antichrist but focuses on proving how the prophecy of the coming of Antichrist is being fulfilled using two basic sources — his own experience and statements from the Bible and non-biblical authorities. The evolution of these ideas in Hus’s two synodal sermons can also be traced. After Hus outlines his concept of Antichrist in the introduction to Dili‐ ges, he continues by sharply criticizing the situation of his present day, describing contemporary abominations and calling upon his audience to observe them. Although he criticizes the age of Antichrist, he does it without effectively using the term Antichrist, only returning to this word towards the end of the sermon. Nonetheless, in this highly critical section of the sermon Hus’s understanding of Antichrist becomes most clear (as paradoxically as it may seem considering Hus’s non-use of the term

111

112

CHAPTER 2

Antichrist here); Hus also presents biblical and non-biblical evidence about the existence of Antichrist in this part of the sermon. In Diliges Hus men‐ tions biblical descriptions of calamities marking the coming of Antichrist relatively close to each other (fols 29r–30v). He immediately proves each cited prophecy to have come true, referencing a specific contemporary evil. The non-biblical authority of Bernard of Clairvaux also plays a major role in these passages. A fundamental biblical source that Hus uses as evidence of Antichrist is Matthew 24. 12 (‘Et quoniam abundabit iniquitas refrigescet caritas multorum’), which Hus links to his already-mentioned call for priests to reflect upon their behaviour and actions. This verse is the first source Hus mentions, and it is the one he analyses in most detail; moreover, it comes from the gospels, which for Hus were always the highest authorities. When reading the following quote, recall a similar passage in De sanguine (p. 29) in which Hus references Matthew 24. 11–12 as well as other verses from the Gospel of Matthew: Quare examinemus nos ipsos, o clerici, an simus Christianae legis apostatae, qui non solum uno percussi crimine, sed supra primum apostatam sumus carnis sceleribus irretiti. Nam secundum Salvatoris prophetiam Matt. 24: Nunc abundavit iniquitas, quia refriguit charitas in nobis. [cf. Matthew 24. 12] Hus relies on another of his favourite sources — Philippians (Phil. 2. 21) — to call attention to the fact that the growing cold of love among the clergy manifested itself in their tendency towards worldliness: Refriguit namque ecclesia, quae in apostolis et martyribus fuit valde fervens et calida, quia pleni Spiritu sancto despiciebant se ipsos et spiritualia temporalibus praeponebant […] Postmodum quasi in divitiis cumulata ecclesia coepit in clericis amor Dei tepescere et inardescere cupiditas et tunc temporalia spiritualibus praeponebant, refellentes illud salutiferum verbum Domini Mat. 6: ‘Nonne anima plus est quam esca et corpus plus quam vestimentum?’ [Matth. 6. 25] Primum ergo ‘quaerite regnum Dei et haec omnia adiicientur vobis’ [Luc. 12. 31]. Temporibus autem nostris amor Dei et proximi adeo prohdolor refriguit, quod nulla est quasi de spiritualibus cura, cum tota nostra sollicitudo et intentio mundi stercoribus sit immersa. Nam iuxta verbum Apostoli Philip. 2: Omnes, quae sua sunt, quaerunt et non quae Iesu Christi. [cf. Phil. 2. 21; cf. also Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, 33. 15, p. 244] (fols 29r–29v) Hus’s criticism becomes increasingly specific, and a long, detailed descrip‐ tion of the greediness of the contemporary clergy follows. Hus then calls upon priests to watch out for the sins of fornication, drunkenness, gluttony, and owning property. He criticizes Church authorities, parish

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

priests, and monks and names the following specific forms of misconduct: selling indulgences, accepting gifts, denying funerals to the poor, holding requiems at unpermitted times or in unpermitted ways, practising usury, breaking the seal of confession, playing dice and dancing, leasing out churches, wearing ostentatious clothing, misusing alms, and so forth. This long, detailed list is not the only such description of offences to be found in Diliges. Hus concludes his criticism with Bernard of Clairvaux’s words on the depravity he witnessed (fol. 29v) and shortly thereafter returns to this authority once again: ‘Revera beati Bernhardi prochdolor vox impletur: “Qui monachi demoniaci, qui conversi perversi, qui praesbyteri sadducei et clerici facti sunt haeretici”’ (fol. 30v). According to Hus, Bernard had already written about the total moral depravity that is mentioned in the introduction to Diliges. According to Gillian Evans, however, in Bernard’s works, which Hus knew well and drew from abundantly, we do not find claims that Antichrist had already come.56 Bernard lived in an atmosphere saturated with warnings about Antichrist, but instead of worrying about what was to come, he attempted to make things right in the present; Evans calls this approach the application of ‘positive theology’. According to McGinn, Bernard of Clairvaux, at least in his early works, does not say that Antichrist has already come even though he uses Antichrist language relatively frequently. Bernard believed that the age of Antichrist would be preceded by an age of persecution, an age that had yet to come in Bernard’s day.57 McGinn is also unsure whether Bernard in his later works felt that Antichrist was approaching but would still only come in the future.58 What is certain is that many other authors were also inspired by Bernard’s criticism of his era: ‘Hus’s predecessors’ (Waldhauser, Milíč, and Matěj of Janov), Tomáš of Štítné, Matouš of Cracow, Nicholas of Dresden, Wycliffe, the authors of Waldensian literature, Jakoubek of Stříbro, and even Hus’s opponents, in addition to later Taborite authors.59 These authors all agreed with Bernard that a battle must be waged against anything that disrupts the unity of the Church. Bernard complained ‘about the current state of the Church, the abuse of benefices, [and] the greediness of the laity and especially of priests and monks’; he also criticized the luxury and lavishness enjoyed by priests and monks.60

Evans, Bernard of Clairvaux, pp. 100–01. McGinn, ‘St Bernard and Eschatology’, esp. pp. 167, 169–70. McGinn, Antichrist, p. 126. I have borrowed this list from Nechutová, ‘Bernard z Clairvaux v díle Mikuláše z Drážďan’, pp. 313–14. 60 Nechutová, ‘Bernard z Clairvaux v díle Mikuláše z Drážďan’, pp. 313–14.

56 57 58 59

113

114

CHAPTER 2

Immediately after citing Bernard, Hus refers to another prophecy about discord in the Church that had now been fulfilled — Jeremiah’s prophecy: Unde per hoc impletur lamentum Hieremiae Treno. 1: ‘Egressus est a filia Syon’ [Thren. 1. 6], id est a militante ecclesia,61 ‘omnis decor eius’ [Thren. 1. 6], quia ‘dispersi sunt lapides sanctuarii’ [Thren. 4. 1], id est ecclesiae clerici incedendo per viam vanitatis [cf. Eccle. 1. 2].62 Et Treno. 4: ‘Qui vescebantur voluptuose’ [Thren. 4. 5], id est qui olim spiritualibus bonis delectabantur, ‘interierunt in viis’ [Thren. 4. 5] de vanitate in vanitatem ambulantes [cf. Eccle. 1. 2]. Et qui nutriti sunt in croceis [cf. Thren. 4. 5], id est in donis Spiritus sancti, ‘amplexati sunt stercora’ [Thren. 4. 5], id est adhaeserunt temporalibus. Et sic secundum Psalmistam ‘disperierunt in Endor, facti sunt ut stercus terrae’ [cf. Ps. 81. 11],63 scilicet abiecti, foetidi et immundi. (fol. 30v) Other passages contain relatively direct, topical criticism, for they call out the most striking present manifestations of Antichrist. Hus criticizes the disruption of unity in the Church from within in his ‘Antichrist remarks’, Antichristi glosulae: Sed quia contra iam dicta et a Spiritu sancto ecclesiae tradita surrepunt Antichristi glosulae nunc labore, nunc pastu, nunc consuetudine palliatae.64 (fol. 31r) By this term he means the remarks of those that accept money for granting Christ’s gifts, such as chrism, baptism, funerals, and so forth. They are the remarks of simonists who hide their bad intentions behind pleas for food money or under the guise of habit. Hus’s conviction is reinforced by the words of Pope Innocent II, who does not use the term remarks of Antichrist (Antichristi glosulae) but criticized such simonists during the Second Lateran Council. The Church was being torn apart by the greed of pastors, priests, doctors, and masters; Hus once again refers to Bernard: Insolentia clericorum ubique turbat et molestat ecclesiam […] Qualiter autem insolentia clericorum turbat ecclesiam et turbavit, qui scire satagit, legat chronicas et dicta sanctorum ac videnti oculo prospiciat et plane reperiet, quod tota ecclesiae scissio a clericis propter eorum avaritiam emanavit.65

61 62 63 64 65

Cf. glossa ordinaria ad locum Thren. 1. 6. Cf. glossa ordinaria ad locum Thren. 4. 1. Petrus Lombardus, Commentaria in Psalmos, ed. by Migne, 82. 9, col. 784C. Cf. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, ed. by Alberigo and others, p. 197. Bernarus Claraevallensis, Epistulae, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, ep. 152, p. 359.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

According to Hus, Bernard confirms this avarice: Veteres, inquit, scrutans historias invenire non possum ita scidisse ecclesiam et de domo Dei populos seduxisse praeter eos, qui sacerdotes Dei positi sunt et prophetae, id est speculatores.66 (fol. 31r) Hus then levels substantial criticism at the eucharistic practice of con‐ temporary immoral priests, whom Hus refers to directly as Antichrist’s servants: […] accedunt hodie mali sacerdotes, qui ea, quae offerunt in mensa Domini, offerunt in mensam diaboli, scilicet sacramentum venerabile polluentes […] Ubi Hieronymus:67 Corpus Christi polluit, qui indignus ad altare accedit. O utinam haec perpenderet sacerdos Iudaeo perfidior, Iuda Scarioth crudelior, pagano deterior omnique voraci bestia voracior, non utique dignus Dei presbyter, sed Lucifer, non Christi, sed Antichristi minister, qui non puro, sed ex crimine, corde foetido, ore polluto ex meretricis osculo, mente infecta, manu sacrilega audet temere, sed sibi in iudicium venerabile sacramentum contingere et plus illicite quam bestia et Scarioth, in quem intravit Sathanas, deglutire. (fols 31r–31v) The sermon then culminates, and Hus closes it with a rhetorical question and some concluding pessimistic remarks: Sed nunquid iam dicta pavebit clerus et aget dignam de peccatis poenitentiam? Cuius peccatum quasi indelebiliter est inscriptum iuxta illud Hiere. 17 […] (fol. 31v) And even though in Hus’s own words the purpose of threats is for people to correct their ways, this conclusion comes off as pessimistic because at this point Hus had already long been endeavouring to lead his listeners to atonement. He felt, however, that clergymen were unrepentant in their ways and thus immune to his words. Such pessimism is not typical of Hus’s concluding remarks in sermons, nor is it typical of his reflections on Antichrist: […] peccatum cleri profunde et late indelebiliter esse scriptum. Quis enim potest corda tam late cauterisata sanare? Nobis est impossibile, cum clerus sit cor populi, quod non licet, ut inquiunt, attingere. Cum remurmuras, clerus dicit: non licet cleri praesentis coram populo saniem criminis extergere et vulneratum cor verbo Dei tangere et sic charitativam infundere medicinam. Unde coram populo se clerus

66 Hus claims this idea comes from Jerome, but it really comes from C. 24 q. 3 c. 33. 67 Cf. Hieronymus, Tractatus LIX in Psalmos, ed. by Morin, Capelle, and Fraipont, psalmus 146, p. 332.

115

116

CHAPTER 2

impudice crimine vulnerat, vulnus portat publice, sed medicinam purgativam criminis respuit quasi phreneticus et vaesanus. (fol. 31v) In State Hus draws upon authorities immediately in the introductory passages. Some of these authoritative sources even contain the term An‐ tichrist: biblical verses I John 2. 18 and Matthew 24. 24 (the latter of which Hus already referenced in De sanguine Christi glorificato68) and a passage from Bernard of Clairvaux’s Sermones super Cantica Canticorum known as ‘scrutator Ecclesie’ (examiner of the Church, fol. 34v). The latter source is Hus’s prime authority when it comes to schism. Hus even adds the term Antichrist to statements taken from Gregory the Great’s Registrum epistularum (fol. 34v). Greater emphasis on Antichrist is also manifested in the original contents of State; Hus devotes more attention to analysing and criticizing schism, and in doing so relies more heavily on quoting the works of Bernard of Clairvaux. Like in De sanguine (p. 30), he once again cites Matthew 24. 24: ‘Surgent Pseudochristi’ (fol. 32r). For the same reasons as before he also cites the First Epistle of John 2. 18: ‘Antichristi multi facti sunt…’ (fol. 32r). After the introductory definition of Antichrist (fols 32r–32v), which I have already presented, another piece of evidence of Antichrist’s presence comes in a passage in which Hus borrows the words of Gregory the Great about ‘the king of pride’ and his army of priests: Rogo, qui non es caecus, etiam si es caecutiens, prospice acutius et vide, si clerici has conditiones iustitiae teneant, et confestim percipies, quod Deo honorem suum non tribuunt, cum exaltati modo Luciferi Christum spernunt […] veritas praedixit, pestilentia et gladius per mundum saevit, gentes insurgunt, terrae concutitur orbis cum habitatoribus suis, terra deficiente solvuntur omnia, quae praedicta sunt, fiunt, rex superbiae prope est et quod dici nefas est, sacerdotum ei praeparatur exercitus, quia cervici militant elationis, qui positi fuerunt, ut ducatum praeberent humilitatis.69 (fol. 34v) This passage is noteworthy because even though here Hus is citing Gre‐ gory, who besides pride also speaks about plague and wars as typical signs of this catastrophic age, elsewhere in State Hus does not, in his own words or through other authorities, mention natural catastrophes again. Although Hus talks frequently about battle in State, in most cases he is referring to spiritual battle. It seems as if he talks about earthly battles in State in only one place: ‘Cum audieritis prelia et seditiones, nolite terreri, oportet primum haec fieri’ (fol. 32v; Luc. 21. 9).

68 Spisy M. Jana Husi, 3, De sanguine Christi, ed. by Flajšhans, pp. 30, 32. 69 ‘Veritas […] humilitatis’ cf. Gregorius Magnus, Registrum epistularum, ed. by Norberg, 5. epist. 44, p. 333.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

Hus also employs verses from Jeremiah on abominations and deceit to describe the sad current state of affairs: Ecce inquit Sanctus, quod Antichristo sacerdotum praeparatur exercitus. Sed an multorum? Cum fletu plangens ecclesiam clamat Hieremias. Tre. Re. 1: ‘Ex omnibus charis eius, non est, qui consoletur eam, omnes amici eius spreverunt eam et facti sunt ei inimici’. [Thren. 1. 2] Quare, o sancte sacerdos Hieremias? Quia ‘a maiori usque ad minorem‚ omnes avaritiae student et a propheta usque ad sacerdotem cuncti faciunt dolum et curabant contritionem filiae populi mei cum ignominia dicentes pax, pax, et non erat pax. Confusi sunt, abominationem fecerunt’ [Ier. 6. 13–15], Hiere. 6. et 8. Ecce dicit Hieremias: cuncti faciunt dolum dicentes pax, scilicet corporis et pax mentis, pax huius vitae et pax futurae erit vobis et non erat pax, quia abominationem fecerunt. (fol. 34v) The passage from Bernard that Hus seems to rely on most frequently comes from the section in Bernard’s commentary on Cantica canticorum in which Bernard denounces pride, the accumulation of worldly property, and hypocrisy while referring to Ezekiel 13. 10 and Isaiah 38. 17. Both these biblical verses also appear in Hus’s Abiciamus: Omnes amici et omnes inimici, omnes necessarii et omnes adversarii, omnes domestici et nulli pacifici, omnes proximi et omnes, quae sua sunt, quaerunt, ministri Christi sunt et serviunt Antichristo. Inde is, quem quotidie vides, meretricius nitor, histrionicus habitus, regius apparatus, inde aurum in frenis70 […] ‘Olim praedictum est et nunc tempus impletionis advenit. Ecce “amaritudo mea amarissima” [Is. 38. 17]. Amara prius in nece martyrii, amarior post in conflictu haereticorum, amarissima nunc in moribus domesticorum, non fugere, non fugare eos potest, ita invaluerunt, ita multiplicati sunt super nos, intestina et insanabilis plaga ecclesiae. Et ideo in pace amaritudo eius amarissima. Sed in qua pace et pax est et non est pax [cf. Ez. 13. 10], pax a paganis, pax ab haereticis, sed non profecto a filiis. Vox plangentis in tempore isto: “Filios enutrivi et exaltavi, ipsi autem spreverunt me”. [Is. 1. 2] Spreverunt et maculaverunt me, a turpi vita, a turpi quaestu, a turpi negotio […]’71 (fol. 34v) Throughout Hus’s works we can find Bernard’s criticism of schism con‐ tained in this quotation (‘intestina et insanabilis est plaga ecclesiae, et

70 ‘Omnes […] frenis’ cf. Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, ed. by Leclercq, Talbot, and Rochais, 33. 15, p. 244. He continues in State with a very long description of current worldliness. 71 Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, ed. by Leclercq, Talbot, and Rochais, 33. 15, p. 244.

117

118

CHAPTER 2

ideo pace amaritudo eius amarissima’), as well as references to Bernard’s statements about scorn and uncleanness, and the fact that ‘everyone looks out for their own interests’ (‘omnes, quae sua sunt, quaerunt’ — fol. 34v).72 In certain passages in State Hus pays close attention to the idea of schism and once again refers to Bernard (fol. 34v). Thus, Hus has a completely different attitude towards this crisis factor than towards plague and war, topics that he does not mention at all. Here, Hus repeats his denunciation of already-mentioned sins — ambitiousness, greed, simony, fornication, sacrilege, and uncleanness — and also emphasizes clerics’ lack of solidarity with their fellowmen. He dedicates a remarkably long passage to this issue (fol. 35r); due to its length, I present just the most important part here: Reddunt etiam clerici pari et sic proximo discordiam contra illud verbum Salvatoris Matt. 5. et Lu. 6 […] Et contra illud Apostoli I Cor. 11: Si quis videtur contentiosus esse, nos talem consuetudinem non habemus neque ecclesia Dei. [cf. I Cor. 11. 16] O Paule, Christi clerice, quid dicis? Nos talem consuetudinem non habemus? Certe nos moderni clerici habemus. Quid enim plus turbat ecclesiam quam nostra contentio? Quid facit schisma nisi contentio, quae est clericorum praecipua consuetudo? Paule, es ne Romae? Dic, rogo, quid facit clericus Romae? Sed iaces ibi mortuus, immo ibi nunc corporaliter non loqueris. Sed de te et pro te Bernhardus ad Eugenium Papam lib. I loquitur ita dicens: Tu quoque dic, quaeso, ‘ubi unquam sis liber, ubi tutus, ubi tuus? Vbique strepitus, ubique tumultus, ubique iugum tuae servitutis te premit, nec mihi reponas nunc Apostoli vocem, qui ait: “Cum essem liber ex omnibus, omnium me servum feci”. [I Cor. 9. 19] Longe est istud a te. Nunquid hac servitute ille hominibus inserviebat in acquisitione turpis quaestus? Nunquid ad eum de toto orbe confluebant ambitiosi, avari, symoniaci, sacrilegi, concubinarii, incaestuosi et quaecunque huiusmodi monstra hominum, ut ipsius apostolica autoritate vel obtinerent honores ecclesiasticos vel retinerent?’73 Et infra de contentione clericorum ad propositum nostrum dicit: ‘Quid servilius indigniusque praesertim summo pontifici? Non dico omni die, sed pene omni hora insudare talibus rebus et pro talibus denique quando oramus? Quando docemus populos? Quando aedificamus ecclesiam? Quando meditamur in lege? Et quidem quotidie perstrepunt in palatio leges, sed Iustiniani, non Domini. Ius tene etiam istud. Tu videris, nam certe lex Domini immaculata convertens animas. Hae autem non tam leges quam lites

72 Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, ed. by Leclercq, Talbot, and Rochais, 33. 15, p. 244. 73 Bernardus Claraevallensis, De consideratione libri V, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, i. 4, p. 398.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

sunt et cavillationes subvertentes iuditium. Tu ergo, pastor et episcope animarum, quam, te obsecro, sustines coram te semper silere illam et garrire istas? Fallor, si non movet tibi scrupulum perversitas haec, puto, quod et interdum compellit clamare ad Dominum cum propheta: Narraverunt mihi iniqui fabulationes, sed non ut lex tua’.74 [cf. Ps. 118. 85] Ecce quid faciunt contenciones, lites, cavillationes et fabulationes iniquae, provenientes ex avaritia et ambitiosa discordia clericorum? Nam et orationem impediunt. Et hinc dicit Bernhardus: ‘Quando oramus?’ Quasi dicat: Nunquam. Doctrinam impediunt populorum. Unde dicit: ‘Quando docemus populos?’ Quasi dicat: Nunquam. Aedificationes ecclesiae repudiant, unde dicit: ‘Quando aedificamus ecclesiam?’ Quasi dicat: Nunquam. Meditationem legis Domini annihilant, unde dicit: ‘Quando meditamur in lege?’75 Quasi diceret: Nunquam. Vocem legis Domini supprimunt, unde dicit: Sustines semper silere illam. Garritum autem legum Iustiniani multiplicant, unde dicit: Sustines garrire istas.76 Cum ergo tot et tanta mala clericorum contentio semper ecclesiam accumulant, sit a Domino maledicta. (fol. 35r) The pope is not yet a target of Hus’s criticism. Drawing from Bernard, Hus speaks about the noise and confusion of his era and about the burden of serving the pope, his lack of freedom, and the danger he is in; the ambitious, the greedy, simonists, blasphemers, fornicators, the incestuous, and all other manifestations of human abomination flock to the pope to take advantage of his solemnity for their own benefit. Priests do not pray, teach the nations, work on perfecting the Church, or contemplate divine law. Hus then elaborates on the conflicts and villainous fabulations that arise from the avarice and the ambitious disunity of the clergy. He also threatens schismatics with the Final Judgement. According to Hus, the purpose of every sermon was above all to condemn the guilt of people (cf. fol. 36r).

Antichrist Terminology in Hus’s Synodal Sermons In Diliges the actual term Antichristus appears only once (adopted from Wycliffe’s Nisi habundaverit, p. 253). More frequently we find phrases that include the modifier Antichristi: ecclesia Antichristi (the church of 74 Bernardus Claraevallensis, De consideratione libri V, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, i. 5, pp. 398–99. 75 Citation: Bernardus Claraevallensis, De consideratione libri V, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, i. 5, pp. 398–99. 76 Cf. Bernardus Claraevallensis, De consideratione libri V, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, i. 5, pp. 398–99.

119

120

CHAPTER 2

Antichrist, the opposite of the Church of Christ; fol. 28r) and a term Hus used for clergy members, minister Antichristi (a servant of Antichrist who commits sacrilege, fol. 31v; the opposite of Christi servi, fol. 28r). Moreover, Hus also refers to morally depraved Christians as filii Antichristi (sons of Antichrist, the opposite of sons of Christ, fol. 28r) and to some priests as praeambuli Antichristi (forerunners of Antichrist, fol. 31r; cf. praeambulus Satanae − Bernardus Claraevallensis, Epistulae, ep. 520, p. 481).77 The term Antichristi glosulae (fol. 31r) is mentioned twice and tempus Antichristi once (fol. 28r, adopted from Wycliffe’s Nisi habundaverit, p. 253). These expressions have no epithets. Except the phrase Antichristi glosulae, which I was unable to find in the works of Milíč, Matěj of Janov, or Wycliffe, none of these terms are original to Hus. In the works of Wycliffe, besides the simple, unmodified term Antichristus, we also find its derivatives combined with nouns such as ministri and filii to produce similar phrases to those in Diliges. Wycliffe regularly uses such phrases in his polemical works; Patschovsky considers them to be examples of traditional Antichrist metaphors. Thus, they were not invented by Wycliffe,78 which is evident especially in the frequently used phrases ecclesia Antichristi and minister Antichristi (or ministri Antichristi). In close proximity to the term Antichristus we also often find verbs signifying decline or depravity. Once again, Hus does not limit himself to just one phrase, but he employs diverse terminology to impart the same meaning: degenerare (fol. 28r), apostatare (fol. 28r, adopted from Wycliffe’s Nisi habundaverit, p. 253), and declinare (appearing twice on fol. 28r). He also uses these phrases to highlight the contrast between good and evil, the moral essence of the Antichrist issue. Hus uses the verb degenerare in a similar manner, but without indicating any details, for example, in Super Quattuor sententiarum: ‘Ab hac doctrina discedentes filii ecclesie degeneres […] velud Antichristi titinilli et nunccii […]’ (Super IV Sententiarum, i. Inceptio. 1. 8, pp. 7–8). Although the term Antichristus and its derivatives occur most fre‐ quently in the beginning and at the end of the sermon, in the body of the text Hus boldly criticizes the morals of the contemporary clergy. He refers to these internal enemies of the Church with other expressions. He avoids the term Antichristus even as his criticism intensifies and becomes more sharply focused. As a result, the frequency of the term Antichrist and its derivatives in Diliges is quite low in light of how much time Hus devotes to criticizing Antichrist’s activities.

77 Bernardus Claraevallensis, Epistulae, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, ep. 520, p. 481. 78 Patschovsky, ‘“Antichrist” bei Wyclif ’, p. 85. Cf. Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, ed. by Leclercq, Talbot, and Rochais, 33. 15, p. 244. Milíč also cites the same passage from Bernard.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

To refer to such abominations or the people that cause them Hus uses the term Antichristus or the modifier Antichristi five times in the intro‐ ductory section focused on enlightening listeners about Antichrist; in his attacks on Antichrist at the end of Diliges he uses the modifier four times. Therefore, all together, we find nine direct references to Antichrist (once as Antichristus, eight times as Antichristi). Neither the term Antichristus nor its derivatives appear in the biblical verses Hus uses to demonstrate that the age of Antichrist had arrived or in Bernard’s sentences. Another group of phrases Hus uses to refer to evidence of the coming of Antichrist and his activities is taken from biblical sources, such as Matthew 24. 12 on love growing cold (refriguit charitas) and from the Epis‐ tle of Paul to the Philippians 2. 21 on the tendency towards worldliness. Hus’s citations from the work of Bernard of Clairvaux, which employ frequent juxtaposing of terms, do not contain the term Antichrist: ‘[…] monachi demoniaci […] conversi perversi […] praesbyteri sadducei […] clerici […] haeretici […]’ (fol. 30v). Hus speaks in a similar style and also emphasizes contrast. In State the term Antichristus appears frequently in the introductory defin‐ ition of Antichrist (fols 32r–33v), in which Hus juxtaposes the true Christ‐ ian with the false Christian. This directness is reflected in the terminology of the introduction, where we find the terms Antichristus, Antichristi,79 and the modifier Antichristi eleven times. In the second part of the sermon, where Hus speaks about the three weapons and where he intensifies and sharpens the focus of his criticism of sinners (fols 33v–36v), Antichrist terminology is used much less often. The term Antichristus and its deriva‐ tives occur only twice in this section. Instead, we find a plethora of other phrases that refer to the moral features of Antichrist. In State the terms Antichristus and Antichristi appear thirteen times; this figure demonstrates that here Hus was more open in levelling even harsher criticism than in the earlier Diliges. He speaks directly about An‐ tichrist or Antichrists (if we leave aside the use of the modifier Antichristi) a total of nine times: in the introduction we find the phrase pessimi Antichristi (fol. 32r),80 a term Hus uses for hypocritical clerics. The false Christian, whose deeds belie the fact that he claims to be Christian, is accompanied by the army of Antichrist, and therefore the false Christian

79 I use capital letters, even though in doing so I incorporate the use of this expression in editions in which the authors used lower-case letters. This only relates to non-critical editions, however. 80 This term is used by John Wycliffe (Tractatus De potestate pape, ed. by Loserth, vii, p. 172 and xii, p. 378) in his criticism of the institution of the papacy and in his explanation of Antichrist’s emergence from amongst the clergy (Tractatus De potestate pape, ed. by Loserth, xii, p. 327).

121

122

CHAPTER 2

can be referred to as the true Antichrist, verus Antichristus (fol. 32r).81 The term Pseudochristus is also used as a synonym (fol. 32r). The plural form, Antichristi, is contained in a biblical verse that Hus employs as evidence of Antichrist’s activity (I John 2. 18; fol. 32r). In explaining the meaning of the name Antichrist (fol. 32v) the term Antichristus occurs four times. In the second, more detailed section of the sermon (i.e., in Hus’s com‐ mentary on the three weapons), Hus reveals that Antichrist is preparing an army (‘Antichristo sacerdotum praeparatur exercitus’, fol. 34v).82 The term also appears in a citation from Bernard of Clairvaux on how bad Christians serve Antichrist (‘serviunt Antichristo’, fol. 34v). Unlike in Diliges, in State on two occasions Hus combines the term Antichristus with an epithet: pessimi Antichristi and verus Antichristus; and nominative forms of Antichrist greatly outweigh modifiers. In State the modifier Antichristi appears four times. The false Christian, whose deeds belie his claim to be a Christian, is accompanied by the army of Antichrist (‘milicia Antichristi’;83 fol. 32r). Antichrist’s fiery missiles must be extin‐ guished (‘tela ignea extinguere Antichristi’; fol. 32v). The fellow-heirs of Antichrist or the deputy of Antichrist (cohaeres Antichristi or vicarius Antichristi; fol. 33r) are examples of denotations for those who should not wear the belt of truth. In this case too Hus’s use of the modifier falls within the traditional understanding of Antichrist-related terminology.84 I have already explained the situation with Hus’s citations of authori‐ ties. Some of the other sources Hus draws from speak about Antichrist using different language; for example, they talk about the ‘king of pride’ (‘rex superbiae’ − Gregory the Great; fol. 34v) or about scorn and enemies (‘inimici spreverunt’ — Thren. 1. 2; fol. 34v) or about bitterness (‘amari‐ tudo’, Bernard of Clairvaux and Is. 38. 17; fol. 34v).

The Rhetorical Devices of Hus’s Synodal Sermons When Hus references Antichrist, he most often uses antithesis and, more generally, parallelism. These rhetorical devices are the most common ones found in both Diliges and State. Hus also uses climax, repetition, and apostrophe. Amplification is another important device; these sermons in their entirety are essentially amplifications of the fight against Antichrist.

81 Cf. the commentary in State on ‘verus christianus’ (fol. 32r); this is a common term that appeared well before Hus. 82 Cf. Gregorius Magnus, Registrum epistularum, ed. by Norberg, 5. epist. 44, p. 333. 83 Cf. milites Antichristi in Wycliffe’s polemical writings (Patschovsky, ‘Antichrist’, p. 85), another example of traditional Antichrist terminology. 84 Cf. Patschovsky, ‘Antichrist’, pp. 85–86.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

But now let us return to the most noteworthy rhetorical device used by Hus: antithesis. The purpose of Hus’s antitheses is to emphasize the juxtaposition between Christ and Antichrist and to reveal to the utmost the contrast between good and evil, virtue and sin. We can find many antitheses in the works of Czech authors who influenced Hus, such as Matěj of Janov, as well as in Wycliffe’s writings. In Diliges antitheses appear in the following situations: • When Hus compares the Church of Christ and the church of An‐ tichrist: […] alia dicitur Romana ecclesia ut papa cum cardinalibus, cum intrant per ostium et Christum Dominum imitantur in virtutibus; alia Pragensis ut dominus archiepiscopus cum clericis maioribus, si intrantes per ostium sacramenta Christi porrigunt in humilitate, in paupertate, in castitate, misericordia et pacientia Christum, animarum episcopum, imitando.|85 Quod si utraque supradicta congregatio in iam dictis degenerat, tunc ex veritatis testimonio sunt fures et latrones — Ioan. 10 [cf. Ioh. 10. 8]. Et per consequens sunt ecclesiae Antichristi. (fol. 28r) • When Hus cites Wycliffe, who refers to the clergy as Antichrist: […] dum [clerus] efficaciter praeest officio, quod incumbit. Debet enim mundum relinquere, ecclesiam vivificare ut spiritus et undi‐ quaque proxime sequi Christum.| Si autem apostatat, nulla est peior vel austerior, nimirum Antichristus, quia ubi est gradus vel status altior, est casus gravior, ut patet de Lucifero et de sacerdotibus, qui crucifixerunt Dominum, et de Iuda.| Sicut enim Moyses et Aaron sacerdotes primi legis veteris erant optimi| et caeteri declinando erant pessimi, ut patet in fine successionis eorum,| sic in lege nova Christus et sui apostoli sacerdotes erant optimi,| sed declinando ab primaevitate et sic ab imi‐ tatione Christi ad saeculum sunt pessimi tempore Antichristi. (fol. 28r; quotation from Wycliffe, Nisi habundaverit, xxxviii, p. 253) • When Hus distinguishes in general between Christian and nonChristian behaviour: Christiani debent imitari Christum Dominum […]| quia aliter in moribus forent degeneres,| non filii Christi,| sed filii Antichristi […] (fol. 28r) • Bernard’s sequence of contrasts also expresses antitheses: monachi| demoniaci, conversi| perversi, praesbyteri| sadducei, clerici| haeretici (fol. 30v).

85 I use this punctuation mark to separate antitheses.

123

124

CHAPTER 2

A brief digression about antitheses would be fitting here. In Hus’s work, one antithesis appears that can be expressed through visual art and which is highly similar to the well-known antithesis contained in Nicholas of Dresden’s Tabule veteris et novi coloris,86 a work written in 1412 that criti‐ cizes the state of the Roman Church, as well in several later chronicles:87 the juxtaposition of Christ riding a donkey and the pope riding a horse. This antithesis can be found in its basic form throughout Hus’s work, but its form evolved over time (changes have been noted between 1404– 1405 and 1407–1408) until it culminated in Hus’s Česká nedělní postila.88 I have three main reasons for calling particular attention to this antithesis. First, although it is highly evocative and generally applicable and directly criticizes the pope, it never became a standard part of Hus’s Antichrist rhetoric, not even when he waged his most pitched battles. Hus employed this image almost exclusively in connection with Palm Sunday. Second, we find this antithesis exclusively in Hus’s sermons, although not in his synodal ones. Third, scholars have yet to determine the exact source of this antithesis, although they have scoured the works of, among others, Wycliffe and Matěj of Janov, who often employed this device.89 State features even more evocative parallelism and longer antitheses than Diliges. Another noteworthy aspect of State is that in it, Hus does not focus on developing the negative aspects of his antitheses; he spends the same energy commenting upon the good Christian and Christ as he does commenting upon Antichrist. State is not just a work of criticism; it is propaganda calling on people to engage in a spiritual battle: Sicut enim clerici dicuntur principaliter Christi, id est uncti et sic Christiani, ut metipsi asserunt, sic principaliter armis virtutum debent indui et Christum Dominum immeditatius imitari.| Cum alias in uanum nomen Dei sui Christi assumerent et nec Christi nec Christiani dicerentur ueraciter, sed forent uerius pessimi Antichristi. (fol. 32r) Moreover, this statement is followed by another two statements: the first about the true Christian (‘verus Christianus’; fol. 32r), the second about the false Christian (‘Christianus falsus’; fol. 32r):

86 Nicolaus de Dresda, Tabule veteris et novi coloris, ed. by Kaminsky; cf. the mentioned passage from Hus with p. 38. Cf. also the Czech version of Tabule in the Jena Codex (Tabule veteris et novi coloris, ed. by Mutlová). 87 Mutlová, ‘Communicating’, pp. 31–32; Chytil, Antikrist, p. 143. 88 Jan Hus, Česká nedělní postila. Vyloženie svatých čtení nedělních, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 178. Karel Chytil already noted the occurrence of antithesis in Postila. More recently Petra Mutlová has also called attention to it: Mutlová, ‘Communicating’, p. 31; Chytil, Antikrist, p. 143. 89 For more detailed information, see Mazalová, ‘Non sedit super equum fervidum’.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S SYNODAL SERMONS

[…] solum iste verus Christianus dicitur, qui mandata Dei exequitur et Christo in moribus similatur […] (fol. 32r)| [Antichristi] moribus Christi sunt contrarii et qui, quod Christus colligit, ipsi dispergunt […] contrarius et per consequens Antichristus […] dicitur enim Antichristus quasi adversans Christo vel contrarius Christo […] in moribus et operibus malignis […] (fols 32r–32v) A similar commentary follows, this time on the Christian army and its opposite, the army of the Midianites and the Amalekites: Madianitae interpretantur iniqui sive contradicentes et significant clerum, qui Christo iniquie operibus contradicit. Amalechitae interpretantur gens bruta vel populus lambens et significat ignarum populum, qui tanquam brutum carnis et mundi sopismata semper lambit […]| Hi adversantur exercitui Gideonis […] qui tentatur in humilitate, et sic exercitui Iesu Christi […] (fol. 32v) The most noteworthy section of State addressing this theme is a passage in which Hus once again juxtaposes true and false Christians and in which the modifier Antichristi and many pairs of opposites are mentioned: Et qui fidelis inventus fuerit, vere erit angelus Domini, sacerdos Dei altissimi, praesul magnus, pontifex eximius […] cohaeres Christi, primatu Abel, gubernatu Noe, patriarchatu Abraham, ordine Melchisedech, dignitate Aaron […] unctione Christus […] vicarius Christi.90 (fol. 33r)| Nam qui cum primo refuga in veritate non steterit et lumbos praecinctus non fuerit et pedes iusticiam non calceatus, in praeparatione evangelii pacis non steterit, erit secundum testimonium Christi ut Iudas Scarioth, diabolus quia defluens a gratia, erit daemon, id est sanguineus ex peccati macula, Belial quia absque iugo Domini ex inobedientia, Sathan quia adversarius Christi, Behemoth quia cruenta bestia. Erit Leviathan quia accumulans peccatum, Mammon in avaritia, Bel in gula, Asmodeus in luxuria, angelus Sathanae seductione, sacerdos Dagon adoratione, Balaam maledictione, doctor falsidicus, cardo perfidiae, praeco nequitiae, ductor sceleris, vas foetoris, habitaculum diaboli, minister peccati, haeres inferni, cohaeres Antichristi, gubernator Lucifer, princeps tenebrarum, nuncius mali, tuba mendacii, amicus Luciferi, cleri confusio, populi excecatio, sal terrae infatuatum, neque in sterquilinium valens, tenebrae inferni, vicarius Antichristi, quem ipse constituit, ut fieret seductor populi, vitae secula […] sic caeteris Christi evangelio contrarior, inter inutiles inutilior et in damnatione profundior. (fol. 33r)

90 Bernardus Claraevallensis, De consideratione libri V, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, ii. 15, p. 423.

125

126

CHAPTER 2

Figure 1. ‘The beginning of the sermon Diliges Dominum Deum’, Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic, MS VIII F 2, fol. 22r. First half of the fifteenth century. Reproduced with permission of the National Library of the Czech Republic.

ChAPtER 3

Antichrist in Hus’s Correspondence

Hus wrote most of his letters1 after he had been banned from publicly speaking in Prague and, later, after many months spent in exile, when he was alone in prison. As a result of Hus’s long-lasting difficulties with Church authorities, he wrote many letters of different types and functions, many of which have survived until today. When Hus was prevented from preaching, his letters often served as ersatz sermons. In many of them Hus addresses the general public, and thus they can be viewed as literary epistles, although they are not the first works of this kind as Josef Hrabák claims.2 Many of these letters describe concrete injustices that Antichrist had committed directly against Hus. Thus, in Hus’s correspondence we can observe a major shift in comparison with his earlier sermons in which Antichrist figured only as the enemy of the Christian community as a whole. As Hus’s personal eschatology grew more intense, it began to incorporate new practical themes: suffering, martyrdom, solace, and the role of the preacher and preaching in the end times. Hus was viewed as a warrior engaged in battle with Antichrist not only by his followers (most distinctly by Jakoubek of Stříbro) but also by Hus himself. František Holeček considers Hus to be a central figure in eschatological events. Hus’s letters are exceptional sources because the grave situation in which Hus wrote them, and the limitations of the genre itself, forced him to express himself more tangibly and succinctly than in other forms of communication; in his correspondence he focuses only on the most pertinent issues. His letters from prison are marked not only by a lack of time but also a lack of writing paper; they were mostly written on small pieces of paper that were later arranged by Petr of Mladoňovice.3 Antichrist themes can be found in Hus’s letters from 1408–1415; their centrality and importance differ from letter to letter. Throughout this period, Hus’s priority remained the connection between Antichrist and morality. We can, however, observe Hus’s growing interest in Antichrist and his increasingly more personal and open criticism. 1 M. Jana Husi korespondence a dokumenty, ed. by Novotný. 2 Hrabák in the chapter ‘O zanikání a vznikání žánrů v literatuře doby husitské’, p. 127. 3 Korespondence, p. xvi, foreword to the editions.

128

CHAPTER 3

In his correspondence, Hus mentions only once that Antichrist must be recognized (no. 49). Otherwise, Antichrist is presented as a well-known concept. Antichrist is a great tempter of Christians. Antichrist may be anyone who goes against Christ by committing a mortal sin (fornication, pride, simony, falling away from or dishonouring the Word of God, adin‐ venciones hominum; no. 49 and in greater detail no. 69). Over time, Hus specifically labels those who oppose him and his efforts as Antichrists (e.g., letter nos 24, 28, 53, 60, 87, 118), particularly his accusers and betrayers (nos 49, 58) and other people opposed to reformist preaching (e.g., nos 48, 49, 52, 63). In this dramatic era, preaching the gospel was fundamental to the salvation of individuals and society as a whole in part because sermons proclaimed the wickedness of Antichrist (no. 147) and eternal death for his followers. The ban on preaching was a manifestation of Antichrist’s persecution of faithful Christians (nos 49, 63, 145), including Hus (nos 35, 41 48, 52, 58, 100). Hus frequently deals with persecution in his letters (e.g., nos 35, 49, 63), even when he does not use Antichrist terminology (e.g., nos 49, 52, 63). Unlike in his sermons, in his letters Hus only rarely speaks about the sins of Antichrist using basic, general terms, such as hypocrisy or pride. He does so only outside of the context of Church reform, when he rebukes ordinary people for moral offences (e.g., a widow for her bad behaviour, no. 7). We can find the same basic notion of Antichrist — that is, Antichrist as a sinful priest standing in the way of essential Church reform and opposing Hus and his followers — in letters from Oldcastle (no. 21) and Wyche (no. 22),4 which were written when Hus was embroiled in a great conflict with the archbishop (1409). These letters confirm that the personal struggle against Antichrist that Hus describes in his works is not just a subjective observation on his part. Sir John Oldcastle, Lord Cobham, praises the Bohemians for the zeal with which they defend the faith and supports their reform efforts (no. 21, Cowling, 8 September 1410,5 letter addressed to Voks of Valdštejn, or Zdislav of Zvířetice): […] lex domini immaculata furat nimis diu per antichristianos presbiteros suffocata et ab istis, quibus Christus commiserat gladium ob defensionem sue legis, nimis vecorditer parvipensa. (p. 73) Richard Wyche, a Lollard, encouraged Hus and his friends to continue in their reform efforts (no. 22, London, 8 August 1410):6

4 To the correspondence written by Oldcastle and Wyche, see Van Dussen, From England, especially pp. 65−66 and 72−77, and Cermanová, ‘Constructing the Apocalypse’, pp. 68−69. 5 Korespondence, p. 73. 6 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 310, p. 261. Novotný (Korespondence) dates it to 8 October 1410.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

Audivi, fratres, quam acriter vos turbat Antichristus, tribulaciones varias et inauditas Christi fidelibus inferendo. Nec mirum utique, si apud vos, cum iam quasi ubique terrarum per adversarios lex Christi inpungnatur nimium, et draco ille rufus, tot habens capita, de quo in Apokalipsi [cf. Apoc. 12. 3–15], iam de ore suo emiserit flumen magnum, per quod absorbere nititur mulierem. Sed Deus graciosissimus unicam sibi fidelissimam sponsam finaliter liberabit. (p. 76) Recogitemus eum, qui talem sustinuit a peccatoribus adversum semet ipsum contradiccionem, ut non fatigemur, animis nostris deficientes, sed deprecemur ex corde auxilium a domino et contra eius adversarium Antichristum viriliter militemus. Diligamus […] laboremus sub spe premii sempiterni. (pp. 77–78) The following statements by Wyche refer directly to Hus’s role in reform; the terminology they contain is reminiscent of that of Hus’s synodal sermon State: Tu ergo Hus […] confortare in gracia, que data est tibi, labora sicud bonus miles Christi Jesu. Predica, insta verbo et exemplo, et quos poteris, ad viam revoca veritatis, quia non propter censuras frivolas et fulminaciones Antichristianas est veritas ewangelica subticenda. Et ideo membra Christi per dyabolum debilitata robora pro viribus et confirma, et si dignatus fuerit altissimus, in proximo terminabitur Antichristus. Et unum est, super quo gaudeo, quod in regno nostro et alibi Deus corda quorumdam adeo animaverat, quod eciam usque ad carceres, exilium et mortem gaudenter sustinent7 propter verbum Christi. (p. 78) Just like in his sermons, in his letters Hus proves that Antichrist has come by referring to biblical verses, even ones that do not contain the term Antichrist or its derivatives. Considering the number of letters that mention Antichrist, the number of biblical verses that Hus uses to prove the coming of Antichrist is rather limited: Matth. 24. 128 (nos 11, 42), Matth. 24. 119 (no. 69), and Matth. 24. 21– 2410 (no. 147); and paraphrases of Matth. 24. 21 (no. 69), Matth. 7. 15–16 (e.g., no. 100), Matth. 7. 15 (no. 69), Matth. 24. 15 (nos 147, 60), and Is. 9. 15.

7 According to the editor, this refers to the persecution of Wycliffe’s followers in England, not in Bohemia. Loserth, however, sees this as a reference to the situation in Bohemia. 8 Also in De sanguine and Diliges. 9 Also in De sanguine. 10 Matthew 24. 23–24, also in De sanguine; Matthew 24. 24, also in State.

129

130

CHAPTER 3

The following biblical verses also play an important role: Matth. 5. 10, 16 (no. 69) and Matth. 24. 26 (no. 60), Phil. 2. 2111 (nos 11, 42), II Cor. 6. 15 (no. 60), and in connection with persecution II Tim. 3. 12–13 (no. 69) and Luc. 6. 22–23 (no. 145).

The Terminology and Rhetorical Devices of the Correspondence Hus wrote his letters in both Latin and Czech; therefore, in addition to Latin terms for Antichrist, we must also take note of the Czech term Antikrist and its derivatives. As a result of the brevity of his letters, in many of them Hus uses Czech and Latin terms equivalent to Antichrist as if they were rhetorical tropes; he often does not define such terms in any detail, nor does he make significant mention of the end times or any other apocalyptic issues. But thanks to our understanding of the overall context of Hus’s work and the specific features of correspondence as a genre, we know that these terms are not just tropes. Like in his sermons, here too Hus frequently talks about Antichrist without using the term Antichristus or the Czech Antikrist or its derivatives. Although there is no clear trend over time in the frequency with which Hus uses such terminology, at the end of his lifelong battle against An‐ tichrist, Hus criticizes suffering and persecution without using the term Antichristus or the Czech Antikrist. In the following overview, I present the phrases containing Antichrist terminology that Hus used and demonstrate that Hus did not use the term Antichrist as an epithet: cesta Antikristova (no. 7), viam antichristus preparat (no. 16), Antichristus (no. 24, twice; also nos 35, 48, 49 — Latin version, no. 53, four times; nos 58, 63, 100, twice; no. 145, twice), antichristiani (no. 28), antichristi insidiae (no. 41), lež Antikristova (no. 48), falešní proroci (no. 49), chytrosti Antikristovy (no. 49), sluhové Antikristovi (no. 49), Antikristovi poslové (nos 49, 100), boj Antikristův (no. 49), falešní Kristové (no. 49), Antikristův toulec (no. 49), malicia antichristi (no. 49), antichristi preludia (no. 52), bestia antichristi (no. 52), antichristi satellites (no. 53), antichristi discipuli (no. 53, twice), subscripcio antichristi (no. 53), Antikristovy sítě (no. 87), lest Antikristova (no. 100), dolus antichristi (no. 139), Antikristova škola (no. 147),12

11 Also in a citation of Bernard of Clairvaux in Diliges. 12 Several of these phrases and collocations appear in the same or similar form in Wycliffe’s polemical writings (Patschovsky presents them in Antichrist, p. 85), where we find a statement about preparing the way for Antichrist and the phrases versucie Antichristi, servi

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

hanba Antikristova (no. 147), antichristi mendacio (no. 161), and lupi rapaces (no. 69). The terms Antichristus and Antikrist and their derivatives are contained in twenty-two of Hus’s 114 letters that have survived either in full or in part. These terms and their derivatives appear forty-three times in Hus’s letters and significantly outnumber other words and phrases used to express the fatal conflict between good and evil that was playing out in Hus’s day (e.g., Sathanas, cauda Vehemoth, Vehemoth; no. 24). The frequency and manner in which such terms are used depend on the nature of each letter and how closely each resembles other literary genres. In the vast majority of letters, this terminology is employed to criticize as well as to encourage Christians standing on the side of reform to remain steadfast in the face of suffering, to rid themselves of fear (‘sine metu’, no. 69; cf. Oldcastle, no. 21, and Wyche, no. 22), and to commit themselves to fighting until the end. Some of these letters are not focused exclusively on criticism (these letters’ main objectives are to provide solace and encourage faithful Christians); other letters, however, revolve around criticism of the Church, and they effectively served as surrogate sermons. Considering the fact that Hus’s letters do not contain many consecu‐ tive statements about Antichrist and do not, therefore, feature the large passages about Antichrist present in his sermons, Hus does not use rhetor‐ ical devices as often as he does in his sermons. Nonetheless, in his letters Hus does use antithesis for expressing his ideas: Sed proch dolor, Antichristiani in illa regula sunt cecati, non autem sancti appostoli et veri Christi discipuli. (no. 28, p. 90) Item in isto sto: si papa est predestinatus et exercet officium pastorale, sequens Christum in moribus, tunc est caput tante militantis ecclesie, quantam regit; et si sic regit capitaliter secundum legem Christi totam iam militantem ecclesiam, tunc est verus eius capitaneus sub archicapite domino Ihesu Christo.| Si vero vivit Christo contrarie, tunc est fur, latro, ascendens aliunde et est lupus rapax, [cf. Matth. 7. 15] ypocrita, et nunc inter omnes viantes precipuus Antichristus. (no. 60, p. 167)

Antichristi, and scola Antichristi. As Patschovsky states, these are all traditional terms related to Antichrist.

131

132

CHAPTER 3

The Development of the Antichrist Theme in Hus’s Letters After Hus delivered the synodal sermon State, a series of events occurred that led him to criticizing the clergy even more harshly. In June 1408 Archbishop Zbyněk added to the restored ban on preaching remanence a prohibition on preaching against the clergy and calling attention to its faults.13 He also ordered all Wycliffe’s books to be burned. In general, interest in the Papal Schism had grown, and criticism of it was combined with criticism of ecclesiastical formalism and Church property.14 It was mainly thanks to the Schism that reformers returned to the ideas of Matěj of Janov and Matouš of Cracow. For Hus the ban that had been put in place on preaching activities was unthinkable. He therefore became embroiled in an argument with the archbishop and with the Germans at Charles University and began to speak about the persecution of good priests (in a letter to the archbishop of 6 July 1408). In 1407–1408 he continued to announce the impending end of days, as Jana Nechutová notes, in Exposicio decalogi and in the sermons of the postil Sermones de sanctis.15 To Hus all these problems were signs of the end times. Church authorities also began to criticize Hus more heavily – for both his alleged heresy and for his scandalous sermons against the clergy from 1407.16 Hus now found himself at the centre of attention. When a French proposal to resolve the Schism was presented (on 25 May 1408), reformers (including Hus), and even many of Wycliffe’s opponents, were convinced that, if necessary, withdrawing allegiance to the Roman pope would be permissible. Archbishop Zbyněk, however, remained loyal to Gregory. As a result, Zbyněk fully ceased to support Hus and joined the ranks of those lodging accusations against Czech Wycliffites with the curia. Nonetheless, on 16 July 1408 Zbyněk declared that there were no heretics to be found in his diocese. At this time, major changes were also under way in Prague at Charles University with the issuing of the Kutná Hora Decree (1409). Hus was not ‘present at the issuing of the royal mandate in Kutná Hora’,17 and historians still debate his contribution to it. According to Martin Nodl, Hus was 13 On the basis of a study of texts of synodal statues in an edition prepared by Polc and Hledíková (Pražské synody, no. LXIII, no. 3, p. 286), Soukup comes to the conclusion that this ban applied to preaching to the people in the Czech language (Soukup, Reformní kazatelství, p. 93). 14 See Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 229. 15 Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, p. 182. 16 Hus responded in De arguendo clero, in which he laid down his opinions (Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, pp. 252–60). 17 Nodl, Dekret kutnohorský, p. 241.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

one of the Czech masters who played a significant role in initiating the decree.18 Jiří Kejř, however, rejects a connection between the inception of this decree and Hus, who was in Prague when it was proclaimed.19 At this time of great controversy, Hus was completing his commentary on the third book of Lombard’s Sentences and beginning work on his commentary on the fourth. These writings reflect Hus’s current state of mind. After the Germans left Charles University, the archbishop imposed an interdict on Wycliffites. But Hus did not consider the excommunication of Wycliffites as a matter that affected him personally; he continued as before in his work at Charles University and in the Bethlehem Chapel. Alexander V was elected pope at the Council of Pisa on 26 June 1409 and crowned on 4 July. The propagandistic nature of Hus’s preaching had an effect on this process. Under Hus’s influence, people demonstrated against the interdict Zbyněk had imposed on Prague despite being unaware of the results of the council. After things calmed down at Charles University, Hus was elected its first rector. In the end, the archbishop recognized Alexander’s papacy, but nonetheless maintained his unrelenting contempt for Hus. Indeed, Zbyněk had Hus spied upon while he preached at Bethlehem Chapel from 1409 onwards, primarily employing Jan Protiva to do the task. Hus could thus sense Antichrist persecuting him first-hand. Moreover, in September 1409 the archbishop prompted inquisitor Mařík Rvačka to question Hus about claims made against the preacher in several articles.20 These claims included, among other things, criticism of Hus’s synodal sermon of 1405, Diliges, which the archbishop had praised highly at the time. The Bethle‐ hem Chapel also became a target. Hus was accused of inciting the Czechs against the Germans in his sermons. Hus responded in late 1409 with a public statement and, acting as university rector, with a sermon in memory of Charles IV delivered on 29 November 1409, Confirmate corda vestra.21 This sermon criticized the current situation and also served as a manual for preachers who could use its ideas to condemn sins in the future. Not long thereafter, acting as rector and officiating a university mass, he delivered a sermon to candidates for the priesthood about the responsibilities of priests and Christians in general titled Spiritum nolite extinguere.22 In this sermon, he focused not only on Antichrist by referencing Apocalypse 16. 13–14, but also on the Final Judgement, and thus one of Hus’s works took on an apocalyptic tone for the first time.

18 19 20 21 22

Nodl, Dekret kutnohorský, esp. p. 243. Kejř, Jan Hus známý, p. 27. Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 380. On the eschatological aspects of this sermon, see Mazalová, Eschatologie, pp. 261–69. Novotný, pp. 383–84. On the eschatological aspects of this sermon, see Mazalová, Eschatologie, pp. 179–91.

133

134

CHAPTER 3

Antichrist in Hus’s Responses to the Condemnation and Burning of Wycliffe’s Books and the Ban on Openly Preaching

Hus was incensed by the synod’s decision of 16 June 1410 to burn certain books by Wycliffe and to ban preaching in private spaces with the excep‐ tion of four certain types of churches under threat of interdict. For Hus the ban on preaching meant a rejection of the principles of Christianity, which he believed were based on freely proclaiming the gospel and the truth. But he did not yet realize the potential consequences of violating this prohibition, perhaps because he considered it so absurd; he devoted greater energy to criticizing the burning of Wycliffe’s books. The synod’s decision was an important historical event because these bans contributed significantly to Hus’s reasons for speaking about Antichrist in his later letters. As time progressed, the punishments for violating the prohibition on preaching became more severe; as a consequence, Hus wrote about this topic with growing fervour in his letters. Hus continued to deliver critical sermons. He received influential sup‐ port from King Wenceslaus and Charles University. He ceased to recognize decrees made by the Church and began to turn to God as the only true creator of laws and rules.23 He thus came close to realizing for the first time that the situation could lead to a turning point in history. Hus made his first direct appeal to God on 26 June 1410 during his Sunday homily on Luke 5. 1: Numquid in Christi nomine et virtute sancte obediencie debet predicacio prohiberi? Revera pocius deberent dicere: Antichristi nomine invocato in virtute maledicte obediencie mandamus, ne verbum Dei in capellis predicetur! (p. 163*)24 On 25 June 1410 Hus had his appeal to the pope against Zbyněk’s decision, which was written mainly by Jan of Jesenice but which Hus contributed to, read to an audience in the Bethlehem Chapel. According to Hus’s accusers, this appeal, which is no longer extant, supposedly mentioned that Jacobus de Teramo’s prophecy about Antichrist had been fulfilled. We lack the evidence to determine if this was indeed said, but we do know that at this point in time Hus was speaking about Antichrist as being active within the Church. Although the appeal was signed by many important figures, the archbishop did not respect their wishes; thus, it was confirmed in Hus’s eyes that Zbyněk was Antichrist on 16 July when the archbishop had Wycliffe’s books burned and on 18 July when he imposed an interdict on Hus and those who had signed his appeal.

23 Novotný, M. Jan Hus, I, 1, p. 407. 24 The text of the sermon is reprinted in Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, appendix xii, no. 6, pp. 159–64.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

But letters were still yet not the only means with which Hus could call out Antichrist. In 1410, besides the sermon Spiritum, Hus also delivered the sermon Vos estis sal terrae25 on 28 August26 after his conflict with the archbishop. In it, Hus employs his usual rhetorical device of antithesis in his criticism of the clergy’s morals: ‘[…] non sunt Cristi discipuli, quibus dicit: Vos estis sal terre [Matth. 5. 13], sed habentes condicionem contrariam sunt discipuli anticristi’ (Positiones, p. 150). Other thinkers also saw Antichrist as a problem. July at Charles Uni‐ versity was marked by attempts to defend Wycliffe’s works. During the month, not only Hus, but also Jakoubek of Stříbro and Prokop of Pilsen, uttered the word Antichrist in these endeavours. They were all convinced that Wycliffe’s books had been wrongly condemned, strictly out of hatred of reform.27 And thus Jakoubek calls upon true believers to fight Antichrist:28 ‘Pugnemus ergo in verbo domini contra adversarium antichristum et eius sequaces […]’ (p. 317). He also complains about ‘abhominacio’ and ‘schismata’: ‘Et via Christi angusta iam nimis, in qua paucissimi ambulant (Matth. 7. 14), hec reprobatur tamquam antichristi, et via antichristi ap‐ probatur, acceptatur, auctorisatur tamquam via Christi’ (p. 322). He then uses Matěj of Janov’s words about ‘tempus pessimi Antichristi’ (p. 324; here he cites Matěj’s Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti, ii. iii. 4. 4. 16, p. 194). Prokop of Pilsen speaks in a similar vein: Cum autem heu iam (modernis) antichristinis temporibus filii quidam tenebrarum cum earumdem insurgentes potestate, malum bonum et bonum malum asserentes […] ad pauca tamen respicientes, de facili pronunciaverunt omnes libros magistri Iohannis Wykleff ignis voragine esse ab oculis hominum semovendos […] ut Heliam contra antichristinum dogma in scriptis nobis […]29 (p. 278) The conflict between Hus and Zbyněk fostered the belief among the reformers that a critical period had arrived and that Antichrist was indeed active within the Church. Hus came under mounting pressure from the cu‐ ria. Zbyněk first mustered up the courage to accuse Hus of heresy (through Michael de Causis) in March 1411 in an attempt to prohibit Hus from

25 In Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, pp. 149–56. 26 In Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, p. 239. 27 This idea was championed mainly by Master Zdislav of Zvířetice (Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, pp. 428–29). 28 Mgri Jacobi de Misa defensio libri Decalogi Mgri Johannis Wiklef, ed. by Sedlák. 29 ‘Prokop von Pilsen vertheidigt Wiclifs Traktat de ideis’, in Loserth, Hus und Wyclif, pp. 277– 85.

135

136

CHAPTER 3

preaching. For the time being Hus managed to stay relatively untouched, but the events of March came to a head in early April, when Dietrich of Nieheim issued a treatise attacking Bohemian Wycliffites, who were allegedly teaching remanence. To Hus and his followers these were the first clear signs that Hus indeed had come under attack from Antichrist. These events sparked a long-lasting conflict between Hus and his opponents, whom he considered Antichrists, about issues that were far graver and for Hus potentially more fatal than previous issues of heresy. Modern scholars have yet to determine what critical information Wyche’s letter contained for Hus to see it as an explanation of salvation: Tue caritatis epistola, que desursum a patre descendit luminum, in Christi fratribus vehementer accendit animum: quia tantum dulcedinis, efficacie, roboracionis et consolacionis in se continet, quod, si alia scripta singula per Antichristi consummerentur voraginem, ipsa Christi fidelibus sufficeret ad salutem. (no. 24, p. 83, Prague, after 15 March 1411,30 Master Jan Hus to Richard Wyche) What was clearly important for Hus, however, were Wyche’s assurances that the Church would be liberated and that Antichrist would be van‐ quished and his words of encouragement and solace, that is, the same things the Hus was trying to offer his followers: […] acriter vos turbat Antichristus […] sed Deus graciosissimus unicam sibi fidelissimam sponsam finaliter liberabit […] nulla idcirco tribulacio vel angustia propter Christum nos deiciat, scientes pro certo, quia quoscumque dominus in filios dignatur recipere, hos flagellat […] (no. 22, p. 76) Hus also wanted to show his gratitude to his English follower and use Wyche’s support to further encourage the Bohemian reformers, and there‐ fore Hus acknowledged the value of Wyche’s letter full of words of encour‐ agement and praise. Wyche does not identify a specific person as Antichrist. Nonetheless, Hus, in his response to Wyche, clearly indicates that Archbishop Zbyněk, who on 16 March had an interdict on Hus declared in two Prague churches, was Antichrist (no. 24, Prague, after 15 March 1411).31 Otherwise, Hus identi‐ fies the corrupt clergy with Antichrist. According to Hus, the common people, unlike Church authorities, had already seen the light. The tense atmosphere surrounding the ban on preaching endured, and thus, Hus mentions Antichrist in the same context in a letter to Jan Bradatý

30 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 167, p. 195. 31 See also Korespondence, p. 83 and Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 167, p. 195.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

and the people of Krumlov (no. 28, Prague,32 likely from May 141133), in a sermon delivered in April 1411 on Hebrews 13. 17, in early May in a commentary on Sap. 5. 1, in a Czech-language letter to the people of Pilsen (no. 35, likely from October 1411),34 and in the sermon Ait dominus servo (on Luc. 14. 23) of 21 June. For example, in the first-mentioned letter we find the following line: ‘Sed proch dolor, Antichristiani in illa regula sunt cecati, non autem sancti appostoli et veri Christi discipuli’ (no. 28, p. 90). Hus also sees signs of Antichrist in other things — in the escalating conflict between King Wenceslaus and Zbyněk and in the restlessness of the people. Although Hus views Antichrist as his personal enemy, Antichrist still presents a danger to the entire reform effort. Who is considered to be the supreme Antichrist at this point in time? In January 141235 Jakoubek of Stříbro posed a quodlibetal question with the incipit ‘Utrum sicut ex scriptura plane constat, Christum in plenitu‐ dine temporis personaliter advenire, ita evidenter sit deducibile ex eadem, Antichristum in complemento seculi propria venire in persona’, which is today best known as Posicio de Anticristo, in which he draws from Milíč and Matěj of Janov, proclaims the end times have arrived, and hints that the pope is Antichrist.36 In De tribus dubiis, a treatise from February 1412, Hus addresses the relationship between the pope and Antichrist, although he is much more careful in his statements than Jakoubek. According to Hus, the pope could theoretically be Antichrist. Nonetheless, for the time being the highest confirmed Antichrist in Hus’s mind was Zbyněk. In a letter to the Carthusians of Dolany (no. 41, likely from May 1412),37 in which Hus justifies why he did not appear before the Holy See, the impact of Antichrist’s activities on Hus’s personal life come to the forefront once again. Hus had been personally targeted with a ban on preaching and had even been accused and called to trial: Sed heu, quis in istis temporibus in hominibus maxime avaris, maxime superbis et obduratis proficiet, qui ‘auditum suum a veritate averterunt et ad fabulas sunt conversi’? [cf. II Tim. 4. 4] Dominus omnipotens dignetur suam sanctam ecclesiam una vobiscum preservare ab Antichristi insidiis, et me vestris favoribus pro auxilio beatitudinis commendare. (p. 121)

Korespondence, p. 89. Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 170, p. 197. Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 175, p. 199. After 1412 the term Antikrist also appears in Česká kázání sváteční, specifically in a sermon on the Gospel of John, where Hus uses it in the biblical context (Ioh. 21. 19–24; Česká sváteční kázání, ed. by Daňhelka, p. 103). 36 Novotný, M. Jan Hus, I, 2, p. 44. 37 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 180, p. 201. Korespondence, p. 120 dates to a period between 4 April and May.

32 33 34 35

137

138

CHAPTER 3

Antichrist in Reactions to the Indulgences

The manner in which the pope granted indulgences was one of the factors that led Hus to considering whether the pope could be Antichrist. On 9 October 1411 Pope John XXIII promised indulgences to those who would fight against Ladislaus of Naples. Hus did not reject the notion of granting indulgences as such, but he did criticize what he viewed as improper Church practices in which money was more important than salvation. To Hus the practice of selling indulgences was yet another sign of Antichrist’s activities. He makes this claim in several works, for example, in a short text on indulgences in which he talks about the coming of the age of Antichrist, pride, and greed;38 in the speech Utrum secundum legem Jesu Christi licet et expedit pro honore dei et salute populi,39 in the work Pax Christi.40 Later, when forty-five of Wycliffe’s articles were re-condemned at the Faculty of Theology, the faculty issued a proclamation that mentioned, among other things, Antichrist: ‘quod his diebus sit ille magnus Antichris‐ tus et regnet, qui secundum fidem ecclesiae et secundum scripturam sacram et sanctos doctores in fine seculi est venturus, est error evidens secundum experienciam’.41 The king concurred with the faculty’s opinion, and thus Hus and the reformers remained alone in their opinion on Antichrist. The Fateful Battle against Antichrist

To Hus, the presence of Antichrist was confirmed when the first martyrs fell. On 10 July a demonstration against simoniac preachers was held in Prague; several of the protesters were executed. The public viewed their deaths as acts of martyrdom (a mass was held for the martyrs on 12 July). It is no coincidence that in a sermon delivered on 24 July Hus, referencing Matthew 24, labelled contemporary prelates and preachers false prophets.42 Hus continued to criticize the ban on preaching and the condemnation of Wycliffe’s articles. Likewise, other reform-minded individuals did not stop meeting despite the prohibition on assembling. All these restrictions were viewed as expressions of hatred of reform and of Hus. Wycliffe and

Novotný, M. Jan Hus, I, 2, pp. 80–81. Novotný, M. Jan Hus, I, 2, p. 93. Novotný, M. Jan Hus, I, 2, p. 97. ‘Universitatis studii Pragensis judicium de articulis Joannis Wiclef, regis jussu ab archiepiscopo denuo publicandum. (Mendici, 1412, 10. Jul.)’, in Doc., p. 455. (The entire text is found on pp. 451–57). Doc. is referenced in Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 2, p. 114. 42 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 2, pp. 118–19.

38 39 40 41

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

his ideas were not the actual target. Nonetheless, in comparison with Jakoubek of Stříbro, Hus exercised restraint.43 Hus once again sheds light on his personal experience with Antichrist in his Czech-language letter to the masters of Charles University and other adherents of reform (no. 48, written in an unknown location, likely in November 1412),44 in which he encourages his addressees to persevere even though they expect actions to be taken against them. Hus presents himself as a model of how to resist Antichrist’s persecution: Čtvrté važte a vesele přijměte, že sě na vás ďábel trhá a Antikrist šklebí, ale jako pes na řetězě vám neuškodí, když budete pravdy božie milovníci. Aj, na měť se již trhal několiko let, a ještě mi jest, úfám bohu, za vlas neuškodil, nébrž vždy mi radosti a veselé přispářie. (p. 140) Fourthly, consider and endure it patiently, that the devil is raging against you, and Antichrist is showing his teeth; and yet like a dog chained up he will do you no hurt if you be lovers of God’s truth. Look! He hath been raging against me for a number of years, and hath not yet, I trust God, hurt a hair of my head, but is ever adding to my joy and gladness.45 It now seemed as if the battle against Antichrist would have fateful consequences, and therefore Hus appeals to Christ. He also tries to provide solace to the persecuted adherents of reform and criticizes the sources of their suffering. In October 1412 news of Cardinal Pietro degli Stephaneschi’s decision to tighten the interdict on Hus reached Prague. Hus thus found himself in a precarious situation: on the one hand he could not heed the word of Church authorities, for they had violated the law of God, but on the other hand his decision to ignore the Church essentially amounted to suicide. Once again Hus was in a hopeless situation, one symptomatic of the end times, and he appealed to Christ (no. 46, Master Jan Hus’s appeal to Christ against the ruling of the pope, pp. 129–33).46 Unlike Hus’s appeal from 1410, this appeal was not made to God or to the pope, but to Christ, his final hope. He hesitantly considered staying in Prague, continuing to preach, and being arrested. Eventually though, he decided to leave the city for the countryside in October 1412. He felt that the battle against Antichrist could only be waged successfully if he was

43 Jerome of Prague was probably more openly critical of the pope. In 1412 he allegedly called the pope a liar and a heretic, although neither Novotný (M. Jan Hus I, 2, p. 152) nor Šmahel (Jeroným Pražský, p. 134) provide evidence to support this claim. Compare also Šmahel, Život a dílo Jeronýma Pražského. 44 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 187, p. 204. Korespondence, p. 139 gives a possible date in October or November. 45 Jan Hus, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Workman and Pope, p. 88. 46 Cf., e.g., Molnár, ‘Husovo odvolání ke Kristu’ or Lášek, ‘Kristův svědek Mistr Jan Hus’.

139

140

CHAPTER 3

alive and free. Thus, at this moment we cannot speak about Hus planning to become a martyr. In a letter to the people of Prague, Hus offers encouragement and so‐ lace to adherents of the reform movement (no. 49, written in an unknown place, likely from November 1412;47 both a Latin and Czech version exist): Najmilejšie, slyše žádost vaši i prospěch v božiem zákoně, ‘bohu děkuji’ [Cor. 1. 4] v radosti a žádám, aby ráčil vám dáti rozum dokonaný, aby znajíce chytrosti Antychristovy a jeho poslouv, nedali sě jím svésti ot božie pravdy. Protož, najmilejší, nelekajte sě, ani vás strach zamúcuj, že některých z vás pokúšie hospodin, dopúštěje, aby slúhy Antichristovy vás póhony strašili. Neb die buoh otec každému synu svému v Přísloví Šalamúnových: ‘Nelekaj sě brzké hrůzy a obořených našie mocí zlých lidí. Hospodinť bude u boka tvého a ostřeže nohu tvú, aby nebyl popaden’. [Prou. 3. 25–26 or Matth. 10. 23–26] […] nynější Antichristovi poslové, jenž sú lakomější i smilnější, ukrutnější i chytřejší, nežli oni, že sě slúhám jeho protivie, hanějí je i pudie, zlořečí, žalařují i mordují […] (no. 49, pp. 142–44) Dear friends, hearing your request and benefit in divine law, ‘I thank God’ [Cor. 1. 4] in joy, and I beseech Him to give you perfect reason so that you, recognizing the devices of Antichrist and his servants, are not led astray by them from divine truth. Therefore, dear friends, be not afraid or disturbed with terror because the Lord tries some of you by suffering the ministers of Antichrist to frighten you with their tyranny. For God Himself says to each of his sons in the Proverbs of Solomon: ‘Be not afraid of sudden fear, nor of the power of the wicked falling upon thee. For the Lord will be at thy side and shall keep thy foot from being taken’.48 […] today’s ministers of Antichrist, who are more greedy, luxurious, cruel and crafty than they, persecute God’s servants, insult, curse, excommunicate, imprison, and kill them […]49 The escalating battle against Antichrist led to Hus using Antichrist termi‐ nology and referring to the end of the world more often. Hus first explicitly mentions Antichrist more frequently in his letters written in exile;50 in

47 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis rukopisů, no. 188, pp. 204–05; Korespondence, p. 142. 48 Hus, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Workman and Pope, pp. 90–91. This quotation has been modified to better correspond with Hus’s source text. 49 Hus, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Workman and Pope, p. 92. This quotation has been modified to better correspond with Hus’s source text. 50 McGinn also notes that Hus’s Antichrist rhetoric intensified during his time in exile (Antichrist, p. 185).

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

them he also indicates that his extremely fraught times are a harbinger of the imminent Day of Judgement. Thus, themes and ideas that had previously appeared in Hus’s letters only sporadically were now beginning to come together. Although apocalyptic tendencies are certainly present in Hus’s writings, we cannot call Hus an apocalyptic. Hus interprets news that the Bethlehem Chapel is to be destroyed as further proof of Antichrist’s personal attack against him: Prvé sú sáhli na všecky kaply, aby v nich slova božieho nekázali;51 toho jim Kristus nepřepustil. Již sú sáhli, jakož slyším, aby Bethlem zbořili… 52 (no. 49, p. 145) They have accordingly attacked all chapels to prevent the word of God being preached in them; but Christ hath not suffered them to commit such a crime. I hear that they are now devising the destruction of the Bethlehem Chapel.53 Yet Hus’s eschatology is not a pessimistic one; Hus clearly foresees Antichrist’s defeat. He has high hopes that the Church will indeed be reformed and many souls saved. He openly proclaims himself a warrior of Christ and believes his battle will lead to victory: Prvé sú sieti póhonů a kletby na Hus rozestřeli,54 a již na mnohé sú zavlekli. Ale poněvadž hus, lénie pták, domácí, nelétavý vysoko, jim ty sieti počela jest dřieti, ovšem i jiní ptáci mnozí, jenž i životem vysoko k bohu lécí, rozdrú jim jich sieti. Zavlekli sú póhonem, ostrašili sú klatbú jako dřevěným ostřiešem a konečný z túlu Antichristova sú šíp vystřelili, když sú boží službu a chválu stavili. (no. 49, p. 145) At first they laid their gins of accusations and anathemas for the Goose, and now they are lying in wait for some of you; but since the Goose, a tame bird and a domestic fowl with no power to reach great heights in his flight, hath yet broken through their nets, although many other birds, which by their lives soar high to God, will break their nets in pieces, too. They spread out their traps of accusations and struck terror with their anathema as with a wooden

51 A reference to the prohibition on preaching in chapels issued by Alexander V on 20 December 1409. 52 The order to destroy chapels was issued in perhaps August, but news about it only reached Prague sometime before the end of September 1412. 53 Hus, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Workman and Pope, p. 94. This quotation has been modified to better correspond with Hus’s source text. 54 References to individual stages in Hus’s trial; cf. letter no. 45.

141

142

CHAPTER 3

toy-hawk, and they shot their bolt from Antichrist’s quiver, when they hindered God’s word and worship.55 Hus as a Future Martyr

In time, Hus would request of his followers greater solace and support, for he would become increasingly committed to becoming a martyr: Denique obsecro vos, carissimi, orate pro illis, qui veritatem Dei cum gracia annunciant, et pro me quoque orate, ut et ego contra maliciam Antichristi scribam copiosius et predicem, utque me Deus in acie, cum id maxima necessitas exiget, constituat, quo illius veritatem tuear. Nam hoc scitote, quod non subterfugio, quominus pro veritate Dei hoc miserum corpus periculo aut morti exponam, cum sciam vobis nihil deesse in verbo Dei, imo magis in dies propagari veritatem ewangelii. Verum cupio propter eos vivere, qui violenciam paciuntur et indigent predicacione verbi Dei, ut hoc pacto malicia Antichristi, quo eam pii evitare possint, detegatur. Quaproper alibi predico, et aliis ministro, sciens in me voluntatem Dei impleri, sive in morte ab Antichristo, sive in infirmitate. (no. 49, pp. 150–51) A plan to become a martyr gradually formed in Hus’s head. Dušan Coufal, in the study Neznámý postoj Jana Husa k mučednictví v jeho Enarratio Psalmorum (c. 1405–1407): Na cestě do kruhu zemských svatých, demon‐ strates that in 1405–1407 Hus devoted unusually great attention to the notion of martyrdom in his Enarratio Psalmorum. According to Coufal,56 Jiří Kejř had already observed that Hus’s convictions, which were evident in his statements on martyrdom, were unwavering, although no concrete evidence predating 1410 for this claim had yet to be presented. Coufal notes that Hus, in his commentary on Psalms, not only thematizes martyr‐ dom more frequently than his contemporaries, but Hus also challenges his readers, that is, preachers, to follow Christ’s model and endure for the faith and for the Lord.57 Although Coufal convincingly demonstrates Hus’s personal preoccupation with the idea of martyrdom in this early stage of Hus’s work, we have no evidence that Hus was already personally committed to dying as a martyr. This idea only began to take on real contours in the correspondence that I examine in this chapter. In one letter (no. 49) Hus combines the idea of martyrdom with his concrete fears about the Bethlehem Chapel and notions about Christ’s final victory and the need for providing greater solace. The situation had 55 Hus, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Workman and Pope, p. 94. This quotation has been modified to better correspond with Hus’s source text. 56 Coufal, ‘Neznámý postoj Jana Husa’, p. 244. 57 Coufal, ‘Neznámý postoj Jana Husa’, p. 250.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

escalated to such a point that these eschatological aspects rose to the forefront of Hus’s thinking. In a letter to Křišťan of Prachatice (no. 52, written at an unknown location in late 1412),58 Hus also takes the opportunity to request solace as he finally begins to come to grips with his own impending end in this time of Antichrist’s great persecution. Hus is fully committed to fighting Antichrist to the death and finds comfort in the idea of Christ’s final victory and in the certainty that good Christians will be saved: Et oportet, quod Auca alas moveat contra alas Vehemot et contra caudam, que semper cooperit abhominacionem bestie Antichristi […] Ve mihi ergo, si super ista abhominacione non predicavero, non flevero et non scripsero. [cf. I Cor. 9. 16]59 Michi ve, vos videritis, cui non est ve. Clamat aquila volitans: ‘Ve, ve, ve hominibus habitantibus in terra!’[cf. Apoc. 8. 13] (p. 154) Hus followed his words with action, and on 8 January 1413 in Prague he delivered a sermon on Luke 2. 42 in which he spoke about Antichrist’s widespread presence in the world. He mentioned Antichrist once again on 9 January. He then stopped preaching after the new interdict was imposed on him, at which point he wrote Knížky o svatokupectví. But his life was on the line again because his opponents accused him anew of heresy and attacked his teaching about the Church. Hus’s concept of the Church as an invisible community of the predestined60 was incompatible with Štěpán of Páleč’s and Stanislav’s ideas that the head of the Church was the pope and its body, the cardinals. Theoretical ideas and debates about Antichrist were once again broached by opponents of reform. They began seeking out heresy beyond Hus and re-examined Jakoubek’s De antichristo. But they were no longer just interested in whether Antichrist had already come or not. They were now interested in who the Antichrist could be. Stanislav was convinced that Antichrist would be an individual who would appear before the end of the world.61 The reformers also officially addressed the issue of Antichrist when Jan of Jesenice, writing on behalf of the reform movement, responded to the detractors of reform that there were three factors causing the conflicts in Bohemia — simony, fornication, and greed — which according to Hus were also the three signs of Antichrist’s presence.

58 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 190, p. 206. Korespondence, p. 153 gives a date between 16 October and 25 December. 59 Cf. a similar passage in De ecclesia, p. 251. 60 Cf. De ecclesia a Super Quattuor sententiarum. 61 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 2, p. 266.

143

144

CHAPTER 3

In a letter to Křišťan of Prachatice, the rector of Charles University (no. 58, March or April 1413),62 in which Hus speaks about the impos‐ sibility of coming to a consensus with the Faculty of Theology, Hus identifies as Antichrist and his disciples his current accusers and everyone who was preventing him from preaching: ‘Estimo ergo, quod per eorum invenciones Deus occasionaliter revelat nobis Antichristum cum suis dis‐ cipulis […]’ (p. 163). He clarifies his opinion on the head of the Church and whether the pope could be Antichrist in another letter to Christian (no. 60, sometime between March and 25 April 1413):63 Nam si papa est caput Romane ecclesie et cardinales corpus, tunc ipsi sunt tota sancta Romana ecclesia, sicut totum corpus hominis cum capite est homo; et ipsius discipuli, Antichristi satellites, vocant antonomastice sanctam Romanam ecclesiam papam cum cardinalibus, dato eciam, quod in loco Petri resideat Sathanas cum 12 superbissimis dyabolis incarnatus […] Sic enim dyabolus temptans Christum dixit se habere potestatem omnia regna dandi, si ipsum procidens adoraret. Et mirabile est, quid volunt Antichristi discipuli iam determinare circa sacramenta. Numquid ab annis 1413 non stetit ecclesia sine determinacione illa futura? Ego scio, quod scripserunt ad curiam de consilio doctorum et prelatorum, et illa reservant ad subscripcionem Antichristi, ut decipiant, maiorem concedentes, et concludant: tu hereticus es! (pp. 164–65) Hus repeats the claim that the pope could be Antichrist several times elsewhere; on one occasion Hus even juxtaposes Christ with Antichrist, as he did in his sermons: Vellem scire, si papa Liberius hereticus, similiter Leo hereticus, et Johannes papa, qui peperit puerum,64 fuerunt capita sancte Romane ecclesie? Et si sic, tunc non refert, quin aliquando depost meretrix vel Antichristus precipuus sit capud sancte Romanae ecclesie. (p. 165) Item in isto sto: si papa est predestinatus et exercet officium pastorale, sequens Christum in moribus, tunc est caput tante militantis ecclesie, quantam regit; et si sic regit capitaliter secundum legem Christi totam iam militantem ecclesiam, tunc est verus eius capitaneus sub archicapite domino Ihesu Christo. Si vero vivit Christo contrarie, tunc est fur, latro, ascendens aliunde et est lupus rapax [cf. Matth. 7. 15], ypocrita, et nunc inter omnes viantes precipuus Antichristus.

62 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 195, p. 208. 63 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 196, p. 208. 64 The same evidence he provides in De ecclesia, p. 220.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

Here Hus presents Antichrist’s disciples to be the clergy who consider the pope to be the head of the Church (pp. 166–67). Using a biblical prophecy as proof (Matth. 24. 23–24), Hus claims that his quarrels with Church authorities and the unjustified placing of the pope as the head of the Church are signs of the age of Antichrist. While in exile Hus continued to think about the nature of the Church. In south Bohemia he completed De ecclesia in which he systematically summarizes his ideas about the Church, develops his ideas about the Church of the predestined, and expresses his belief that the pope is not the head of the Church. He also produced several direct, topical responses to his opponents: Replica ad scripta M. Stephani Palecz, Contra Stanislaum de Znoyma, and Contra octo doctores.65 Hus refused to accept these theolo‐ gians’ concept of the Church. To Hus it was evident that he and the other reformers were being perse‐ cuted by Antichrist and his ministers. As a result, Hus had to constantly decide between staying in Prague or going into exile. In his letters he details his long-lasting suffering and the real threat of his dying, and eventually his ideas about martyrdom transformed into a commitment to martyrdom: Hec igitur expectantes, memineritis, quid Christus dixerit, ‘quod, inquit, erit affliccio, que non erat ab inicio mundi, neque futura est’. [cf. Matth. 24. 21] Cur id? Causam ipse apostolus dicit: ‘Quod veniet, inquit, tempus, dum sanam doctrinam homines non recipient, sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros prurientes aures, a veritate autem auditum avertent, et ad fabulas connectent’. [cf. II Tim. 4. 3] Hanc propheciam sancti Pauli vestris oculis videtis iam impleri. Nam alibi dicit: ‘Omnes, qui pie vivere volunt in Christo, persecucionem pacientur. Impii autem et seductores in peius, proficient’. [cf. II. Tim. 3. 12–13] (no. 69, p. 179) Ideas about long-lasting suffering had already appeared in one of Hus’s early works, Česká kázání sváteční (in reference to Saint Martin, p. 35). As the situation escalated, however, Hus more frequently expressed solace for the persecuted, including himself, and encouraged the persecuted to endure in the face of suffering, as I have already noted. He continues in this vein in his letter to the people of Prague that I have already mentioned (no. 69, July 1413):66

65 Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 2, p. 300. 66 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 204, p. 212. Novotný, Korespondence, p. 177 gives a likely date of June.

145

146

CHAPTER 3

[…] gaudete in hoc, quod persecucionem paciamini. Nam dicit Christus: ‘Beati, cum vos homines oderint’, [Luc. 6. 22] excomunicabunt atque eicient, propter verbum Dei anathematisantes. ‘Gaudete in illo die, quia merces vestra copiosa in celis est’. [cf. Luc. 6. 23] (pp. 178–79) Hus continues to see Antichrist behind the ban on preaching. He expresses this idea in his letter to Jan, cardinal of Bergreichenstein (no. 63, perhaps written at Kozí Hrádek, between 7 and 17 July).67 In this letter Hus states that he is committed to his ideas and that he will continue to preach even if it means death: Sed spero cum Dei gracia, quod, si oportuerit, volo me adversus eos usque ad ignem comburendum statuere. Et si ego non possum libertare veritatem per omnia, saltim nolo esse inimicus veritatis et per mortem obsistere consensui […] Melius est bene mori, quam male vivere. [cf. Eccli. 40. 29, Ioh. 4. 8, I Mach. 3. 59] (p. 170) During his exile Hus repeatedly references the issues of suffering and persecution and reminds his addressees of the importance of preaching but does so without using Antichrist terminology (e.g., letter no. 72 to the people of Prague, likely from November 1413,68 or no. 74, pp. 191–92, to the people of Prague, likely from September 141469). After Stanislav’s death, Páleč continued to attack Hus and began threat‐ ening him with death (Antihus). In the meantime, in other letters Hus openly proclaims that he is committed to enduring until the end, until his death. He begins to focus on bearing his own suffering and that of others. Hus eventually left for Krakovec. In his desire to gain more followers, he realized the need to preach in many places. He certainly would have found many receptive audiences, for major events were occurring in society; after the earlier unrest in Prague, smaller protests, mainly against icons, began breaking out in 1414. Antichrist in the Letters from Constance

The Council of Constance was set to start on 1 November 1414. On 6 August 1414 Hus, while still in Prague, was informed by Mikeš Divoký that he would certainly be condemned. But there was no consensus among Hus’s peers about his fate; Jerome, for example, encouraged him to travel to Constance. Hus was still committed to dying if necessary. Certainly, he could not afford any other point of view in light of the ongoing reform

67 Korespondence, p. 169. 68 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 205, p. 212. 69 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 208, p. 214.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

efforts and his desire to encourage the people, but he was mainly driven by his conviction that he stood on the side of absolute truth. Thus, in one letter (no. 86) he presents himself as a role model for how one must act, that is, one must persevere, without fear, even when faced with death. He does not mention aspects of collective eschatology; instead, he begins to reflect upon his potentially imminent end in the temporal world (no. 86, to Martin of Volyně, early October 141470). Letter number 87 (written in Czech, probably in Prague,71 in early October 1414),72 in which Hus bids farewell to the faithful people of Bohemia before his departure for Constance, is important because in it Hus speaks about his motivations for preaching and for his actions in general, and thus by extension, about the reasons for his personal battle against Antichrist: Viete, že sem s vámi po dlúhý čas věrně pracoval, káže vám slovo božie bez kacierstvie a bez bludóv, jakož viete, a má žádost byla, jest i bude až do mé smrti o vaše spasenie.73 (p. 207) You know that I faithfully worked with you for a long period, preaching to you the word of God without heresy and without errors, as you are aware, and I sought, do seek, and will seek until my death your salvation.74 Hus is convinced that he himself is the main shepherd in the fight against evil. As tensions have mounted, here too Hus implores his followers for prayers and asks them to persevere. For the time being, Hus was expecting one of two possibilities: that he would return home or that he would die. He only uses Antichrist terminology occasionally in this context: Protož, milá bratřie i milé sestry, modlete sě snažně, ať mi ráčí dáti setrvánie, a aby mě ráčil ostřieci od poskvrněnie. A jestli k jeho chvále a k našemu prospěchu má smrt, ať mi ji ráčí dáti bez strachu zlého podstúpiti. Pakli jest k našemu dobrému neb lepšiemu, aby mě vám ráčil navrátiti, i tam i zase veda bez poskvrny, abychom ještě spolu v jeho zákoně sě poučili a Antikrystových sietie něco porušili a budúcím bratřím po sobě dobrý příklad ostavili. (p. 208) Therefore, dear brothers and sisters, pray in earnest that He give me endurance and that He guard me from injury. And if my death

70 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 217, p. 217. 71 Korespondence, p. 206. 72 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 218, p. 218. Korespondence, p. 206 dates it to after 28 September and before 11 October. 73 According to the editor, Hus uses this phrase regularly; cf. letter no. 81. 74 Hus, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Workman and Pope, pp. 146–47. This quotation has been modified to better correspond with Hus’s source text.

147

148

CHAPTER 3

will serve His glory and be to our benefit, then may He have me undergo it free of wicked fear. However, if it will be to our benefit, may He return me to you and therein guide me without injury so that again we can be instructed in His law and Antichrist’s nets damage to some extent and leave behind a good example for our future brothers. On 4 October 1414 Hus left for Constance under the belief that God was trying him once again (no. 96).75 He departed with little fear in his heart because Sigismund had promised him safe conduct. He preached along the way on his journey to Constance, and while in Constance the importance of preaching was always on his mind. Hus’s lack of fear is displayed in letter number 95 (Hus to an unknown priest, according to the editor perhaps Havlík, in which Hus exhorts his addressee to preach with great passion, to support communion under both kinds, and to live a virtuous life; written probably in Constance, likely from 14 November 1414): Primum pie et sancte vive, deinde fideliter et vere doce. Exemplum esto aliis in bono opere, ne in sermone reprehendaris, corrige peccata et virtutes commenda; illis, qui male vivunt, mineris penas eternas, qui vero sunt fideles et pie vivunt, gaudia eterna proponito. Predica assidue, breviter tamen et cum fructu, prudenter intelligendo sacras scripturas […] (p. 215) Wycliffe and his articles were still weapons wielded by Antichrist and used against Hus in accusations. Over the next six months Hus swung back and forth between being certain that everything would end well,76 being hopeful, and being convinced that he would soon meet his end. The sense of security that Sigismund’s letter of safe conduct initially provided gradually transformed into pangs of doubt and eventually into full distrust of Sigismund’s behaviour. Although Hus found himself in a grave situation (imprisoned and ill with the real possibility of being killed), he strained to never give up hope. He eventually begins to say good-bye in his correspondence (e.g., in letter no. 127). He speaks about his own death, and for a brief moment he shifts his focus away from collective eschatology. In doing so, Hus, a central reformer and thus a crucial figure in the final battle, becomes an eschatological figure. Under these trying conditions, Hus repeatedly emphasizes the importance of preaching:

75 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 225, p. 221. Korespondence, p. 217 gives a date of 11 October. 76 At first, Hus was unworried because the pope had cancelled the interdict opposed on him Hus — 9 Nov. (Korespondence, pp. 219–23).

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

Vive secundum legem Christi et appone diligenciam, ut predices verbum Dei. (p. 277) Elsewhere he confirms his belief that it is sometimes essential to die for divine truth: Noli timere mori pro Christo, si vis vivere cum Christo. Ipse enim dicit: ‘Nolite timere eos, qui occidunt corpus, animam autem non possunt occidere’. [Matth. 10. 28] (no. 132, p. 277) But not all of Hus’s works from the final period in his life are imbued with ideas about the end and eschatology. His prison treatises of March 1415 do not contain Antichrist terminology, nor do they address this topic; they demonstrate that even late in life Hus was able to address practical issues, although he was otherwise immersed in thinking about Antichrist and eschatology — De matrimonio ad Robertum, De mandatis Domini, De cognitione et dilectione Dei, De tribus hostibus hominis et septem peccatis mortalibus, De poenitentia pro Iacobo, and De sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini. Although in some respects De peccato mortali is related to eschatology, Hus does not speak about Antichrist in it. Earlier writings from 1414 include De sanguine Christi sub specie vini77 and De sufficientia legis Christi,78 neither of which have a strong connection to Antichrist. In the sermon Sermo de pace79 Hus mentions only ecclesia militans (fol. 51v), but the use of Antichrist terminology is rare here, even though Hus speaks about pride. Otherwise, there are no traces of eschatological ideas in this work. In Responsiones ad articulos Palecz,80 again from 1415, in response to article 16 (p. 210), Hus criticizes priests for not tending to their flocks, and in doing so references Gregory the Great (Homiliae in evangelia, homilia 17) and Bernard of Clairvaux, the latter of whom uses the term servient Antichristo (p. 17). In a response to article 20 (p. 211), Hus denies that he would unconditionally identify the pope with Antichrist, for as he later states in response to article 21 (p. 211), the pope is only Antichrist when he opposes Christ. Once again, he cites Bernard’s Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, sermo 33. In response to article 22 (p. 212), he then denies that in De ecclesia he proclaims the pope to be the beast of Revelation. In contrast, he admits that article 34 is true. Hus does indeed

77 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 74, p. 123 – 3./28. 11. 1414. Op. i fols 42r–44r. 78 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 72, p. 121 – September/October 1414. Op. i fols 44r–48r. 79 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 71, p. 120 – September/October 1414. Op. i fols 52r–56v. 80 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 76, p. 124 – early January 1415. Responsum M. J. Hus ad articulos 42, and M. Stephano de Paleč commissariis concilii contra eum propositos, in Doc., pp. 204–24.

149

150

CHAPTER 3

believe that corrupt priests had paved the way for Antichrist and describes how. In doing so, he references several biblical verses found in Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea, Zechariah, and Jeremiah. Hus even defines the meaning (p. 221) of via antichristi as iniquitas in keeping with the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2. 7 and again references Bernard’s Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, sermo 33, I John 2. 18, and Gregory the Great (Regula pastoralis, i. c. 2, p. 134).81 But now let us return to Hus’s correspondence. Hus’s later letters reveal that he was already expecting to die and are thus full of farewells. In them he repeatedly emphasizes the significance of collective eschatology. In a letter to Wenceslaus of Dubá and Jan of Chlum (no. 139, Constance, Franciscan friary, after 21 June 141582), in connexion with expectations of his own death he speaks about leaving behind the frustrations of the world, comforts his addressees and himself, and speaks about the current state of affairs. This letter is remarkable because in general Hus did not write much about his contemporary time as a whole or about expectations of the second coming of Christ. Beati ergo, qui servantes legem Christi cognoscunt, aufugiunt et repudiant pompam, avariciam, yppocrisim et dolum Antichristi suorumque ministrorum, adventum iustissimi iudicis in paciencia expectantes […] Et ut ego estimo, erit magna persecucio in regno Boemie illorum, qui deo fideliter serviunt, si dominus manum suam non apposuerit per seculares dominos, quos in lege sua pre spiritualibus plus illuminavit. (p. 289) Hus once again criticizes at length persecution and evil in general (no. 145, Hus to Jan of Chlum, in which he provides instructions and encourages himself and others to persevere; Constance, Franciscan friary, 23 June 1415).83 O sancte Deus, quam late potenciam et crudelitatem extendit Antichristus! […] Et furiat, quantum velit, Antichristus, non prevalebit contra Christum, qui illum ‘interficiet spiritu oris sui’, ut ait apostolus. (pp. 300–01) He presents himself as a model for others to follow and encourages his followers to persevere. In one letter we even encounter a rare reference to

81 Gregorius Magnus, Regula pastoralis, ed. by Rommel, Judic, and Morel, i. 82 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 263, p. 238. 83 Korespondence, p. 299.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

Antichrist and the end times (no. 147, written in Czech, Hus to his friends in Bohemia; Constance, Franciscan friary, 24 June 1415):84 Tyto věci majíce přěd očima, nedajte sebe uhroziti, aby, což sem psal, nečtli aneb aby jim knihy své dali k upálení. Pomněte, co jest spasitel milosrdný nám na výstrahu pověděl Mat. 24 [Matth. 24. 21– 24], že přěd súdným dnem bude tak náramné trápenie, že od počátka světa nebylo, aniž potom bude tak veliké, že by to mohlo býti, i vyvolení byli by uvedeni v blud; ale budú dnové ukráceni pro vyvolené. To pamatujíce, najmilejší, stójte pevně; nebť ufám bohu, žeť sě vás Antikristova škola lekne a necháť vás u pokoji a sbor z constancie do Čech nepříde. (pp. 305–06) Keep these examples before you, that you may not under stress of fear give up reading what I have written and hand over your books to be burnt by them. Remember what the merciful Saviour said to us by way of warning in Matt. xxiv. [Matth. 24. 21–24], that before the Judgment Day shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. Holding these things in your memory, beloved, press bravely on; for I trust God that the school of Antichrist shall tremble before you and suffer you to enjoy quietness, and that the Council of Constance shall not come to Bohemia.85 And it finally seems as if Hus identifies the pope as the supreme Antichrist: Jistě již se zlost a ohavnost i hanba Antikristova oznámila a na papeži i na jiných v sboru. Již věrné slúhy božie mohú znamenati z řěči svého spasitele, co jest mienil, řka: ‚Když uzříte ohavnost na miestě na zpustilém, jenž jest prorokoval Daniel [Matth. 24. 15], ktož čte, rozuměj […] Rád, bych, ale ufám bohu, že dá jiné po mně statečnějšie, i že sú nynie, jenž lépe oznámie zlost Antikristovu a nasadie svých životóv k smrti pro pravdu pána Ježíše Krista, jenž dá vám i mně věčnú radost Amen. Psán list na svatého Jana křtitele v žaláři v uokovách v paměti té, že Jan také v žaláři v okovách pro boží pravdu jest sťat. (pp. 308–09) Surely now the wickedness, iniquity, and baseness of Antichrist has been revealed in the Pope and others in the Council: now the faithful servants of God can understand the meaning of the

84 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 264, p. 239 and Korespondence, p. 303 give the same date. 85 Hus, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Workman and Pope, p. 255.

151

152

CHAPTER 3

Saviour’s words, When ye shall see the abomination of desolation which was prophesized by Daniel, [Matth. 24. 15] […] he that readeth, let him understand […] Gladly would I do so; but I am trusting that God will raise up others after me, braver men than there are to-day, who shall better reveal the wickedness of Antichrist and lay down their lives for the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ, who will grant eternal joy both to you and to me. Amen. I write this letter in prison, on the day of St John Baptist, as I lie bound in chains, remembering that John also was beheaded in prison for the sake of God’s truth.86 While awaiting death (no. 155, Hus to members of the University of Prague; Constance, Franciscan friary, 27 June 1415),87 Hus summarizes his efforts and bids farewell; this letter demonstrates what Hus considered to be most important at this eschatologically critical period. At this grave moment in his life, he once again utters criticism of schism: Hortor vos in ipso piissimo Ihesu, ut diligatis invicem, scismata extirpetis, honorem Dei ante omnia intendatis, habentes mei memoriam, qualiter semper intendebam profectum universitatis ad honorem Dei perducere, qualiter dolebam super discordiis vestris et excessibus, qualiter nacionem nostram preclaram volebam congregare in unum. Et ecce, quomodo in aliquibus meis karissimis, pro quibus vitam exposuissem, facta est mihi nimis amara, obprobriis, blazfemiis et ultimo amara morte affligens me. (pp. 322–23) In one of Hus’s last letters, we find expressions of discontent with the current state of affairs, the contours of Hus’s battle against wickedness, and Hus’s belief in the power of right action (no. 161, Hus to Jan of Chlum; Constance, Franciscan friary, 26 June 1415):88 Unde ex hesterna percepi litera, primo, quomodo meretricis magne, id est malignantis congregacionis, de qua in Apokalypsi, denudatur iniquitas et denudabitur, cum qua meretrice fornicantur reges terre, ut ibidem dicitur, fornicantur spiritualiter, a Christo et ab eius veritate discedentes et consencientes Antichristi mendacio, ex seduccione, ex timore, vel ex spe confederacionis propter honorem adquirendum seculi. 2° percepi ex litera, quomodo iam inimici veritatis incipiunt turbari. 3° percepi vestre caritatis fervidam constanciam, qua profitemini audacter veritatem, cognita turpitudine meretricis magne.

86 Hus, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Workman and Pope, p. 258. This quotation has been modified to better correspond with Hus’s source text. 87 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 268, p. 241 and Korespondence, p. 322 give the same date. 88 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 271, p. 242.

ANTICHRIST IN HUS’S CORRESPONDENCE

4° cum gaudio percepi, quod iam vanitati seculi et laborioso servicio wltis finem imponere, et domi Ihesu Christo domino militare. Cui servire, regnare est, ut dicit Gregorius. Cui qui fideliter servit, ipsum Ihesum Christum in celi patria ministrum habebit, ipso dicente: ‘Beatus est servus ille, quem, cum venerit dominus inveniet ita facientem. Amen dico vobis’, [Matth. 24. 26] quod surgens ‘precinget se et ministrabit ei’. (p. 331) In a letter written on 5 July (no. 161) Hus still struggles with his love for life and his determination to persevere. On the night of 5 July, he wrote a proclamation to the Christian world about what he had gone through since 7 June. On 6 July, Hus was defrocked and burnt at the stake. He thus became for some of his followers an eschatological figure and his eschatological experiences were extreme even for his day. Hus was now a martyr, not only in the eyes of his strictest followers, but also in the eyes of those who developed his doctrine to support ideas that differed significantly from Hus’s. For example, in De purgatorio Nicholas of Dresden considers Hus to be a warrior of God. However, in this work Nicholas defends the idea that purgatory cannot exist, a notion that Hus would not have agreed with.

153

154

CHAPTER 3

Figure 2. ‘Hus’s letter to Petr of Mladoňovice (Constance 1415)’, Prague, National Museum, MS VIII F 38, p. 90. Around 1417. Reproduced with permission of the National Museum.

ChAPtER 4

Hus’s Notion of Antichrist in the Context of his Systematic Theological Works and the Writings of Other Authors

A Comparison with the Notion of Antichrist in Super Quattuor sententiarum The term, and in fact the very notion, of Antichrist appears only rarely in Hus’s most systematic work — his commentary1 on Lombard’s Sen‐ tentiarum libri quattuor in which Hus only briefly explains the concept of Antichrist. Hus’s sermons that I have examined (especially Abiciamus and State) provide a much more systematic and detailed treatment of Antichrist. In these sermons, as well as in his correspondence, Hus uses the term Antichrist and its derivatives with much greater frequency and also employs rhetorical devices to refer to Antichrist. The reason for this fact is simple: Antichrist is not a matter of dogma, but a practical, topical problem. Lombard’s work has a major influence here; it too does not systematically deal with Antichrist, nor does it mention Antichrist with any frequency. Therefore, in Hus’s Super Quattuor sententiarum we do not find a special chapter devoted to Antichrist. An‐ tichrist, moreover, is not clearly linked with the eschatological matters discussed in the fourth book of the commentary. Thus, Antichrist is not subsumed under the notion of De novissimis, which also does not include considerations about the final days of human history that precede the Final Judgement. In Hus’s commentary Antichrist usually appears in marginal moralist criticisms and comments on the present day, favourite topics that Hus could not bring himself to give up not even in a commentary on Lom‐ bard’s theology. Hus makes many more such morally tinged references related to Antichrist than Lombard, who in fact makes only one, which is moreover general in nature and is not exclusively about the present day (Sententiae, iv. 41. 1. 1, p. 495). Let us examine several examples of how Hus deals with Antichrist in Super Quattuor sententiarum.

1 Spisy M. Jana Husi, 4–6, Super IV Sententiarum, ed. by Flajšhans. Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 5, p. 68 dates the finalization of this work to 1407–1408.

156

CHAPTER 4

• First, Hus uses the notion of Antichrist to express the dangerous wickedness of the clergy, who were accepting money in return for sacraments and who had departed from Church teachings (discen‐ dentes). Here, Antichrist’s demons and messengers are substantial tropes, in addition to babbling comedians, croaking frogs, and chirping crickets. They are supposed to give greater weight to Hus’s criticism of simony and to his rhetoric without Hus having to elaborate on eschatological issues: Ab hac doctrina discedentes filii ecclesie degeneres, ut ignavi trutanni balbuciunt, ut rane coaxant et ut cicade ciccitant, velud Antichristi ti‐ tinilli et nunccii volentes exaccionem pro baptismo, confessione, sacra unccione et pro sacramentis ceteris defendere et dampnatam conswe‐ tudinem tanquam laudabilem approbare. (Super IV Sententiarum, i. 9, p. 7‒8) • In another passage Hus, without moralizing and again without express‐ ing any particular interest in eschatology, mentions Antichrist in a statement on how during the ‘time of Antichrist’ (tempore Antichristi) Lucifer will reappear ‘[…] quod de Lucifero quidam dicunt, quod sit in inferno ligatus, sed tempore Antichristi dissolvetur’. (Super IV Sententiarum, ii. 6, p. 224). Lombard also writes about Antichrist in a similar vein without making connections to the present day (Sententiae, ii. 6. 6. 1, p. 357 and ii. 6. 6. 2, p. 358). • In only one place in his commentary does Hus say something specific about Antichrist — when he needs to make a detailed statement about sin: Preterea notandum est, quod peccatum quandoque accipitur materi‐ aliter, quandoque formaliter. Si materialiter, hoc vel pro subiecto pecca‐ nte, ut 2 Ad Thessal. 2° vocatur Antichristus intransitive homo peccati. (Super IV Sententiarum, ii. 35, p. 338). • Hus utters the name of Antichrist once again when he writes about the events of the Final Judgement. According to Hus, asking the question of whether one of the judges will be Antichrist is pointless because such a question cannot be answered: Utrum eciam Antichristus tunc iudicabit, quidam: utrum mali vocaliter tunc clamabunt et sic de multis aliis, que expedit subticere. Sed imita‐ tores Christi habentes de fide, spe et caritate possunt in paucioribus consolari audientes a Salvatore suo premium, cum dicit: ‘Ibunt hii in vitam eternam’ […] Hoc nobis prestare dignetur, qui scit, quando et quomodo debet nos finaliter iudicare, etc. (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 47, p. 727).

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

Comparing Hus’s Notions of Antichrist with the Ideas of Milíč of Kroměříž Milíč of Kroměříž established the Czech tradition of Antichrist thought.3 He most likely had a major, but indirect, influence on Hus. The differences between these two preachers’ notions of Antichrist are the result of the sources they relied on. Milíč did not directly base his ideas on previous Czech traditions; he was influenced by prophecies, by revelations (likely those of John of Rupescissa), and perhaps by Albert Bludův, a professor at the theological faculty, who allegedly claimed in a 1355 disputation that ‘in the books and statements of holy men he had found that the Antichrist was to come within twenty years’.4 According to F. M. Bartoš,5 Albert owned a revised edition of Dante’s De Monarchia, which was rife with anti-papal ideas. Moreover, Albert’s ideas about Antichrist have much in common with the left wing of his own order, the Spirituals, who had referred to the pope as Antichrist because he did not practice apostolic poverty. Milíč, however, was largely motivated by his observations of the conditions within the Church and by his own powerful inner conviction and contemplation, for as he says in his own words, an inner spirit led him to studying Matthew 24. 15 (Libellus de Antichristo,6 Sermo de die novissimo). This spirit prompted him to comprehend the connections between this biblical verse and the current state of the Church and to contemplate Daniel’s years. The same inner conviction led Milíč to publicly preach that Antichrist had already come and to chastise the clergy and common people ‘ut mali in timorem mittantur et boni fervencius deo famulentur’.7 In the end, An‐ tichrist became the main focus of Milíč’s attention, in both his preaching and writing activities (he fulfilled his mission in Sermo, a substitute for sermons he had planned, and in the short work Libellus) as well as in practical activities (e.g., in founding the Jerusalem asylum or in travelling to Rome to announce Antichrist’s presence). Milíč and Hus share many of the same ideas about Antichrist. They have the same main reason for speaking about Antichrist, that is, to make people fear God, to teach them, and in doing so, to correct their ways. Milíč’s ideas about the timing of Antichrist’s coming differ from Hus’s. Therefore, in Milíč’s writings we find some important information that Hus does not even mention. The works of both authors also differ in several other respects. Nevertheless, we find very similar works written by

3 4 5 6 7

Chytil, Antikrist, p. 119. Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 204. Bartoš, Dantova Monarchie, p. 4. I work with the edition Milicii Libellus de Antichristo, ed. by Kybal. Milicii Libellus de Antichristo, ed. by Kybal, p. 371.

157

158

CHAPTER 4

both; for example, Milíč’s synodal sermons differ only slightly from Hus’s sermons, specifically, in their openness and in the frequency of Antichrist terminology. Now, let us examine more closely these two writers’ major similarities and differences. Similarities

Hus’s and Milíč’s ideas about the form of Antichrist are very similar. Before Hus defined Antichrist as the moral opposite of Christ, Milíč had already described Antichrist as he who ‘cancels out and denies Christ’.8 Both Hus and Milíč observe this feature among hypocrites. Both authors pose the question ‘Who is Antichrist?’ and provide very similar answers. Here we should keep in mind Augustine’s definition of Antichrist in In Iohannis epistulam ad Parthos tractatus, (iii. 4, pp. 152–54), which I have already presented in the chapter on Hus’s sermon State. Libellus: […] dixi spiritui, qui in me loquebatur: ‘Quis est Antychristus?’ Et respondit: ‘Antychristi multi sunt [cf. I Ioh. 2. 18], et qui solvit et negat Christum, Antichristus est’. ‘Et qualiter alii negant eum?’ ‘Cum tacent et non audent et eius veritatem coram hominibus confiteri, qui veritatem et iusticiam Dei detinent’. Ex hiis collige, quis sit Antichristus. De quo dixit Johannes in canonica sua, quia veniet et nunc iam est in mundo […] Et dixi: ‘Quis est ex nomine, vel utrum est ille magnus, qui in fine mundi expectatur venturus?’ Et respondit michi spiritus: ‘Non est tuum ad presens scire perfecte, sed coniecturative’. (pp. 376–77) Now, let us compare this passage with Hus’s definition in State (fol. 32r–v), which I have already discussed. Unlike Hus, in one part of Libellus Milíč states that he only began to think about salvation for humankind once he recognized that the end of the world was imminent. In contrast, salvation is generally the starting point of Hus’s ideas. In any case, both authors subsequently came to see, based on their observations of the state the Church was in, that Christ’s words contained in the apostolic prophecies were already coming true.9 The great similarity between Hus’s and Milíč’s notions of Antichrist can also be seen in the evidence they give for Antichrist’s presence and in their descriptions of Antichrist’s most acute manifestations. According

8 Michálek, ‘Antikrist’, p. 111. 9 The same opinion is expressed in Chytil, Antikrist, p. 117.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

to both Milíč and Hus, Antichrist had already come. The latter’s evidence, presented in Libellus, comes from I John 4. 3 and the former’s, presented in Abiciamus, from I John 2. 18. In addition to Matthew 24. 15, Milíč also refers to Matthew 24. 12, as Hus would also do later (Libellus, p. 374; cf. Hus’s letters nos 11 and 42 and Diliges; cf. also Milíč’s synodal sermon Sacerdotes contempserunt, p. 5110). Milíč also considers the following signs to be the main evidence that Antichrist was active: the ‘abomination of desolation’ (the main sign of Antichrist in Sermo, it is also highly referenced in Libellus and also features in the synodal sermon Audite reges, p. 112), increased wickedness (Libellus), and schism (Sermo, but also mentioned in Libellus).11 Milíč also draws from other verses contained in Matthew 24 (Libellus; Sermo; also in Hus’s letters nos 147 and 60), Daniel (in Libellus calculations are based on Daniel 12. 11–12 and the term abom‐ ination of desolation is used; cf. Hus’s letters nos 60 and 147, which refer to Daniel 9. 27, i.e., the abomination of desolation), Revelation (Libellus; Sermo; in Hus’s work most significantly as a starting point in his university sermon Spiritum nolite extinguere12), Ezekiel (Libellus; Hus only references Ez. 13. 10 by way of Bernard of Clairvaux in State, fol. 34v), Habakkuk, and to a lesser extent the Pauline epistles (cf. Hus’s references in Abiciamus to II Tim. 3. 1–7, I Cor. 10. 11, and II Thess. 2. 8–9; and in Super canonicas to I Tim. 6. 5). Milíč speaks about ‘love waxing cold’ (Libellus; Matth. 24. 12; cf. Hus in De sanguine, Diliges, letters nos 11 and 42, and references in State and Spiritum), an increase of fornication (Sacerdotes), and simony (Libellus).13 These words would later be reproduced many times over in Hus’s works, as I have noted in the brackets. Both authors see evidence of multiple Antichrists, particularly among the ranks of hypocritical Chris‐ tians. Only Milíč explicitly acknowledges, in addition to many current-day Antichrists, the existence of an ultimate, supreme Antichrist, who has yet to come. Milíč and Hus see somewhat different causes for the coming of An‐ tichrist, and therefore they suggest distinct ways for defeating him and associate the main evildoer, that is, Antichrist or Antichrists, with different people. The discrepancies between their ideas are the result of the different situation each author found himself in and in their different dispositions. Both view Antichrist in the same light, that is, in close connection to

10 The synodal sermons Sacerdotes contempserunt, Grex perditus and Audite reges, ed. by Herold and Mráz. 11 Chytil, Antikrist, esp. p. 117; for the entire commentary on Milíč, see pp. 116–19. 12 Jan Hus, Spiritum nolite extinguere, ed. by Schmidtová. 13 I give the most striking similarities in parentheses. When I do not mention a specific work by Hus, the similarity is of a general nature and applies to all his sermons and correspondence.

159

160

CHAPTER 4

current events within the Church and, somewhat less importantly, in politics. Both authors also fully dedicated themselves to preaching, the main weapon in the battle against Antichrist, and exemplified how preachers were supposed to act – like Christ’s warriors. Both were personally affected by the situation. Both believed they were being persecuted by Antichrist,14 both realized the necessity of reforming the Church and of practising imitatio Christi, and both were convinced that the critical situation they were experiencing could be positively resolved. Milíč was lucky; the accu‐ sations made against him, which were levelled in part for his teachings on Antichrist (1373), were withdrawn. Hus was not so fortunate, and thus, he became a martyr for God. And even though Hus mentions the end of the world far less often than Milíč, it was he who eventually became for Jakoubek of Stříbro and other followers an eschatological figure (as Milíč had for Matěj of Janov), for Hus’s worldly life came to an end in the battle against Antichrist. Both preached the gospel. Both thought about Antichrist from the position of ordinary people and asked what they could do for their own salvation and for the salvation of humankind. Milíč tended towards a more systematic solution due to the circumstances of his day — he tried to present only the most potent arguments that were based on exact calculations. He wanted to convince not only himself but mainly other people about his ideas. Several scholars have noted the relationship between Milíč’s escha‐ tology and his emphasis on his role as a preacher. Amedeo Molnár is convinced that an eschatological framework explains Milíč’s ‘emphasis on preaching and poverty as harbingers of the coming Age of the Spirit, [his] call for more frequent communion as a condition of salvation, that is, rescue from eschatological distress, and [his] dislike of school logic as a human invention built on top of the message of the original Church’.15 Lochman sees a connection between the eschatology of Milíč and practis‐ ing what he preaches in the founding of the Jerusalem asylum.16 Peter C. A. Morée identifies the main eschatological character in Milíč’s work in the extraordinary urgency of decision-making. As Morée eloquently observes about Milíč’s preaching ‘a sermon is nothing less than a presentation and representation of Judgement Day, which urges a person to make up his mind. Sermonizing has to reveal the difference between good and evil’.17

14 Milíč had this feeling, for example, when in Epistula he labelled the Friars Minor as attackers of the evangelical truth for not preaching the Gospel and the epistles. This order had preached against Milíč in Bohemia. (Epistula ad papam Urbanum V, ed. by Menčík, p. 324. A part of the study Milíč a dva jeho spisy z r. 1367). 15 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, pp. 16–17. 16 Lochman, ‘Eschatologický náboj’, pp. 17–18. 17 Morée, Preaching, p. 153.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

This statement could easily be applied to Hus as well. In both authors’ works we find passages stressing the role of the preacher: Sacerdotes fidem predicant, infideliter agunt. (Sacerdotes, p. 54; cf. Pseudo-Chrysostomus, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, homilia 43, col. 877).18 Nam bene vivendo et bene docendo populum instruis, quomodo debeat vivere, bene autem docendo et male vivendo Deum instruis, quomodo debeas condempnari. (Audite, p. 114; Pseudo-Crysostomus, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, homilia 43, col. 876; Hus uses the same citation; cf. D. 40 c. 12) But the similarities between Hus and Milíč are not always so clear at first sight, as we can see in the following example. Milíč explains how he works with the notion of Antichrist and with this term. After reading this explanation, it becomes clear that Hus follows the same procedure. Milíč locates Antichrist among the Tribe of Dan, an ancient venomous snake that with its venom, that is, with evil, attacks Christians. He works with biblical images and finds Antichrist in them. He also says that idol worshippers come from the Tribe of Dan, that is, figuratively speaking the Tribe of Antichrist.19 Both Hus and Milíč associate the same sins with the end times. They find descriptions of these sins hidden in various biblical images and also see these sins in very real, visible Antichrists: […] in Genesy, quando Antychristus sub figura Dan describitur…’ (Libellus, p. 373) […] Dan, id est Antychristus, ‘serpens antiquus’ in homine Antychristo, colens umbram cecitatis, momordit ungulas equorum, videlicet pseudoprophetarum, id est affecciones eorum solidas veneno iniquitatis infecit […] Isti sunt figurative de tribu Dan, et ideo, licet indicent causas et iusta iudicia et iniusta et habeant benediccionem de pingwitudine terre, non tamen in Apokalypsi inveniuntur sub Dan descripti sive inter C.XL. IIII milia electorum signati, quia Dan cum tribu sua, id est Antychristus cum suis Antychristianis non est ibi. (Libellus, pp. 375–76) In using these expressions and images related to Antichrist, Milíč ends up recognizing the existence of a great multitude of Antichrists and expecting the coming of a supreme Antichrist. But he also espouses a notion of Antichrist as a collective body, when he writes in Sermo ‘Abhominacio secundum Glosam dicitur Antichristus’ (p. 51). Thus, when Milíč uses the 18 Pseudo-Chrysostomus, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, ed. by Migne, homilia 43, cols 876– 80. 19 Chytil also calls attention to this in Antikrist, pp. 117–18.

161

162

CHAPTER 4

term Antichrist, he may be referring not only to certain figures but also to their deeds, abominacio. As Morée points out, Milíč believes that ‘the presence of evil is always personal’, that is, it is concrete people who do evil.20 We do not encounter such explicit figurativeness in Hus’s works examined in this book. And this observation brings us to the differences between these two authors. Differences

Hus finds many Antichrists among the clergy but does not explicitly iden‐ tify the Antichrist (that is, an ultimate, supreme Antichrist) with anyone specific. Milíč, like Hus, sees the worst, most damaging manifestations of Antichrist among the clergy, and according to Milíč’s definition of Antichrist in Libellus and his synodal sermons, many Antichrists can be found in their ranks (Libellus; Sermo; in his synodal sermons, however, he does not make this claim as openly as Hus does, e.g., in Abiciamus, Super canonicas, and State). Milíč, however, identifies the supreme Antichrist with various worldly rulers. For example, in Epistula Milíč says, ‘Si enim disturbatum fuerit terrenum imperium, impossibile erit, omnes in unitate ecclesiae congregare’ (p. 320). In his eyes, the only way to definitively deal with Antichrist is to convene a general council at which the pope would call upon preachers to vanquish Antichrist.21 He believed that preachers were key players in reforming the clergy, the only people capable of reversing the crisis within the Church.22 Hus also ascribes a crucial role to preachers, but he directly addresses priests and preachers and does not mention a single event, such as a council, that could immediately fix the situation. In the end, an ecumenical council would decide his fate. The efforts of both thinkers had, as a result of the prevailing circumstances, somewhat different overall results. Both saw themselves personally under attack from Antichrist, both avidly called for moral reform and Antichrist’s destruction, and both dedicated their lives to these efforts. However, they took a different approach to their roles. Milíč wanted to spread news of the Antichrist’s coming (not only to the people and to priests, but in 1367 he even met in person with Pope Urban V), and he attempted to calculate the exact timing of Antichrist’s arrival (he determined that Antichrist had already appeared, a claim that he made only tentatively in

20 Morée, Preaching, pp. 150–51. 21 Chytil, Antikrist, esp. p. 119. For a more recent source, see Morée, Preaching, p. 130. On convening Milíč’s council, see Libellus and Epistula. 22 Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 203.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

his sermons and one he made explicitly in his writings).23 He was not only interested in reforming morals; he also saw the importance of shar‐ ing detailed information about Antichrist’s coming (Libellus, Sermo) with the help of calculations and detailed interpretations. Therefore, he spoke about Antichrist in very close connection to the Last Judgement (Libellus, Sermo) and the end times. Milíč’s works are far more focused than Hus’s on Apocalypse, Daniel, and prophecy in general. Milíč’s descriptions of the coming of the end (Epistula, p. 323) also differ from Hus’s. According to Milíč, the signs of the age of wickedness include pestilencia aut fames and plaga. We do not find these manifestations in the work of Hus, except for in a brief, unelaborated citation of Gregory the Great (State, fol. 34v). It may seem that Hus is speaking about the plague in De ecclesia when he uses the terms clerus pestifer and pestilencia. However, here he is not referring to a bodily disease but to the malignant behaviour of the clergy (De ecclesia, pp. 94–95). Hus was primarily interested in moral reform, and the notion of An‐ tichrist and the use of related terminology was the result of his efforts on this front. Hus did not intend to spend time and energy announcing details about the coming of Antichrist and the end times, and unlike Milíč, no one urged him to explain his ideas about these matters. Hus considered Antichrist’s presence in the world and the imminent end to be self-evident facts that did not require any additional qualifying information. He saw a critical situation before himself and the necessity to deal with it. Hus believed that effort had to be put into saving things that could still be saved. The exact date of Antichrist’s arrival and other details of Antichrist’s activities were inconsequential. A general observation about the last things applies here: some questions simply cannot be answered by mortal beings and trying to do so is a waste of time. Although in this section I have focused on the differences between Milíč’s and Hus’s notions of Antichrist, I fully admit that we can find similarities here as well. My aim is to highlight that Milíč does not use terminology as freely as Hus. The former explains everything in detail, including biblical terms, so that no confusion arises. For example, in Sermo the term dyabolus is used for someone who enters into a boy. Antichrist is just one of the devil’s forms. Milíč meticu‐ lously distinguishes between individual figures, which can sometimes be understood as synonyms of Antichrist although they are all slightly differ‐ ent. This exactness in expression and even the author’s own comments on it are the results of these works’ functions. Libellus and Sermo, which are focused exclusively on Antichrist and on a more systematic view of him,

23 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 14.

163

164

CHAPTER 4

require exact interpretation, and therefore, there is much less room here to use different terms. He only uses such terms to portray Antichrist when he wants to prove that a particular biblical verse which does not include the actual term Antichrist is indeed about Antichrist, that is, it speaks about Antichrist figuratively. Hus is most interested in levelling criticism, and often there are no relevant differences between the terms he uses. Otherwise, Milíč employs other expressions that do not include the term Antichrist that are the same or very similar to ones used by Hus (Gog, Magog, etc.). The Effects of Genre and Evolving Ideas

Comparing Milíč’s and Hus’s works reveals other details that are related to the genres they wrote in and how their thoughts developed. It is interesting to note, for example, how in his synodal sermons Milíč speaks much less openly about Antichrist than Hus does. This feature of Milíč’s preaching is also in direct contrast with his writings in which he explicitly and systemat‐ ically focuses on Antichrist. Herold and Mráz’s dating of Milíč’s sermons to the period between 1364 and 137324 makes it impossible to explain this situation with any certainty by claiming that these sermons were written before Milíč’s treatises on Antichrist and that the situation is the result of the development of Milíč’s ideas about Antichrist. However, considering all possible datings, this is possible. Even if the synodal sermons were delivered after Milíč’s writings were created, a synod is a special audience and perhaps Milíč did not dare speak to it as directly as he did to the readers of his texts that were written as the result of his encounter with an inquisitor in Rome during his efforts to meet with the pope. In his synodal sermons, Milíč hardly uses Antichrist terminology, but he does work with terms indicating the opposite of Christ and descriptions of the current world similar to those he uses to talk about Antichrist and his age in Libellus and Sermo. The term Antichrist appears in only three places: Tercia transgressio nunc, id est tempore ewangelii, incipit, sed adveniente ultima persecucione sub Antichristo tunc plene perficietur. (Sacerdotes, p. 51; Here Milíč elaborates on the history of the fall of man and classifies this event as the third and final event in the history of humankind).

24 Spunar, Repertorium also gives the same dating for the sermons Sacerdotes and Grex (nos 451–53, pp. 179–81).

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

Quid ergo tibi cum corpore Cristi, qui per carnis illecebrose luxuriam membrum factus es Anticristi! Que enim convencio lucis ad tenebras, aut que societas Cristi ad Belial’ (Audite, p. 107) The third time he mentions Antichrist is when he cites a passage from Bernard’s Sermones in Cantica Canticorum, 33: Omnes enim amici et tamen omnes inimici […] domestici paci‐ fici […] ministri Cristi sunt et serviunt Anticristo. (Audite, p. 113) There are mainly similarities between Milíč’s and Hus’s synodal sermons. As usual Milíč, like Hus, gives preference in his synodal sermons to biblical evidence of Antichrist’s activities: in Sacerdotes (p. 51) he bases his argu‐ ments on Matthew 24. 12 (which Hus also uses), and in Grex (p. 76) he mentions II Timothy 3. 1–5 and 13. Both these biblical references are also mentioned by Hus, although not always in his synodal sermons: II Timo‐ thy 3. 1–17 shows up in his university sermon Abiciamus. We also find in Milíč’s work references to Matthew 24. 12 (p. 117) and Apocalypse 2. 20–22, when Milíč speaks about the greatest suffering. As Hus would also do later, Milíč frequently references Bernard of Clairvaux. For example, in Audite (pp. 113–14), Milíč references Bernard’s thirty-third sermon from Sermones in Cantica Canticorum. In Milíč’s oeuvre we also find references to Gregory the Great, although Milíč draws from different works than Hus: Homiliae, Moralium libri, and Regula pastoralis. Milíč also references Bernard of Clairvaux’s Sermones de tempore and Sermones de sanctis. Just like Hus, Milíč uses all these citations and paraphrases to support his criticism of hypocrites, false preachers, heretics, blasphemers, and so forth. Other terminology used by Milíč (including the use of antithesis) is similar to that employed by Hus.25 Although Milíč’s sermons contain terminology, antitheses, and advice that is similar to Hus’s, Hus employs Antichrist terminology more frequently. A similar situation is repeated in Epistula (dated to 1368),26 in which Hus, responding to ongoing moral decline, speaks about iniquitates and abominaciones and concludes that the end is imminent, all without men‐ tioning the word Antichrist. Here Hus does not rely on antithesis, as he hardly uses this device, and when he does, it is with great nuance and without explicitly mentioning Antichrist. We can only observe major discrepancies between these authors’ works when we compare Hus’s sermons and letters with Milíč’s Libellus and

25 e.g., ‘filii dyaboli’/‘filii Dei’ (Sacerdotes, p. 59; Grex, p. 91), ‘filii lucis’/‘filii tenebrarum’ (Sacerdotes, p. 60), ‘milites dyaboli’/‘Cristi’ — (e.g., Grex, p. 93), ‘sacerdotes Domini’/‘Baal’ (Sacerdotes, p. 69; Grex, p. 98). 26 Spunar, Repertorium, no. 465, p. 183.

165

166

CHAPTER 4

Sermo. And thus, Milíč, who is less open in his synodal sermons, focuses on other ideas in his writings than Hus does. Milíč’s systematic approach to Antichrist affects the contents of his writings, terminology, and fre‐ quency of antitheses. In Sermo (after 15 May 1367)27 Milíč systematically develops a narra‐ tive about Antichrist and, using biblical verses (particularly ones from Daniel, Revelation, Matthew, Joel, and the Epistle to the Corinthians) and glosses, focuses his attention on the end of the world. He speaks about a boy who is the devil incarnate and about God’s messengers Elijah and Enoch, relates in full the battle against Antichrist, and finally describes the seven angels bearing seven trumpets and the fire that will destroy everything in the end. In this eschatological account, Milíč uses the word Antichristus about twenty times; he does not, however, use any derivative terms because Antichrist is his sole focus here. He does, however, use sev‐ eral other terms that are synonymous with Antichrist: pseudoprophetae, an‐ tichristiani, magnus antichristus, schismatici, and bestia. Milíč then smoothly transitions to the apocalypse and describes the Day of Judgement. He also covers the tell-tale signs of the era of Antichrist: schism (tempus schismatis et discordie, where discessio means for him, just as for Hus, a precondition for the Lord’s coming to judge, p. 51), that is, discord within the Church caused by the wickedness of the clergy. We observe a similar situation in Milíč’s treatise Libellus (1368),28 in which derivatives of the word Antichristus are also not used. This term is used with greater frequency and with greater emphasis than any other word. Again, the goal of this text was to provide a clear, systematic treat‐ ment of Antichrist. Thus, Sermo and Libellus explicitly speak about issues that are only hinted at in the synodal sermons. Milíč calculates the timing of Antichrist’s coming, links it to the end of history (‘novissima hora est’ — I Ioh. 2. 18; ‘dies instat iudicii’ — cf. Apoc. 14. 7; I Tim. 4. 1–2), and explicitly asks the question, ‘Who is Antichrist?’ Hus scholars do not view Milíč as a source of any of Hus’s works that I examine in this book. Nonetheless, as we can see, Jan Hus’s works share many of the same or similar details as those of Milíč. Hus’s ideas about Antichrist are not unique,29 and he likely drew from the Czech tradition and in doing so adapted Milíč’s and his followers’ theses to the current 27 Spunar, Repertorium, no. 454, p. 181. 28 Spunar, Repertorium, no. 464, p. 183. 29 Here I must call attention to a fact that will play an important role not only in my conclusion. In this book, when I speak about the originality of Hus’s ideas, I am not questioning the fact that medieval works were largely compilations of statements and entire passages from the Bible and other texts and that medieval authors intentionally worked in this way. When I speak about originality, I am referring to unique details that reflect Hus’s own experiences and new ways in which Hus used traditional ideas or statements.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

situation in the Church and to the function of Hus’s individual works. Hus was after all in closer contact with the Czech tradition, and for a longer time, than he was with the works of Wycliffe. The foundations of the Czech tradition were also laid by another great thinker, Matěj of Janov, who as the first Czech author focused on the role of the current pope in Antichrist’s activities.

Comparing Hus’s Notion of Antichrist with Matěj of Janov’s Matěj of Janov’s ideas about Antichrist were based directly on Milíč’s. Matěj too thought that he was witnessing the signs of the age of Antichrist: ‘[…] nunc iam in mundo est’ (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 10. 4, p. 226). Matěj was also influenced by the writings of the mid-thirteenth-century Paris master William of Saint Amour and by authoritative sources that also influenced Hus. Non-biblical authorities include Gregory the Great and Bernard of Clairvaux; biblical authorities include the Old Testament prophets, especially Ezekiel, and from the New Testament, Jesus and the apostles James, Peter, and John.30 Matěj’s ideas about Antichrist are contained in his expansive treatise Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti. According to him, Antichrist had already existed in the Apostolic Age but was now gaining strength. Matěj came to this conclusion by observing the disunity of the Church,31 which he, like Hus after him, considered to be the main sign of Antichrist’s presence.32 Similarities

Jana Nechutová has identified elements in Matěj’s work that anticipate the reformist thought that Jan Hus, among others, would draw from. Nechutová, however, intentionally avoids addressing Matěj’s teachings about Antichrist and eschatology in general.33 Nonetheless, she points out one substantial commonality between Matěj’s and Hus’s eschatologies — the parallel between Hus’s ecclesiology and Matěj’s ideas about the existence of two models of the Church. According to Matěj, the Church is primarily ‘communio sanctorum, that is, a community of good, true Christians’. This community is distinct from Christ’s Church on Earth, that

30 Matěj z Janova, Regulae, ed. by Kybal, iii, pp. iii–vii. Kybal’s introduction to the edition of this volume. 31 Herold, ‘Philosophische Grundlagen’, p. 737. The main evidence is schism. Herold claims that according to Matěj Pope Clement VII and his cardinals are the main Antichrists. 32 Chytil, Antikrist, p. 121; for commentary on Matěj of Janov, see pp. 120–23. 33 Nechutová, ‘Matěj z Janova’, pp. 71–77.

167

168

CHAPTER 4

is, the Church as an institution. This scholar does not feel Matěj had a direct influence on Hus; she merely claims that these reformist models of the Church were widespread, influential ideas during Hus’s time — and that Matěj played a significant role in forming the environment from which the Bohemian Reformation later emerged.34 According to Rodney Lawrence Peterson, Matěj hinted at what Wycliffe said directly — that ‘Schism could only come to the body of Antichrist, not Christ’s true body’, that is, that an anti-Church must exist.35 In connection to these ideas Matěj uses the term Antichristus mysticus, for Antichrist is often hidden and unrecognizable to many. Matěj drew inspira‐ tion from Liber regularum, a work by Tychonius, the first to theorize about the Church invisible. He was also the first to speak about two communities (God’s and Satan’s) and two churches (Christ’s and Antichrist’s). Accord‐ ing to Tychonius, the Church is made up of two parts — the Church of God (also known as the southern or right part) and the Church of Antichrist (also known as the northern or left part). After the destruction of Antichrist and his church, the Church of God would become full. The Donatists excommunicated Tychonius for this theory. Augustine did not adopt Tychonius’s idea, for he was convinced that the body of Christ could not be something that is not part of it eternally, and thus Antichrist cannot be a part of the Church of Christ even though he may be present in it.36 Although Matěj, Milíč, and Hus identify different people as Antichrist, all three authors share the same basic ideas. Matěj also writes about an infinite number of Antichrists (for which he finds evidence in I Ioh. 2. 18, Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 6, p. 21; see also Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 7, p. 26 or 6. 5, p. 71 or 10. 4, pp. 226–27),37 and like Milíč anticipates the coming of the supreme Antichrist (‘summus et famosus Antichristus’; ‘tempus pessimi et ultimi Antichristi’ – Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 14, p. 52; ‘summus Antichristus’ — Regulae, ii. iii. 4. 4. 21, p. 218). Matěj, like Milíč and Hus, sees the supreme Antichrist as a Christian who is capable of committing the greatest hypocrisy, that is, the hypocrite who holds the highest office

34 Nechutová, ‘Matěj z Janova’, p. 72. 35 Peterson, Preaching, p. 41. On the connections between the Church and Antichrist, see also McGinn, Antichrist, p. 183. 36 Skalický, ‘Církev Kristova’, esp. pp. 47–48 and 59–62. The significance of this relatively new finding about the sources of Matěj’s thought has been commented upon by Nechutová in the introductory study to her Czech translation of Augustine’s De Doctrina christiana (Nechutová, ‘Vzdělanost a křesťanské učení’, p. 32). For more information about Tychonius’s life and his idea about the Church, see Rauh, Das Bild des Antichrist im Mittelalter, pp. 102−121. 37 Just like in my comparison of Hus and Milíč, here too I give only the most notable similarities in parentheses. If no particular works are mentioned, then there are general parallels between Hus’s works and Matěj’s Regulae.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

within the Church (e.g., Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 1, p. 4, and 8, p. 28; cf. Hus’s Diliges or De ecclesia): Est vel erit igitur Antichristus homo veritati vite Christi et doctrine fraudulenter contrarius, christianus pessimus, sed vel ex toto vel ex maiori parte in malicia coopertus, vel falso nomine christianus, summum gradum in ecclesia possidens summamque auctoritatem super omnem personam clericalem et laycalem, de plena potestate gloriam habens […] (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 3, p. 10). […] qui summe pessimus yppocrita in summo statu et loco ecclesie constitutus. (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 8, p. 28) Thus, Matěj, like Hus, believed that Antichrist would come from within the Church (Regulae, vol. iii. dist. 5, c. 1). Matěj was also likely influenced on this point by the French thinker William of Saint Amour. According to Matěj and Hus, the hypocrisy committed by a Christian is a sin worse than any wickedness from outside the Christian community, such as paganism or Judaism (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 1, p. 3). For Matěj, too, Antichrist can be recognized by his typical qualities, for example: ‘Antichristus est summe contrarius Jhesu Christo contrarietate secundum habitum moralem. Pro eo etenim est Antichristus vocatus. Non autem erit contrarius Christo per naturam, quia substancie nichil est vel esse potest […]’ (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 8, p. 29; see also Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 10. 4, p. 225). Let us compare this last statement to Hus’s introduction to State, to Milíč’s Libellus, and Augustine’s In Iohannis epistulam ad Parthos tractatus. Antichrist is Christ’s opposite (contrarius), ‘in proposito et in operibus’ (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 8, p. 30). Note that according to Matěj, as well as Hus (especially in Diliges), a man is not born Antichrist, but becomes Antichrist when he commits mortal sins: ‘Antichristus, cuius caput dyabolus, non aliud est nisi destitucio nature humane in statum bestialem […]’ (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 6. 5, p. 71). Thus, here we essentially find the same idea as in Hus’s Diliges. The Antichrists that Hus and Matěj felt were present in their worlds are not preternatural beings but depraved people. Matěj, like Hus, also sees avaricia and concupiscencia as tell-tale signs (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 14, pp. 48–53). The fact that Antichrist comes from within the Christian Church presents an enormous, extraordinary threat (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 3, p. 12) and leads Matěj to the conclusion that he is living through the last stage of human history. Although Christians have been persecuted throughout their entire history, this evil emanating from within their own ranks, this great suffering of Christians (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 2, no. 8 — ‘novissima tribulacio, pessima et supra qua dici potuit peior priore’; see also, p. 9), is an indicator of the approaching Day of Judgement (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 2, p. 6). We can also observe the same tendency in Hus’s works.

169

170

CHAPTER 4

Matěj, however, unlike Hus, frequently and explicitly calls attention to the connection between Antichrist and the end of history. Matěj, like Hus would do later, often characterizes Antichrist by juxtapos‐ ing Christ and Antichrist, a contrast Origen had already implied in the third century. In his writings on Antichrist, Origen relied mainly on the Gospel of Matthew and understood Antichrist as someone who pretended to possess Christ’s qualities. Matěj thus presents many disparities between Christ and Antichrist,38 for example, Antichristus et Christus poterunt conparari. Sicud Christus fuit totus verax et venit per veritatem, sic Antichristus erit totus mendax […]| sicut Jhesus fuit totus pius,| sic ille ‘homo perdicionis’ [cf. II Thess. 2. 3] est totus crudelis […] (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 8, p. 30). We also find similar statements in Hus’s synodal sermons. Like Milíč and Hus, Matěj too emphasizes the great importance of preach‐ ing for humankind’s salvation, which also includes spreading news of the Antichrist’s presence at all costs (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 11. 5, p. 353). Preaching has now become especially necessary because not much time is left: ‘Christus Jhesus interficiet Anichristum spiritu oris sui [cf. II Thess. 2. 8], id est per os predicatorum suorum, ignem zeli et caritatis spirancium inimicos eorum devorantem […]’ (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 4, p. 15). Matěj specifically states that preachers must play a role in Christ’s final victory. Each author emphasizes this idea in a different way and makes a varying number of statements about the end times. All three of these authors’ sermons can be understood in a more-or-less eschatological spirit.39 Even the systematic Matěj acknowledges his role as a moralistic preacher. For he who does not know about the horrible events that will occur in the end times shall perish (Regulae, vol. iii. Magistrorum universitatis Parisiensis Tractatus de periculis. 7, p. 272). Finally, it should be noted that for all three preachers the Bible, not non-biblical authorities, is the most important source of ideas about Antichrist and that the importance of preaching comes from this source (Regulae, p. iv, Kybal’s introduction). We also find similarities in the evidence both Matěj and Hus give for Antichrist’s presence. Like Hus, Matěj emphasizes and often references Matthew 24. 12 (in every volume but the second and most frequently in the third). Matěj’s most cited biblical verses, which are also referenced by Hus, include Matthew 24. 24 (in all volumes of Regulae, especially volume iii) and, although somewhat less frequently, Matthew 24. 15 (in 38 Chytil, Antikrist, p. 56. 39 Cf. Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, pp. 183–84.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

all volumes of Regulae, especially volume iii). Matěj also regularly uses Matthew 7. 15 (in all volumes of Regulae, especially volume iii). Both Hus and Matěj also cite Philippians 2. 21 (in volumes 4, 3, 1, and 5 of Regulae), II Thessalonians 2. 9 (in all volumes of Regulae, especially volume iii), and Apocalypse 12. 4, which Matěj only occasionally references (in volumes i−v). Matěj, however, does not often reference II Timothy 3. 2 (only in volumes iv and ii), II Timothy 3. 3 (volumes iii, i, v), or I John 5. 19 (volumes iii, i, v). As far as non-biblical authorities are concerned, Hus and Matěj both reference Bernard of Clairvaux’s thirty-third sermon from Sermones in Cantica Canticorum. Matěj dedicates an entire chapter to Bernard: ‘Revelacio magne meretricix secundum Bernhardum’ (iii. iii. 5. 10. 9, pp. 240–41). But Matěj, unlike Hus, does not cite Bernard in relation to schism, but in connection to the general wickedness of his day and to hypocrisy and its exposure. For Matěj, just like for Hus, Bernard is ‘propinquior istis temporibus’, that is, nearly Matěj’s contemporary, who observes and records the age of Antichrist. Differences

Milíč and Matěj differ from Hus with their greater emphasis on the escha‐ tological ramifications of Antichrist’s activities and on the exact timing of events. This approach is related to their systematicness. Matěj focuses most attention on Antichrist in the third book, fifth tractate of Regulae, which is fully devoted to this topic. We learn about Matěj’s objectives from his description of this work’s contents ‘[…] venatur seu scrutatur per sepe dictam regulam Antichristus et revelatur corpus eius et tempus’. (p. vii; this description of the contents is found in Regulae in the introduction to the first book, c. 2, p. 15, vol. i). Matěj, like the other authors, divides his book into distinctions and chapters. He defines Antichrist; describes An‐ tichrist’s emergence, development, and typical sins; establishes the length of his activities; and speaks about his body, about masters and capitularies who decorate and protect his body, about the similarities of Antichrist’s and Christ’s bodies, about human inventions (i.e., Antichrist’s weapons), about carnal priests, that is, the limbs of Antichrist, and about exposing Antichrist. His method of defining Antichrist is informed by his own interests, his attention to system and detail, and, especially in the case of Antichrist, Milíč’s Libellus of 136740 and the mid-thirteenth-century trac‐ tate De periculis novissimorum temporum by Paris masters.41 Matěj includes

40 Regulae, ed. by Kybal and others, i, p. iii. 41 This treatise was condemned in 1256 by Pope Alexander IV, whom it targeted. It was also condemned by Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and Bonaventure (Regulae, ed. by Kybal and others, i, p. iv).

171

172

CHAPTER 4

both these works in his Regulae and explicitly states that Libellus is his model.42 Another difference between Hus and Matěj lies in the latter’s emphasis on the connection between Antichrist and the end times. Although Matěj sees the traditional signs of the era of Antichrist in the presence of the ultimate hypocrisy, wickedness, anguish, and deception (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 9, p. 32; see also iii. v. 11. 4, p. 347 — I Tim. 4. 1–3; or on suffering, iii. v. 6. 4, p. 65; ‘tribulacio permaxima et ultima’ — Regulae, iii. 3. 5. 6. 9, p. 82), he also stresses the connection between Antichrist’s activities and the end times ‘in temporibus novissimis’ (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 5, p. 18), II Timothy 3. 1 (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 9. 1, p. 147), and Apocalypse 20. 7, and thus links Antichrist with the final end of human history. The age of Antichrist, the end times, had come (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 11. 4, p. 347). And here Matěj notes another eschatological aspect of Antichrist. The essence of Antichrist rests in hypocrisy, lies, and deception; deceived Christians believe that they will find salvation through him (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 6, p. 20). In his emphasis of these eschatological, even apocalyptic aspects of Antichrist, Matěj draws near to not only the ideas of Milíč but also to those contained in De periculis novissimorum temporum, which also notes the dangers of the end times (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. Magistrorum universitatis Parisiensis tractatus. prologus, p. 253 and c. 1, p. 256), novissima hora (Regu‐ lae, vol. iii. c. 2, p. 257 and c. 8, p. 275), multiple Antichrists, people loving themselves (Regulae, vol. iii. c. 8, p. 275), and other signs of the impending end (Regulae, vol. iii. c. 8, pp. 276–78). He even stresses Matthew 24. 12 (Regulae, vol. iii. c. 8, p. 278), a fundamental biblical source for Milíč and Hus, and writes about the imminent consumacio seculi (Regulae, vol. iii. c. 8, p. 279) and tempora periculosa (Regulae, vol. iii. c. 15, p. 317). Matěj also explicitly mentions ‘temporibus novissimis Antichristi’ (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 10. 5, p. 231) based on Matthew 24. 4–5 and I John 4. 3, the latter of which proclaims that Antichrist is present in the world (Regulae, iii, p. 231). Matěj also draws from other evidence about the end times that we do not find in Hus’s works: evidence of novissima hora, I John 2. 18–19 (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 9. 12, p. 178); and in novissimis temporibus, I Timothy 4. 1 (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 10. 3, pp. 221 and 9. 6, p. 159), II Timothy 3. 1–9 (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 10. 3, p. 221), I John 2. 18–19 (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 10. 4, p. 224). Evidence for Antichrist’s presence in the world comes from I John 4. 3.

42 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 17.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

Other eschatologically significant sources referenced in the fifth trac‐ tate of the third book, which are not typical of Hus’s works, include Daniel (this book is referenced often and Matěj adopts much of its terminology); Revelation; Matthew 24. 5 and 24, 10–12; Matthew 24. 42; Titus 1. 16; II Corinthians 11. 13–15; and I John 7–12. In the third book of Regulae Matěj is exact in his use of the term Antichrist. However, in the other books, which are not focused on a systematic commentary on Antichrist, he uses this term similarly to Hus, that is, he preserves its meaning but does not analyse it. Matěj, though, uses this term in much greater connection to the end times. Alexander Patchovsky43 has commented upon the allegorical nature of Antichrist in Wycliffe’s polemical writings by noting that Wycliffe consid‐ ers some figures to be ‘more Antichrist’ and some ‘less Antichrist’. This incremental view can also be found in the works of Matěj, although it is not evidence of the allegorical use of Antichrist. The supreme Antichrist is still expected to come, and a multitude of Antichrists exists; therefore, in light of the current situation in the Church, Antichrist often becomes a collective notion, an idea that is reflected in the concept of Antichrists of differing degree: ‘Et quanto est huiuscemodi christianus in maiori statu ecclesie vel quanto est superior in ecclesia officio, personatu vel dignitate, tanto est maior Antychristus et propinquius membrum suo capiti’ (Regu‐ lae, iii. iii. 5. 10. 5, p. 233, similarly ‘maior Antychristus’, Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 10. 5, p. 234). Matěj is so systematic that his ideas often resemble a theodic explana‐ tion of Antichrist: all evil and Antichrist are the work of Satan. Antichrist is just another temptation meant to sort out good Christians from the bad, and therefore God has enabled his coming (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 5, p. 18). Matěj presents other details about Antichrist that are lacking in Milíč’s descriptions. He dates the ‘breaking of Antichrist’s horrific silence’44 to the 1450s; before that point it had been impossible to reveal the true state the Church was in. The mystical Antichrist first appeared in Christianity some‐ time after 1200 (when hypocrisy began to spread among Christians and within the Church;45 Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 6, p. 21), although Matěj held the Joachimite hope that Christ would send Enoch and Elijah (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 11. 5, pp. 351–52) along with other prophets to earth to defeat Antichrist’s servants. Joachim was convinced that Antichrist would be van‐ quished, and he expected an age of eternal peace to come.46 Nonetheless, we have no clear evidence that Joachim had a direct influence on Matěj.

43 44 45 46

Patschovsky, Antichrist. Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 18. Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 8. Chytil, Antikrist, p. 42.

173

174

CHAPTER 4

According to Matěj, the defeat of Antichrist was already underway, for the silence had already been broken (he mentions 1350 as a milestone year; Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 11. 5, p. 352) by Waldhauser and Matěj’s teacher and model, Milíč (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 11. 3, p. 345, c. 6, p. 356, c. 7, pp. 358, 360–61), who had thus become an eschatological figure, an exemplary preacher who fought against Antichrist till the end of his life. Since Waldhauser and Milíč began preaching, Antichrist had been gradually revealed. Matěj also considered 1290 to be a turning point,47 a milestone year in which the Church abandoned the practice of daily communion,48 a means of salvation for the Christian community. The end of this period of wickedness saw the arrival of the supreme Antichrist: Pope Clement, the head of the collective body of Antichrist, which is comprised of all people who do not live according to divine law. Thus, Matěj does not see external enemies (as Joachimites did); he identifies them within the Church, in false Christians. Antichrist became a collective notion and was no longer understood as a specific historical figure but as a general concept express‐ ing the ‘acute danger of the Church in a certain historical epoch’.49 Matěj was the first in the Czech lands to link the decay of society exclusively with the decadence of Church officials (Milíč saw secular leaders causing ruination).50 According to Matěj, since 1335 events had been occurring that would lead to the triumph of reform and perhaps even to the formation of a perfect community of the faithful. Signs of God’s wrath and the imminent restoration of the Church are similar to those presented by Milíč: war, misfortune, and suffering. The surest sign, however, was the Papal Schism of 1378 (Rom. 8. 9 — Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 6. 6, p. 73). The cause of all the Church’s problems was human inventions, the weapons of Antichrist whose removal was the only possible solution to this critical situation. It was not only Church representatives who gave birth to this situation but also in some cases laics, who were otherwise at the very least influenced by the situation.51 (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 9. 11, p. 174). This situation forced Matěj to level stern criticism in his systematic Regulae. Karel Skalický even speaks about ‘apocalyptic agitation’ as a typical mark of Matthais’s ecclesiology in Regulae.52

47 Another key year was 1295, when locusts ravaged Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland (Regulae, ed. by Kybal and others, iii. iii. 5. 9. 9, p. 169; cf. Apoc. 6. 12). 48 Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 9. 49 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 18. Nechutová, Latinská literatura, p. 206 also claims that Matěj’s Antichrist is the sum of all things that go against Christ and not a specific person. 50 Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 8. 51 Nechutová, ‘Středověká eschatologie’, p. 8. 52 Skalický, ‘Církev Kristova’, pp. 64–66. According to Skalický, scholars have thus far ignored the theological explosiveness of Matěj’s understanding of Antichrist. The last scholar to deal in detail with Matěj’s ecclesiology was E. Valášek, who characterizes Matěj’s theology as

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

Differences and Similarities in Terminology

In each book of Regulae Matěj uses different terms. Naturally, the term Antichristus, as well as its plural form Antichristi, appears most frequently in the fifth tractate of the third book (vol. iii) in keeping with its main theme. For the same reason we do not encounter as often other terms that Hus commonly used to refer to Antichrist. Matěj takes great care to preserve the subtle differences between terms that Hus uses as synonyms. Thus, according to Matěj, Antichrist only comes in the form of a beast; the devil only accompanies him (e.g., Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 10. 4, p. 228); for example, Vehemoth = spiritus Antichristi (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 12, p. 44; according to Iob 45. 16–17), dyabolus = caput Antichristi (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 14, p. 50). Matěj also uses a term we do not find in Hus’s works examined in this book: antichristeitas, which Matěj employs to refer to hypocrisy (e.g., Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 1, pp. 3, 117, and dist. 8, c. 2). Considering the fact that Matěj’s understanding of Antichrist is very similar to Milíč’s and Hus’s, Matěj works with the same terms as these authors, although he always preserves the subtle differences between them: habundancia iniquitatis (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 7, p. 24); ypocrisis (Regulae, iii, iii. 5. 5. 5, p. 18); abhominacio (e.g., Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 9. 3, p. 152), abhominacio desolacionis (e.g., Regulae, e.g., iii. iii. 5. 10. 2, p. 214); pseudochristi (e.g., Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 10. 3, p. 221); Gog and Magog = gentes antichristi (cf. Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 5. 4, p. 14; c. 6, p. 22; dist. 6, c. 7, p. 75; 5. 7. 6, p. 106); pseudopropheti (Matth. 7. 15; Regulae, iii. Magistrorum universitatis Parisiensis Tractatus. prologus, p. 231). Such expressions, however, are not used more promi‐ nently or even more frequently in the fifth tractate of the third book (vol. iii) than purely Antichrist terminology. In other volumes of Regulae whose main subject matter is not An‐ tichrist, Antichrist is described in the same way (cf., e.g., antichristi = homines carnales et amici mundi; Regulae, ii. iii. 4. 2. 21, p. 218). Above all Matěj uses Antichrist terminology when he criticizes schism53 (tractate 4, book 3; book 4), the carnality of priests and persecution (tractate 6, book 3), denying the Eucharist to people, human inventions, and idol worship (all in book 4). These phenomena are also reflected in the terminology he uses elsewhere in Regulae, which is much more diverse than Hus’s or Milíč’s; compare, for example, precursori Antichristi (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 7. 3, p. 94) and famuli Antichristi (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 6. 2, p. 58). Finally, not even Matěj avoids substituting one term for another when he uses figurative language, for example, in his commentary on Job 41. 45: ‘“In

‘pathetic spiritualism’. The focus of his work was Matěj’s concept of the Church of Christ, however. On Valášek’s reading of Matěj’s ecclesiology and on Valášek’s concept of pathetic spiritualism, see Steiner, ‘Eklesiologie Matěje z Janova v podání E. Valáška’. 53 On the place of schism in Regulae, see Lahey, ‘Matěj of Janov’, especially p. 7.

175

176

CHAPTER 4

medium oris eius”, scilicet Leviathan, subaudis Antichristus […]’ (Regulae, iii. iii. 5. 7. 6, p. 107). The fact that the works of Matěj and Hus have many shared features is not proof of Matěj’s direct influence. It is, however, evidence that Matěj and Hus drew from both Milíč’s legacy and from a domestic tradition that was not associated with any particular names but more with a shared ideological current. Many elements of these three authors’ works can be found in Adso’s Libellus de Antichristo.54 This work contains an Augustinian description of Antichrist as someone who is Christ’s opponent and an explanation of his name (contrarius). It also presents the idea that many Antichrists exist simultaneously and that Antichrist has a multitude of helpers or servants, the notion that Antichrist emerges from human sin, and the concept of filius perditionis. Furthermore, we find major similarities between Adso’s and Milíč’s histories of Antichrist’s evolution — Dan, Enoch, Helias, and so forth. Karel Chytil, however, claims that Adso’s influ‐ ence on Milíč55 or Matěj 56 cannot be confirmed. According to this scholar, Milíč in particular draws his ideas exclusively from the Bible. Although today we know that manuscripts of Adso’s text were in circulation in the Czech lands during the lives of all three of these preachers, scholars seem to have not moved beyond Chytil’s idea.57

Comparing Hus’s Ideas with Those of Wycliffe Wycliffe saw the contemporary Church’s divergence from the Gospel pri‐ marily in preaching, which had failed to expose Antichrist. Therefore, he spoke out against the papacy, and his criticism is partly tinged with eschatological ideas.58 Wycliffe’s influence on Hus’s Antichrist thought is clear.59 Hus repeats some of Wycliffe’s ideas about Antichrist verbatim, whereas others he leaves out altogether. In any case, he always modi‐ fies Wycliffe’s ideas to suit the situation in Bohemia. Hus and Wycliffe

54 In his edition of Adso’s work, Verhelst also includes, and provides commentary on, adaptations of this work that are very similar to the original. Thus, Verhelst explores the reception of Libellus and examines how Adso’s ideas about Antichrist were attributed to other authors. See also a study on the Old English version of this work: Emmerson, ‘From Epistola to Sermo’. 55 Chytil, Antikrist, p. 117. 56 Chytil, Antikrist, p. 123. 57 Cermanová has studied the preservation of manuscripts of Adso’s Libellus in Bohemia (they are all different versions of the same text), most recently in Čechy na konci věků, pp. 83–84. 58 Peterson, Preaching, p. 41. 59 Nechutová, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, esp. p. 187.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

shared the same philosophical grounding; both generally tended towards Platonic-Augustinian concepts.60 Hus and Wycliffe both use another important term that is closely related to preaching: the law of Christ. Although it is a crucial concept in the works of Wycliffe, it can also be found in a certain form in earlier reform thought from the Czech lands, particularly in the writings of Matěj of Janov.61 Although Hus introduced no fundamentally new ideas about the law of Christ into the Czech lands, his defence of this law, which led to his burning at the stake, was something exceptional. This idea represented the absolute truth and was something worth dying for. In the following section I will compare Hus’s works with those of Wycliffe that share something in common. A Comparison with De Christo et adversario suo Antichristo

Based on Hus’s Diliges and Wycliffe’s De Christo et adversario suo An‐ tichristo, we know that both authors differentiate between the Church as a visible institution and the true Church, the Church of the predestined. It is on this foundation that they contrast good and evil. Further definitions of the Church that emerge from this concept are very similar. Recall that Wycliffe, like Hus, defines the Church as ‘predestinatorum universitas’, divides it into three parts, and draws heavily upon Augustine: ‘Et sic est triplex ecclesia, scilicet ecclesia triumphancium in celo, ecclesia militan‐ cium hic in mundo et ecclesia dormiencium in purgatorio’ (De Christo, p. 33). Wycliffe also provides a detailed definition of the term ecclesia militancium, a central idea in his and Hus’s works, and divides it into three parts that must always be in harmony. Both authors describe the Church in a similar manner and emphasize the importance of their understanding of it. They also share the feeling that the Church must be reformed. Wycliffe, like Hus, speaks at length about the necessity of unifying the Church (De Christo, pp. 33–39). The constant emphasis on moral values, which can be observed in the many antitheses contained in their works, leads both authors to ideas that were provocative for their day and is responsible for the incorporation of ideas about Antichrist and related terminology in their works. Wycliffe is more radical than Hus. Wycliffe influenced Hus’s idea that a bad pope could be equated with Antichrist, but Hus nonetheless thought the institution of the papacy was worth preserving. Wycliffe, however,

60 Čornej, Velké dějiny, p. 88. 61 Čornej, Velké dějiny, p. 99.

177

178

CHAPTER 4

fundamentally criticized this institution’s existence.62 Therefore, Hus and Wycliffe speak about Antichrist or Antichrists in different contexts. They also offer distinct solutions for dealing with this threat. Wycliffe sees secular rulers as the best hope for reforming the Church. Although Hus claims about the secular ruler that ‘officium autem eius est legem Dei defendere, Christi servos protegere et ministros Antichristi propellere’ (Diliges, fol. 28r) and that this ruler is not Antichrist, he does not attribute a special role to the worldly lord in the fight against Antichrist. Hus, along with Milíč and Matěj, see preachers as fundamental players. He does not criticize the Church as an institution but only its current depravity. It may seem that Hus’s and Wycliffe’s solutions to the Church’s predicament differ only in the details, but it was these details that played critical roles in the condemnation of Wycliffe’s writings and in Hus’s trial. In De Christo Wycliffe claims that the Bible does not establish Peter as the head of the Church because the head must be the source of movement and the senses (sensus) for the rest of the body (De Christo, pp. 39–40). He then specifically poses the question of whether Peter was ‘vicarius Christi in terris’ and whether he had authority over the other apostles. Although Wycliffe answers his own questions in the affirmative, he also emphatically notes that this answer applies exclusively to Peter. God gave only Peter such power, not anyone else. Peter was rewarded for his humility, a fact that did not entitle later popes to usurp power and property for their own gain (De Christo, p. 43). Thus, later popes unjustly derived their power from Peter’s legacy, using his exceptionality to establish their own exceptionality and superiority in an act of wicked sinfulness (De Christo, p. 43). Therefore, Wycliffe identifies the pope with Antichrist and makes the following claim about the current pope: […] quanto magis antichristive peccat, qui cupit super omnem habitabilem presidere et non servato officio, quod Christus limitat, impedit alios, ut volentes ewangelizare et alia opera apostolica exercere per suam fictam et infundabilem iurisdiccionem eciam infundabilem potestatem regis superbie, ne currat libere sermo Dei. (De Christo, p. 43) The pope is ‘precipuus antichristus’, for he sins against Christ and His Church, he leads the devil’s army against Christ, and he acts as if he has greater power in absolving sins and granting indulgences and other privi‐ leges than Christ or the apostles. Pastors were not following the Lord Jesus Christ; pseudo-apostles call Peter the pope. Wycliffe uses phrases such as ‘pastorum superbia et cupiditas’ to denote the obvious causes of the 62 In Responsiones ad articulos Wiclef (most likely from December 1414, according to Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 75, p. 124) Hus claims that he does not support Wycliffe’s rejection of the papacy as an institution (Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, pp. 305* – 310*).

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

Church’s division (De Christo, p. 45). In this regard, Hus is a step behind Wycliffe in the radicalness of his theory, but it makes for a fundamental difference. Wycliffe’s criticism of clerics (‘pastores sophistici’, De Christo, p. 45) who defend papal primacy does have clear parallels in Hus’s works. Both authors also share the same fundamental definition of Antichrist: Wycliffe, like Augustine before him and Hus after him, describes Antichrist as ‘Christo contrarius’. In some places Wycliffe uses other terms besides Antichrist to refer to Christ’s opposite, for example: ‘[…] est indubie sathanas atque diabolus […] est indubie precipuus antichristus […]’ (p. 50). One sign of Antichrist is that he attempts to put himself above Christ (‘antichristus extollitur supra Christum’, p. 53; cf. II Thess. 2. 4), a trait that Wycliffe observes in the popes. Thus, Wycliffe, like Hus, consid‐ ers the clergy to be on the side of wickedness, although he focuses most frequently on the papacy, for the pope is the initiator of conflict and war; he is ‘condicio antichristi’. A Comparison with Wycliffe’s Sermons that Inspired Hus

Not much evidence of shared elements (particularly of an eschatological nature) emerges when we compare the works of Wycliffe and Hus. Both authors criticize the clergy, and to a certain extent their criticisms (except their views on the pope) overlap in terms of substance and, in some places, of terminology. Shared vocabulary is most frequently the result of using the same biblical passages as sources. Hus’s sermons State and Abiciamus are proven to have been inspired by specific sermons by Wycliffe. First, we shall compare63 Wycliffe’s sermon on the first Sunday of Advent, Hora est iam nos de somno surgere (Rom. 13. 11)64 with Hus’s Abiciamus (Rom. 13. 12). As Jan Sedlák has already noted, although Abiciamus draws in part from Wycliffe’s Hora, these two sermons do not share much in common.65 In terms of eschatology, they both contain similar mentions of the end times. Wycliffe and Hus both comment upon the urgency of correct behaviour in the current situation, 63 Jan Sedlák has noted a certain connection between Abiciamus and Wycliffe’s sermon (M. Jan Hus, p. 105, note 3). 64 Ed. by Loserth in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iii. 1, pp. 1–9. 65 Similar statements found in both sermons include the following: Hora, p. 3: ‘Opera autem […] peccata’ — Abiciamus, pp. 99–100: ‘opera tenebrarum […] ad peccata’; Hora, p. 3: ‘inducunt […] Trinitatis’ — Abiciamus, p. 100, loosely borrowed phrasing: ‘inducunt […] Trinitatis’; Hora, p. 3: ‘Licet […] iniquitas’ — Abiciamus, p. 100, loosely borrowed phrasing: ‘Licet autem […] iniquitas’.

179

180

CHAPTER 4

for we are those ‘in quo fines seculorum devenerunt […]’ (I Cor. 10. 11; Hora, p. 1; Abiciamus, p. 103), because, according to Wycliffe ‘novissima hora est […]’ (Hora, p. 1; I Ioh. 2. 18; in Hus’s works this biblical verse is only found in Česká kázání sváteční, although similar statements with the same meaning also appear in Abiciamus on pp. 103 and 106; cf. Wycliffe’s sermon Induamur arma lucis, p. 207). One thing they do share is citing I Corinthians 10. 11 and I John 2. 18 (in Abiciamus there is only similarity in how they are cited; in Hus’s earlier works the same sentences are cited). We find other similarities of a purely moral nature, especially when we compare the introduction of Hus’s Abiciamus with Wycliffe’s works. Both Hus and Wycliffe comment upon the contrast between good and evil in their criticism of sins (gluttony, drunkenness, concerns about secular life). But this is where the similarities between Hus’s Abiciamus and Wycliffe’s sermon end. Wycliffe does not speak at all about Antichrist, a clear focus of Hus’s Abiciamus. Wycliffe emphasizes the imminence of the end and his expectations as a result of the biblical subject he is preaching about. In Abiciamus Hus seems to concentrate more on the ideas of Bernard of Clairvaux than on those of Wycliffe. And thus, Hus’s incorporation of Antichrist ideas into Abiciamus seems not be inspired by anyone else; it is an expression of Hus’s own interests. When we compare Wycliffe’s sermon Confortamini in Domino et in potencia virtutis eius66 with one of Hus’s works that it partly influenced, Abiciamus, we find only a single parallel between these two thinkers; they both criticize contemporary morals without referring to the end times or Antichrist. The parallels here can be found mostly in the terminology they use (they both refer to the devil) and stem mainly from shared biblical inspiration: ‘Ista epistola [Eph.] docet fideles viantes quomodo debent pugnare spiritualiter contra diabolum’ (p. 473).67 This comparison also demonstrates that in Abiciamus Hus explicitly emphasizes Antichrist and his connection to the end times without inspiration from Wycliffe. We can also compare Wycliffe’s sermon Confortamini in Domino et in potencia virtutis eius (Eph. 6. 10) and Hus’s sermon State.68 Whereas Wycliffe here is once again more pragmatic, Hus’s intent is to agitate his listeners. Wycliffe, besides explaining how to use terms that refer to evil, also includes other elements in his sermon that could have inspired Hus. According to Wycliffe, dies mala means ‘dies conflictus cum ipso diabolo’ (p. 477) or ‘dies novissimus’ (p. 477). Although the timing of

66 Ed. by Loserth in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iii. 55, pp. 473−82. 67 Confortamini, ed. by Loserth, p. 482: ‘Cum enim […] principis tenebrarum’. 68 Jan Sedlák has noted (Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 120, note 2) that ‘the sentences introducing each point in the second half of State succincti are from Wycliffe’s sermon on the same epistle (Serm. III 478nn), but a more penetrating literary influence from Wycliffe cannot be observed here’.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

the first and second days of evil remain unknown to mortals, God knows exactly when they will come (‘dies certa’, p. 477). In this sermon Wycliffe uses the term Antichristus once when he explains the Apostle’s words ‘stare perfecte’ as meaning ‘recte elevati contra versucias Antichristi’ (p. 477). But this is more of a passing reference resulting from the biblical theme of the sermon.69 Nonetheless, this sermon has a more eschatological tone, and Hus and his eschatology may have been inspired by it even though he does not directly cite Wycliffe. Hus’s comments on the function of preachers, the poverty of Christ, and the clergy’s hypocritical desire for wealth and property are similar, but not identical, to Wycliffe’s. Besides Wycliffe’s sermons that demonstrably inspired Hus, we can also examine sermons by both preachers that are based on the same biblical subject or that elaborate on the same biblical verse and determine whether shared source materials led them to making similar eschatological state‐ ments. First, I shall compare Wycliffe’s sermon Vinum non habent (Ioh. 2. 3)70 with Diliges. Although Wycliffe references Matthew 24. 12 and Matthew 22. 37 here, his sermon has nothing else in common in terms of eschatol‐ ogy or Antichrist thought with Hus’s sermons. Wycliffe and Hus both attempted to make priests listen to God and not concern themselves with worldly things. They only share this same principle, however, as their wording is different, and we find no other similarities here.

69 In State the following statements from Wycliffe’s sermon appear: Confortamini, ed. by Loserth, p. 474 — the already-mentioned citation from Eph. 6. 11 — State, fol. 32r and 32v; Confortamini, ed. by Loserth, p. 474 — Eph. 6. 12 — Hus’s loosely borrowed phrasing: State, fol. 32r; Confortamini, ed. by Loserth, p. 477 — Eph. 6. 14 — State, fol. 32v in abbreviated from. Hus borrows extensively from Wycliffe when he comments on the three weapons in State, a theme that ties these works together: Confortamini, ed. by Loserth, p. 478: ‘primo omnium […] lumbos mentis’, p. 478: ‘Primo tamen […] in mente’, p. 478: ‘et ideo dicit Petrus […] Deus’ — in State more loosely, fol. 33v: ‘monet Apostolus […] ad rectitudinem intentionis’, ‘commemorat Apostolus […] quod venter gulosorum est Deus eorum, ad Philip. 3’; Confortamini, ed. by Loserth, p. 479: ‘Secunda armatura […] iusticie’ — State, fol. 34v: ‘Secunda armatura […] interioris hominis’, ‘Ideo dicit Apostolus secundo, Induite loricam iustitiae’; Confortamini, ed. by Loserth, p. 479: ‘Tercia […] pacis’ — State, fol. 35v: ‘Tertia armatura […] hominis calceatio’, ‘Ideo dicit […] pacis’; Confortamini, ed. by Loserth, p. 479 — Eph. 6. 16: ‘In omnibus […] extinguere’ — abbreviated in State, fol. 32v: ‘tela ignea extinguere Antichristi’; Confortamini, ed. by Loserth, pp. 481–82: ‘Circa hanc […] superare’ — more loosely in State, fol. 32r: ‘Quod si […] poterit superare’. 70 In Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, ed. by Loserth, iv. 28, pp. 232–38.

181

182

CHAPTER 4

We can also compare Wycliffe’s sermon Induamur arma lucis (Rom. 13. 12)71 with Abiciamus. The same biblical theme appears in both sermons. Wycliffe states that a spiritual battle will break out as the Final Judge‐ ment approaches: ‘[…] appropinquante die iudicii et die mortis exercitus dyaboli sit acrior […] pugnat violencius’ (p. 206). He calls attention to the urgency of the situation: ‘[…] de sompno surgere’. (Rom. 13. 11; p. 207); ‘Novissima hora est’ (I Ioh. 2. 18; p. 207); ‘Vigilate, quia nescitis diem iudicii neque horam mortis’ (Matth. 25. 13; p. 207). When we compare Wycliffe’s Nos autem fratres secundum Isaac promis‐ sionis filii sumus (Gal. 4. 28)72 with Hus’s State, we see once again that both preachers connect certain biblical verses with moral criticism of the clergy. As a result, both sermons contain similar terminology (e.g., Nos autem, p. 296). We also see such similarities between Wycliffe’s Sanatus est puer in illa hora (Matth. 8. 13)73 and Hus’s State. Despite the similarities between these sermons, I have not found that Wycliffe’s works were a major influence on Hus’s ideas about Antichrist or eschatology. Hus, however, may have found inspiration in other works by Wycliffe, for example, in his polemic writings which contain far more diverse Antichrist terminology than Hus’s sermons. Even though Hus and Wycliffe come to different conclusions about Antichrist, we should still determine to what extent Antichrist is an escha‐ tological or even apocalyptical matter in Wycliffe’s work and compare our findings with what we know about Hus. Although many statements about the end times can be found in the sermons by Wycliffe I have studied, they rarely contain the term Antichristus. Moreover, the use of this word is usually the result of elaborating on a particular biblical verse. Here, I must turn to the study ‘“Antichrist” bei Wyclif ’ in which Alexander Patschovsky examines Antichrist in Wycliffe’s polemical writings and does not come to a clear conclusion either.

71 In Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, ed. by Loserth, iv. 24, pp. 206–12. 72 Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, ed. by Loserth, iv. 34, pp. 290–96. 73 Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, ed. by Loserth, iv. 28, pp. 238–45.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

A Comparison with the Synodal Sermons of his Contemporaries74

Stanislav delivered the sermon Vos testimonium perhibebitis de me (Ioh. 15. 21)75 sometime between 1 May and 30 June 1405.76 In it he criticizes the clergy, but his rhetoric is less fiery than Hus’s.77 Sedlák claims that ‘Stanislav’s sermon, nicely structured and massively reformist, certainly did not miss its mark’78 and that ‘Hus’s sermon is far less impressive than Stanislav’s […] Besides the Wycliffite attack on the thirty masses and on secular songs in church, [Hus] adds nothing new’.79 Sedlák, however, neglects to consider the possible effects of Hus’s incorporating of Antichrist themes and terminology into his synodal sermons. Stanislav’s sermon does not include a single occurrence of the term Antichrist, nor does it refer to biblical verses about the coming of Antichrist. The foundations upon which Stanlislav’s and Hus’s criticisms stand are of course similar: priests should be humble and follow the model of Christ, that is, they should not be proud, lustful, and desirous (compare with Hus’s ‘imitatio Christi’). Their task is to protect the Church Militant: ‘[…] ad profectum regni sui ecclesiae militantis’. (fol. 25v), ‘[…] contra triplicem falsitatem ecclesiae diaboli per humilitatem, castitatem […]’ (fol. 26r). Stanislav does not use Antichrist terminology and does not give bibli‐ cal evidence of Antichrist’s coming and his activities, but he does describe the age of Antichrist with the following words: Et secundum beatum Bernhardum et alium doctorum Gelbertum factum est in clero abominabile monstrum super terram. Gradus summus, animus infimus, sedes prima […] manus ociosa, sermo multus, fructus nullus, vultus gravis, actus levis, ingens autoritas […] speculator caecus, preco mutus, pugil mancus, praecursor lentus, medicus morbi ignarus. (fol. 26r) Stanislav and Hus essentially share the same ideas even though these two preachers express their criticism in very different manners. For example, Stanislav does not speak about the devil (with the above exception), and his rhetoric is not as daringly fiery as Hus’s.

74 I have chosen for comparison two synodal sermons that were delivered around the time that Hus delivered his. Editions of the two sermons I have chosen have been published (for an overview of synodal sermons by the masters from Charles University, see Kadlec, ‘Mistři Karlovy university jako synodální kazatelé’. 75 Op. ii, fols 25r–27r. 76 Spunar, Repertorium, no. 816, p. 299. 77 The bishop declared the topics to be dealt with by the synod ahead of time (Polc and Hledíková, Pražské synody a koncily předhusitské doby, p. 13). 78 Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 118. 79 Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 119.

183

184

CHAPTER 4

The sermon Testimonium Christi confirmatum est in vobis (I Cor. 1. 6)80 was most likely delivered by Ondřej of Brod. It does not contain the term Antichrist, nor does it mention the end times. Once again, in terms of rhetoric it contains gentler criticism than Diliges does. The basic elements of these two sermons, however, are similar. The author of this sermon, like Hus, describes priests as having a privileged position: ‘[…] vos genus electum’, and so forth (p. 114), or ‘[…] grex, qui pastoris vocem moresque sequitur, per exempla melius, quam verba gradiatur […]’ (p. 121, Grego‐ rius Magnus, Regula pastoralis, 2. 3, p. 180). However, the author observes the enormous worldly ambition of the clergy and ‘hinc est, quod nostris temporibus prelati seu canonici post se pauca memoralia derelinquunt’ (p. 120); ‘Sed, heu, multi pastores, sed pauci boni pastores! Bonus pastor animam suam ponit pro ovibus suis’ (p. 121, the second sentence is from Ioh. 10. 11); and ‘infideles sunt, inquam, Deo, quia que sua sunt querunt pastores, offertorium videlicet et emolumenta, non que Iesu Christi […] Venatores pocius dixerim, quam pastores’ (p. 121, cf. Phil. 2. 21).

A Comparison of Hus’s Notion of Antichrist with Jakoubek’s Presented in Posicio de Anticristo In the university quodlibet Posicio de Antichristo (1412)81 Jakoubek82 pro‐ claims that Antichrist is already present among Christians and identifies him as he who has supreme power over the clergy and who is wealthy and famous. He was clearly indicating Pope John XXIII.83 Jakoubek was expecting a positive change to occur in the future thanks to the power of the Gospel. He assumed preachers would introduce reform. Besides specifically identifying Antichrist with the pope, some of the ideas in Posicio can also be found in Hus’s works as well as in Milíč’s and Matěj’s. When we compare Jakoubek’s thoughts with Hus’s, a new connection emerges. In dying Hus exemplified Jakoubek’s plan, and his death became an eschatological sign.84 Jakoubek believed that preachers active in the age of Antichrist had to accept the idea of martyrdom as being likely and even necessary.85 In particular he elaborated on individual eschatology because

80 Published in Kadlec, Studien und Texte, pp. 114–25. 81 An edition of the manuscript preserved in the Moravian Library in Brno (Mk 108) is contained in Sedláčková, ‘Jakoubek ze Stříbra a jeho kvestie o Antikristu’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Masaryk University, 2001), pp. 28–60. 82 On Jakoubek’s eschatology and his notion of the seven epochs of human history, see Molnár, ‘Poslední věci v pohledu Jakoubka ze Stříbra’. 83 For more on this issue, see Holeček, ‘Ministri dei’, esp. p. 238. 84 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 23. See also Molnár, Valdenští, pp. 204–06. 85 The motif of Elijah and Enoch had already been used by Milíč and Matěj. Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, pp. 23–24.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

he called upon his listeners to be patient even when faced with death. Thus, a connection to Hus’s personal eschatology emerges. Jakoubek did not adopt Milíč’s view of history being divided into three ages and instead adhered to the more common medieval notion of the Church’s history being broken into six stages followed by a seventh period of reconciliation. He dismissed exact calculations of the date of the Final Judgement (although he did acknowledge approximate estimations of when the events expected before the end would occur) and saw no need to list the concrete horrors of the end times. As Molnár observes, Jakoubek was neither a millenarian86 nor a ‘theologian of eschatological catastro‐ phe’.87 This general assessment of Jakoubek also applies to Hus. Many of the ideas contained in this disputation can also be found in the works of Hus. In comparison with Hus, however, Jakoubek levels much more open criticism. The ideas contained in Posicio are nearly completely unoriginal to Jakoubek. He borrows heavily from Matěj,88 Augustine, and Milíč and acknowledges Augustine’s and Milíč’s influences and uses their words as authoritative statements. Jakoubek, however, often copies Matěj without citing his source. Jakoubek was most likely familiar with Milíč via his Regulae. Jakoubek also uses Wycliffe’s ideas without attribution.89 But similarities between Jakoubek and Hus largely stem from the former’s bor‐ rowings from Matěj and Milíč. As Helena Krmíčková has noted, Jakoubek relies heavily on Matěj’s Regulae in his commentary on Antichrist and the Eucharist.90 Jana Nechutová has also observed this connection between Jakoubek and Matěj. In her study of the relationship between Matěj and Hus, ‘Matěj z Janova — M. Jan Hus?’, she does not deal with Antichrist, but she does point out several parallels in the ideas contained in Matěj’s and Hus’s doctrines.

86 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 10. 87 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 23. 88 Jakoubek’s knowledge of Matěj’s work was previously commented upon by Palacký and Truhlář (Kybal, ‘Matěj z Janova a M. Jakoubek ze Stříbra’, pp. 22−23). Kybal also compares specific passages from Matěj’s Regulae and Jakoubek’s quodlibet (Kybal, ‘Matěj z Janova a M. Jakoubek ze Stříbra’, pp. 22–38). According to Kybal, Jakoubek borrowed from Matěj ‘all of the more important ideas, words, and terms’. His quodlibet is merely an ‘intellectually transparent plagiarism of Matěj’s treatise on Antichrist’ from Regulae; he had only changed its form, turning it into a quodlibet. Only the conclusion of the quodlibet is original (Kybal, ‘Matěj z Janova’ pp. 25 and 34). 89 Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje’, p. 23. 90 Studie a texty k počátkům kalicha v Čechách, pp. 86–119.

185

186

CHAPTER 4

Shared Ideas, Differing Details

Jakoubek meticulously composed his disputation; he attempted to pro‐ ceed systematically and in great detail. In the beginning he poses a clear question and attempts to formulate an equally clear answer relying on the Bible and non-biblical authorities. In our comparison of Jakoubek’s Posicio with Hus’s sermons and correspondence, we must take into consideration differences in genre that may have affected the tone of each work. In Posicio Jakoubek does not make any claims that explicitly oppose Hus’s ideas, but he does go into much greater detail. Jakoubek, unlike Hus, goes into great detail and explains his under‐ standing of the end times as the age of Antichrist and not just as the moment of the coming of Christ to judge humankind. Many important events therefore take place in the end times (fol. 36r). On this point Milíč, Matěj, and Hus all agree with Jakoubek, although none of these three preachers speak in such detail. Just like the other three authors, Jakoubek addresses the many facets of Antichrist, but again he is the only one to analyse in detail how and why he does this. As Christ can be understood to be not only the son of God but also Christians who follow Christ’s example and even the Church itself, Antichrist can be viewed as a figure with the exact opposite qualities. Thus, Jakoubek, just like the other three authors, sees Antichrist as the opposite of Christ, ‘Cristus contrarius […] qui sub falso nomine Cristi vel sub specie contrariatur Cristo’ (fol. 36r), a definition based on Matthew 12. 30 ( Jakoubek also draws from Matěj’s vocabulary here). Unlike the others, however, he explains this shared principle in great detail. Antichrist can be a collective entity as well as the figure that holds this group together, that is, the supreme Antichrist. Jakoubek thus elaborates on an idea that Matěj and Hus present in their discussions of Antichrist. Jakoubek draws here from Augustine’s De civitate Dei, i. 20. 19 (pp. 731– 32), but considering how he copies the ideas of the other three Czech preachers, it is likely that they led him to discovering Augustine. According to Kybal,91 multiple interpretations of the concept of Antichrist are not exclusive to Matěj but come directly from the Bible and were widespread in the late Middle Ages. Jakoubek was also allegedly influenced by another authoritative source, Chrysostomus and his Opus imperfectum (fol. 37v). Thus, Jakoubek believes that Antichrist is not and will not be someone from the outside but ‘domesticus inimicus sub nomine et specie Cristi’ (fol. 37v). Jakoubek also presents Antichrist as the hypocritical Christian, a concept also put forth by Milíč, Matěj, and Hus. Jakoubek also works with the same definition of the supreme Antichrist used by Matěj, Hus,

91 Kybal, ‘Matěj z Janova’, p. 26.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

and Augustine. Although he uses slightly different vocabulary, the most important information and terms remain unchanged (fol. 37v): proprie et maxime anticristus, summus et famosus antichristus. The supreme Antichrist is he who holds the highest ecclesiastical office. He explains that the term devil can be used to denote ‘the god of this world’ (dyabolus = deus huius seculi; fol. 38r). Therefore, Antichrist cannot be a worldly ruler (as Milíč contended). The supreme Antichrist is the pope. Jakoubek draws his ideas about the signs of Antichrist from Augustine, allegedly from De verbis Domini super Iohannem, which also influenced Hus. He refers to I John 2. 18–19, and all his ideas about the contrasts between Antichrist and Christ are adopted from Matěj, including the antithesis of Christ and Antichrist (e.g., fol. 41v), which can also be found in Hus’s works. The coming of Antichrist can be deduced in two ways: through the Holy Spirit or inner enlightenment, or through the Bible (fol. 42r). Jak‐ oubek thus summarizes the approach of his Czech counterparts: Milíč, Matěj, and Hus. We are incapable of calculating or otherwise determining the timing of Antichrist’s coming (fol. 42v). The Bible is full of parables (fol. 42v). Another idea that we have already encountered in Hus’s works and elsewhere is the connection between Antichrist and schism. Christ will come to bring Christians together; Antichrist will divide the Church. In Jakoubek’s day the Church was in a state of discord, evidence of An‐ tichrist’s presence (fol. 43r–v). Jakoubek in this regard references Matthew 18. 20, II Thessalonians 2. 3 (cf. Matěj), I Timothy 4. 1 (cf. Milíč’s Libel‐ lus, Matěj), Matthew 24. 5 (cf. esp. Matěj) and 10–12, Titus 1. 16, and Matthew 24. 12 (fol. 44v; cf. Hus, Matěj, Milíč). Like Matěj before him, he states that Milíč came to the same conclusions (fol. 46r), and he even extensively cites his Libellus (fols 46r–48v). Jakoubek enhances Matěj’s calculations of the timing of Antichrist’s coming with an interesting insight into the nature of suffering during the end times: ‘Et patet ex predictis per modum collelarii, quod tribulacio maxima, in tempore anticristi prophetata a Cristo Mathei 2 IIII°, non est in rebus temporalibus, sed animabus, non quibuscunque, sed animabus elec‐ torum et discipulorum Cristi’ (fol. 50r). Hus views Antichrist’s persecution in the exact same way. What are Jakoubek’s teachings about Antichrist like in his other works? In a study of all of Jakoubek’s writings from 1410–1415 that deal with Antichrist, Paul de Vooght asserts that Jakoubek saw Antichrist as the main originator of all evil in the Church and in the world. Jakoubek saw signs of Antichrist’s activity in corruption, in Hus’s burning at the stake, in the immoderate devotion to images, and in the prohibition on receiving

187

188

CHAPTER 4

communion under both kinds.92 In general, Jakoubek speaks out against human inventions and against the immoderate lives of monks. He consid‐ ers the persecution of Wycliffe’s followers to be the work of Antichrist93 and thus builds on Hus’s ideas. Antichrist is not a preternatural being.94 It is a consortium of all hypocrites led by the supreme hypocrite. Antichrist is both a collective and an individual figure (totalis magna persona; simplex persona). Bad popes must certainly be considered such figures. The wicked man who holds the position of pope was the main, if only temporary, incarnation of Antichrist. Jakoubek was still promoting this idea in 1420 in his commentary on Matthew 24.95 Hus tends towards the same idea but expresses it less boldly. Finally I would like to address terminological issues. An examination of Jakoubek’s Posicio reveals the results of thoroughly adopting passages from the works of other authors. Jakoubek’s borrowings influence not only his work’s contents and biblical references, but also the terminology and rhetorical devices used. Jakoubek’s use of language most resembles that of Matěj. Differences

Jakoubek’s ideas about Antichrist, like those of Hus and Wycliffe, are closely related to ecclesiology. Jakoubek too believes that the Church can be thought of as more than an institution. He also views it as a congrega‐ tion of the saints (congregatio sanctorum Dei) that exists within the Church Visible, which in turn is formed by people who have decided to live a fully Christian life.96 According to de Vooght, Hus’s ideas about predestination did not immediately exclude wicked Christians from the Church Visible, a problem that Jakoubek neatly avoids.97 Although Jakoubek’s teachings about predestination differ in certain aspects from Hus’s, I cannot agree with de Vooght’s claim that Hus’s understanding led to greater compli‐ cations than Jakoubek’s or that the ideas of these two preachers were fundamentally at odds with each other. In Hus’s view the predestined can generally be distinguished by their typically good behaviour. The uncer‐ tainty always inherent in the doctrine of predestination (even if it is only slight) may motivate further good behaviour, for not even those who have done many good deeds can be sure whether they will be saved. De Vooght

92 93 94 95 96 97

De Vooght, Jacobellus, p. 8. Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 2, pp. 153–54. De Vooght, Jacobellus, pp. 10 and 13. De Vooght, Jacobellus, p. 15. De Vooght, Jacobellus, p. 17. De Vooght, Jacobellus, p. 19.

HUS’S NOTION OF ANTICHRIST

also underplays Hus’s emphasis on the importance of good behaviour. Although Jakoubek does not think that individuals’ fates are decided in advance, Hus does, and therefore this uncertainty played an important role in encouraging listeners to action.98 Even though in Hus’s thinking the relationship between behaviour and predestination is complicated, Hus’s emphasis on the importance of behaviour for the posthumous fate of one’s soul is nonetheless striking. I, along with de Vooght, see a much larger difference between Jakoubek and Hus: although both reformers shared the same feelings about the corrupted Roman Church, for Hus these feelings fuelled his apostolic zeal for ‘protecting people from sin, whereas for Jakoubek they inspired his mystical and theological interpretations of the woes of his day’.99 I also see a difference in the direction that Jakoubek’s eschatology took after Hus’s death.

98 Cf. De Vooght, Jacobellus, p. 19. 99 De Vooght, Jacobellus, p. 74: ‘Un sentiment commun soulevait les deux réformateurs contre l’Église romaine corrompue mais, tandis que Huss y puisait surtout une ardeur apostolique incomparable pour “sauver les hommes du péché”, Jacobellus avait élaboré déjà une interprétation mystique et théologique des malheurs de son temps’.

189

ChAPtER 5

Purgatory in the Sermon Dixit Martha ad Iesum

Hus most likely delivered the All Souls’ Day sermon Dixit Martha ad Iesum (Ioh. 11. 21)1 to the people2 on 3 November 1411.3 He incorporated into it his own interpretation of purgatory presented in Super Quattuor sententiarum and also draws on Wycliffe’s sermons Dixit Martha ad Jesum and Omne quod dat mihi pater ad me veniet.4 Although scholars generally associate this sermon with purgatory, its primary objective is the criticism of contemporary funeral rituals. Hus considers the ideal function of prayers for the dead, the primary purpose for performing funerals: ‘[…] videndum est, quare fiunt exequie mortuorum’.5 (p. 158). He further presents three related ideas: whose prayers are effective, which deceased people do they benefit, and what form such prayers should be in. As part of providing guidance on such issues, Hus also sharply criticizes contemporary funeral practices, and thus in addition to these three questions he also examines the three main reasons that funerals are condemnable. Thus, the entire sermon, typical of Hus, is above all moralizing in function, and how it deals with eschatologi‐ cal topics conforms to this focus. Thoughts about the last things should guide the bereaved and the clergy who take part in a funeral to the correct path (via); Hus gives three

1 Editions: Op. ii, fols 48v–53v (Op. ii 1715, fols 76a–84b). I work with the edition Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, pp. 157–78. 2 It is a ‘high homily’ about which Schmidtová, the editor of Positiones elaborates on p. 229. Scholars are unsure of the exact nature of its audience. It could not have been a synodal sermon; no manuscripts indicate that it was a university sermon. It has been suggested that Hus delivered this sermon in the Bethlehem Chapel or elsewhere to the people in Latin, although Novotný sought out a special occasion in 1411 that would have justified a Latin sermon to the people but did not find one. There are no known sermons from the Bethlehem Chapel from 1411. Thus, this question remains open to debate; the editor of the latest edition leans towards the explanation that this sermon was intended for the public (Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, p. 241). 3 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 29, p. 88; Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, p. 241. 4 Sedlák has already called attention to connections between Wycliffe’s sermons and Hus’s commentary Super Quattuor sententiarum ( Jan Hus, p. 217). 5 The edition contained in Positiones indicates verbatim borrowings from Wycliffe in italics.

192

CHAPTER 5

fundamental reasons why this is so, two of which he adopts from Wycliffe’s sermon Omne quod:6 Causa autem laudabilis exequiarum consistit in tribus. Primo, ut de morte Cristi turpissima et gravissima et de peccato nostro, quod fuit causa mortis sue, cogitemus. Secundo, ut attendendo ad miserias mortui nos ipsos in moribus corigamus. Tercio, ut devocius orando pro mortuis dormienti ecclesie, id est sanctis in purgatorio adiutorium impendamus. Ecce, isti tres modi rectificant exequias mortuorum et valent specialiter viventibus ad hoc, quod possunt contueri ut in speculo quomodo: sicut talis defunctus est mortuus, sic illi necessario morientur. (p. 161) Thinking about death and the last things results in the realization of one’s own mortality and the importance of life after death. This realization enables people to understand the significance of Christ’s sacrifice and, following His model, change their behaviour and help those suffering in purgatory. Here Hus essentially repeats an idea contained in his university sermon Confirmate corda vestra,7 namely that contemplating death leads the bereaved to things that have true value: eternal life and good behaviour. From this perspective, all worldly endeavours are futile, an idea Hus expresses largely using Wycliffe’s words:8 Et consideracio talis speculi moneret superstites, quod in omni genere peccati tribus est hostibus resistendum. Quid, rogo, valet temtacio dyaboli ad superbiam, invidiam sive iram, cum necesse sit cadaver iacere exanime et inpotens proficere […] Consideracio eciam illa tolleret accidiam et avariciam, que sunt peccata seculi, cum defunctis non prosunt divicie […] Et tunc congaudebunt, quod expulsa accidia instanter erant meritorie operati. Et tercio est illa consideracio specularis tiriaca specialis contra peccata carnis, que sunt gula atque luxuria. Ideo si vis habere frenum ydoneum ad carnem tuam in concupiscenciis suis moderandis, meditare mortem tuam assidue iuxta illud metricum: ‚Non poterit melius hominis caro viva domari mortua qualis erit, quam semper premeditari. Hoc eciam innuit Syrach Eccli. 7° [Eccle. 7. 3] dicens: ‘Melius est ire ad domum luctus quam ad domum convivii; in illa enim finis cunctorum admonetur hominum et vivens homo cogitat, quid futurum sit’. Et iterum ibidem dicit: ‘Fili, in omnibus operibus tuis memorare novissima et in eternum non peccabis’. [Eccli. 7. 40] (p. 161) Appeals to contemplating death and good behaviour permeate the entire sermon, and Hus bases them on citations of Augustine (cf. Aurelius Augustinus, Sermones, ed. by Migne, sermo 172. 2. 2, col. 936; Super IV 6 Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, ed. by Loserth, iv. 11, pp. 89–90. 7 Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, pp. 119‒30. 8 Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, p. 94.

PURGATORY IN THE SERMON DIXIT MARTHA AD IESUM

Sententiarum, p. 716; Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae, iv. 45. 2. 3, p. 525) and Gregory the Great (Dialogorum libri IV, iv. 41, p. 146): […] securum foret vivere modo, quo docuerunt Cristus et sui apostoli […] in celestibus conversari, ponendo eciam pre oculis, quomodo mortuum petunt tria, quia dybolus animam, vermes corpus et cognati bona temporalia, et secuntur tria: divicie ad ianuam, cognati ad sepulcrum, opera ad celum vel ad infernum. ‘Opera enim illorum secuntur illos. Ideo beati, qui in Domino moriuntur’ — Apok. 14 ° [cf. Apoc. 14. 13]. Mori in Domino presupponit bene vivere in Domino. Ideo dicit beatus Augustinus De civitate libro I°: ‘Mors mala putanda non est, quam bona vita precesserit. Neque enim facit malam mortem, nisi quod sequitur mortem’.9 Ecce, hiis ante oculos positis defectus circa mortuorum exequias fugare et fugere poterimus et vitam nostram bonis operibus exercere. (p. 163) […] nemo recipit de mercede post hanc vitam, nisi secundum quod meruit in hac vita. Patet ex hoc, quia solus status viacionis est status meritorius premii beatitudinis sic merenti. (p. 165; Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 5, p. 716) Hus wants to remind his listeners how to effect eternal life for those who deserve it. Thus, statements here about the last things come in the form of warnings and admonishments, like in the mentioned Ecclesiasticus 7. 40. The main goal is not to present a systematic eschatological commentary.

What Is the Nature of Purgatory? The purpose of this systematic passage about purgatory is to support Hus’s criticism of funeral practices. Its objective is not to deny the existence of purgatory, and Hus’s commentary does not display any signs of heresy. Jan Sedlák’s attempts at refuting Hus’s orthodoxy regarding purgatory are therefore unsubstantiated. In contrast, thanks to thinking about purgatory, Hus can justify why and how to pray for the dead, especially when he poses the question ‘[…] quibus defunctis […] suffragia poterunt subvenire […]’ Hus criticizes the contemporary tendency to fully rely on prayers for the deceased. Overestimating the importance of prayer causes people to put less effort into their own salvation during their time on earth, the main purpose of which is to earn salvation. He rejects the idea that something as unreliable as an indirect remark in Maccabees, which is not part of the Palestine

9 Aurelius Augustinus, De civitate Dei, ed. by Dombart and Kalb, i. 11, p. 13.

193

194

CHAPTER 5

canon, can outweigh the commandment to behave well presented by the Gospel: Sed currit dubium, cur homines moderni temporis ad tantum innituntur mortuorum suffragiis, cum in tota sacra Scriptura non docuit hoc Spiritus Domini expresse preter librum Machabeorum, qui non est de Veteris Testamenti apud Iudeos canone […] dicitur, quod vir fortissimus Iudas ‘facta collacione duodecim milia dragmas argenti misit Ierosolimam offerri pro peccato sacrificiorum’. Et concluditur sic: ‘Sancta ergo et salubris est cogitacio pro defunctis exorare, ut a peccatis solvantur’. Denique nec prophete nec Cristus cum suis apostolis nec sancti eorum sequaces propinqui orare pro mortuis docuerunt explicite, sed docuerunt valde sollicite populum, ut vivens sine crimine foret sanctus. (pp. 171–72) Medieval theologians considered 2 Maccabees 12. 43 (and the related 2 Mach. 12. 46) to be evidence that interceding for the dead works and that venial sins can be atoned for after death.10 Nicholas of Pelhřimov therefore misinterpreted Hus’s criticism of the Book of Maccabees because in it he saw the denial of the existence of purgatory, an idea he would later use.11 But Hus did not deny the effectiveness of praying for the dead; he only criticized how it was done. Hus’s Dixit essentially describes purgatory in the same terms of the official doctrine about this afterlife destination.12 The papal bull Benedictus Deus of 1336 confirmed that purgatory exists. A doctrine on purgatory was official defined in 1274 by the Council of Lyon, although an exact dogma did not exist. But the council established the most fundamental ideas about purgatory — mainly that the souls of those who had not been sufficiently repentant during their mortal lives could be cleansed after death by purifying punishments and the offerings of the living faithful in various forms could relieve such punishments.13 But firmer biblical sup‐ port was still lacking, and therefore the concept of purgatory was generally questioned. An exact dogma was established only in the sixteenth century.

10 Le Goff, La naissance du Purgatoire, p. 64. 11 Confessio Taboritarum, ed. by Molnár and Cegna, p. 103. 12 For more information on the history of the concept of purgatory, see Le Goff, La naissance du Purgatoire; Ratzinger, Eschatology; Dinzelbacher, Die letzte Dinge; Kremer, Die Zukunft der Toten; Hanna, ‘Purgatory’; Boublík, Teologická antropologie. On purgarory in the Middle Ages in particular, see Scheffczyk and Deneke, ‘Fegfeuer’; on purgatory in late medieval Europe, see Delumeau, Le péché et la peur, pp. 427−31; Dinzelbacher, Die letzte Dinge; on Hus’s understanding, see pp. 91−92; Rahner, ‘Fegfeuer — Religionsgeschichtlich’. 13 Documenta magisterii ecclesiastici — Gregorius (1271–1276) — Sessio IV, 6. 7. 1274 — Michaelis imp. Ep. ad Gregorium, p. 856, in Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, p. 276. An English translation is available at http://patristica.net/denzinger/.

PURGATORY IN THE SERMON DIXIT MARTHA AD IESUM

Thus, later at the Council of Trent, the churches that emerged from the Reformation rejected the idea of purgatory.14 Hus shored up his belief in purgatory and the efficacy of offering prayers for the dead by referring to John 11. 21, which he does not present as proof of the existence of purgatory but as evidence for how to effectively pray for the liberation of the dead from purgatorial punishment:15 ‘Unde legitur istud ewangelium in mortuorum exequiis, ut fratres et sorores superstites ex eodem affectu et in fide recta rogent Dominum Iesum pro mortuis, quo affectu et in qua fide Martha rogavit et fuit exaudita, ut frater eius a morte corporis resurgeret’. (p. 157) Hus reiterates the three main points about purgatory contained in Super Quattuor sententiarum: 1 perpetuitas anime humane — according to Sap. 2. 23 and Matth. 12. 32 (p. 163, Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 4, p. 714) 2 remuneracio anime, prout meruit in corpore — according to Matth. 16. 27; Matth. 25. 31; Hebr. 11. 6 (p. 163, Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 4, p. 714) 3 forma peccandi hominum — the three stages of sin according to Augus‐ tine — for example, Enchiridion de fide, spe et caritate, xxix. 110. 26–29, p. 10916 (p. 164, Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 4, p. 714) Based on these three ideas, he assumes the existence of three dwelling places of souls, or mansiones (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 4, p. 714): • the souls of holy martyrs and confessors (which Augustine refers to as valde boni) do not require cleansing and after death they go directly to heaven; • souls that, despite their enormous love of Christ, also admire worldly things (which Augustine refers to as non valde mali) must be purified; they are known as medii; and • souls that love worldly things more than Christ will be eternally damned in the afterlife (which Augustine refers to as valde mali). All that is left is to determine who will spend time in purgatory, who deserves it, and who has the right to prayers of intercession: ‘Ex iam dictis 14 For the Second Council of Lyon, see also Dinzelbacher, Die letzte Dinge, p. 90. 15 Faith in prayer and in offerings for the dead influenced the emeregence of belief in purgatory, which grew stronger in the fourth to eleventh centuries. Commonly cited evidence for purgatory, which Hus does not refer to in Dixit Martha, includes Matth. 5. 25–26 (place – prison); Matth. 3. 10 (the idea of purgatorial fire); Augustine’s linking of purification with ecclesiastical life — Ps. 66. 12 or Luc. 16. 19–26 (once again evidence of the existence of purgatorial fire). 16 Aurelius Augustinus, Enchiridion de fide, spe et caritate, ed. by van den Hout and Evans.

195

196

CHAPTER 5

habetur, quibus defunctis prosunt suffragia ad celeriorem liberacionem a penis […]’ (pp. 164). Purgatory is the destination of medii, that is, those who await neither eternal damnation nor immediate entrance into heaven. These souls must be purged of the sins they did not repent for during their mortal life: ‘[…] qui sunt non valde boni nec valde mali, sed medii, qui nec sunt eternaliter damnati nec actualiter in patria beatificati, sed militantis ecclesie suffragio expurgandi. Nam aliqui salvandi decedunt sic in peccatis, quod non satisfe‐ cerant pro commissis’ (p. 164, Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 4, p. 715). Hus, like Wycliffe, refers to this group as ecclesia dormiens. According to Hus, classifying souls as the damned, the immediately redeemed, and those who must undergo purgatory before salvation corresponds with I Corinthians 3. 12 (lignum, fenum, stipula), I Corinthians 3. 15 (‘salvus erit […] per ignem’), and Matthew 12. 32,17 according to which the souls of very bad people cannot be cleansed (cf. Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 4, p. 716).18 Hus only mentions incomplete repentance during one’s worldly life and thus does not follow in the footsteps of authors who explicitly attempted to prove the existence of purgatory as a place or a process (e.g., Tertullian or Gregory the Great).19

The Power of Prayers for Intercession Hus does not further explain the influence of prayers on speeding up the purgatorial process; he takes it as fact: ‘Ex iam dictis habetur,20 quibus defunctis prosunt suffragia ad celeriorem liberacionem a penis […]’ Only later do we learn that he adopts this idea from Gregory the Great (Dialogo‐ rum libri IV, iv. 60. 1, p. 200 and iv. 57. 16, p. 194)21 and Thomas Aquinas. He focuses his attention on distinguishing between three types of sin. Purgeable sins are light, everyday sins, venialia expurganda. In doing so, Hus aligns himself with a lineage going back to Tertullian, who first intro‐

17 This biblical argument was already put forth by Augustine, who, however, exclusively used it in connection with the day of Final Judgement and not with purgatory (e.g., Aurelius Augustinus, De civitate Dei, ed. by Dombart and Kalb, xxi. 26, p. 799). 18 Cf. Ratzinger, Eschatology, pp. 229−31. 19 Tertullian does not speak directly about purgatory, but he does use the term refrigerium interim (cf. Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 221 and Le Goff, La naissance du Purgatoire, p. 73). For Gregory the Great’s understanding, see Le Goff, Die Geburt des Fegefeuers, esp. pp. 110–19. 20 By this, Hus means the first two arguments: the immortality of the human soul and reward for good behaviour. 21 Gregory the Great was the first to explain prayers for the dead by way of the doctrine of purgatory. Le Goff and J. Ntedika adopt this idea; see Ntedika, L’Évocation, esp. pp. 104–10; Le Goff, La naissance du Purgatoire, pp. 124−26.

PURGATORY IN THE SERMON DIXIT MARTHA AD IESUM

duced the idea of venial sin.22 Hus’s concept of sin differs from Augustine’s in that such sins must be purged (expurganda) and that most Christians are probably destined for purgatory. Augustine understood purgatory in the afterlife only as an unlikely possibility. In his concept of the afterlife there was no room for a place such as purgatory. Sins were mainly purged through tribulations during one’s worldly life. Only a very small number of the deceased had any hope of experiencing purification through trial in the afterlife.23 It was essentially a bonus that only served to exponentiate the random nature of predestination. In contrast, Hus, who maintained official Church doctrine, understood purgatory as a mansio (just like heaven and hell) and does not send light sinners to hell. Purgatory is a status medius between hell and heavenly paradise; it is not a place, but an intermediate state. It is a preheavenly state in which every soul suffers to make up for its lack of repentance on earth. Hus sometimes refers to it as a place of merit, locus meriti. Expiation begins at the moment of physical death: ‘post hanc vitam’ (p. 165), ‘post mortem’ (p. 166), ‘post exitum a corpore, post vincula’ (p. 166). Hus’s interpreta‐ tion implies that souls perceive time while in purgatory. But other issues of time and space are definitively outweighed by the questions of how and why purification works and what is its relationship with what Hus calls dignitas and capacitas. Hus also mentions revenants. Their existence was already recognized by Augustine, who noted that in some cases they could be false appari‐ tions. Hus mentions Justus the revenant in a citation taken from Gregory the Great (Dixit Martha, pp. 169–70; Gregorius Magnus, Dialogorum libri IV, iv. 57, pp. 188–94; we can also find references to this exemplum in Hus’s correspondence, Korespondence, no. 39, p. 116). In this exemplum the monk Justus visits his brother in a dream to inform him about the post-mortem purging of his sins. But this revenant has not come to disturb the living but to prove the existence of purgatory and to explain the possibility of influencing its course by the living. The saints can effectively intercede for the dead (p. 204). But at issue here are the offerings of the bereaved and the clergy and the extent to which they can benefit the dead. There is a direct relationship between the effectiveness of prayer and the quality of life a person lived: ‘[…] suffraguntur sancti in purgatorio homini proporcionaliter, ut meruit hic in via, quia solum hic est locus merendi, loquendo de merito, quod est libera sui dignificacio ad beatitudinem’ (p. 165). Gregory the Great’s words from Dialogues also confirm this idea: ‘Hoc tamen sciendum est, quod illic saltim de minimis nichil quisquam purgacionibus obtinebit, nisi bonis hoc actibus in hac vita adhuc positus, ut illic obtineat, mereatur’ (p. 165, 22 For more on the history of this concept, see Le Goff, La naissance du Purgatoire, pp. 72−73. 23 For more, see Le Goff, La naissance du Purgatoire, p. 92.

197

198

CHAPTER 5

Gregorius Magnus, Dialogorum libri IV, iv. 41. 6, p. 150; reprinted with a translation added: p. 414; both citations in Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 5, p. 716). ‘Sciendum, quod illis sacre victime prosunt, qui hoc vivendo obtinuerunt, eciam ut eos post mortem bona adiuvent, que hic pro ipsis ab aliis fiunt’. (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 5, p. 716; Gregorius Magnus, Dialogorum libri IV, iv. 59. 6, p. 200). There is also a direct relationship between the efficacy of prayers and the quality of life led by the supplicant, as Gregory the Great also writes in Dialogues (Gregorius Magnus, Dialogorum libri IV, iv. 61, p. 202), an idea that Hus summarizes as follows: ‘Secundo patet, quod sacerdos primo debet se ipsum in cordis conpunccione et carnis maceracione mactare, et tunc existens munda hostia hostiam corporis Domini ymolare, quia solum tunc digne ymolat et tunc Deus acceptat’. (p. 166) Hus adopts the idea of shortening the length of purgatorial suffering from Thomas Aquinas’s In IV Sententiarum: ‘[…] prosunt ad mitigacionem pene et ad acceleracionem glorie’ (p. 168).24 Hus also borrows from the same source the idea that there are four types of prayers: oblaciones sacerdotum, elemosinae carorum, preces sanctorum, and ieiunium cognatorum (p. 168).25 According to Hus, the most effective form of prayer is ‘salutaris hostia, qui est Cristus’ (p. 168). Prayers for a specific soul must be comple‐ mented by general prayers for the entire Church. General prayer cannot be neglected due to praying for the dead. It is up to God to sort out souls: Et tunc licet alternare orando nunc specialiter pro persona, cui orans afficitur, ut sic affeccio acuatur et pro universali ecclesia, que debet plus amari, devocius oretur. Talis enim generalis oracio habet plus racione meriti et secundum maiorem caritatem ordinate profusa, plus iuvat personam in purgatorio, si ibi est, cui deprecans specialiter obligatur. Deus enim partitur meritum orantis pro passis in purgatorio proporcionabiliter, ut ipsi decedentes in maiori gracia amplius meruerunt. (Dixit Martha, p. 168; cf. Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv. 2, p. 21). This is the basis for Hus’s extensive, detailed criticism of specific transgres‐ sions related to funerals, the most significant, and hence most heavily criticized, of which was the practice of holding thirty masses and in general the buying and selling of such masses. Hus also criticizes the specific sins that lead to selling these masses: avaricia, mala vita, diffidencia. He also generally criticizes masses conducted by bad priests, which nonetheless are not necessarily without effect (p. 175).

24 S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera omnia 1. In quattuor libros sententiarum, ed. by Busa, iv. 45. 3. 3. expositio textus, p. 659. 25 S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera omnia 1. In quattuor libros sententiarum, ed. by Busa, iv. 2. 3. 1. 2, p. 656.

PURGATORY IN THE SERMON DIXIT MARTHA AD IESUM

Hus bases his criticism of the thirty masses on the idea that it is unknown whether each mass can guarantee the liberation of at least one soul from purgatory and on the belief that sinful priests should not officiate masses. Once again Hus adopts his message about how the clergy should conduct funerals and motivate the bereaved from Wycliffe and emphasizes the role of preaching: Ecce, tales hortaciones faciende sunt in exequiis mortuorum et non vane laudes vel gesta infidelia aut opera incerta vel mendosa, per que tam superstites quam mortui sunt gravati. Aptemus ergo hortaciones ad fletum pro comisso crimine provocantes, recolendo, quomodo Dominus noster Iesus in suscitacione Lazari quadriduani in monumento fetentis secundum fidem ewangelii fuerat lacrimatus, attendendo autem conmuniter ad vitas vel modos exequiarum vel carnalium amicorum et ad laudes mendosas predicancium. (p. 162; Omne quod, pp. 94–95)

A Comparison with the Sources of Dixit Martha A Comparison with Hus’s Commentary Super Quattuor sententiarum

Super Quattuor sententiarum is a fundamental source for Hus’s Dixit Martha, both in terms of the ideas it contains and the sermon’s overall message. In Dixit Martha Hus incorporates several passages from distinc‐ tion 45, book iv, of his commentary (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45, pp. 711–20). In this distinction he addresses the dwelling places of the soul after physical death that exist: ‘Utrum anime de hoc exientes seculo habent diversas habitaciones?’ He also speaks in detail about purgatory in connection with the correct understanding of prayers for the dead: Utrum suffragia vivorum prosint animabus defunctorum?; […] ad quod valeant vivorum suffragia animabus defunctorum; […] utrum suffragia facta per malos iuvent mortuos; […] utrum missa sacerdotis mali missantis in peccato mortali prodest defunctis sanctis in purgatorio […] (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45, pp. 711–20) One important point that the commentary, unlike Dixit Martha, contains is the idea that purgatory is ‘pena sensus et dampni’ (Super IV Senten‐ tiarum, iv. 45. 3, p. 713). In Dixit Martha Hus borrows nearly verbatim statements about the three assumptions about the existence of purgatory (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 4, p. 714; Dixit Martha, p. 163), the exis‐ tence of three mansiones (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 4, p. 714; Dixit Martha, p. 164), and other details from Super IV Sentenciarum. He also comes to the same conclusion in both works: it is far better and surer to

199

200

CHAPTER 5

behave well than to put effort into liberating the soul after death (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 5, p. 717; Dixit Martha, p. 166). With similar exactness, in Dixit Martha Hus also reuses statements from his commentary on Thomas Aquinas’s conditions for prayer to be effective (Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 5, p. 716; Dixit Martha, p. 168) and about the direct relationship between worldly merit and reward or punishment in the afterlife (e.g., Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 5, p. 716; Dixit Martha, p. 165), although in Super IV he draws this idea directly from Lombard. Dixit Martha differs from Super Quattuor sententiarum mainly in the addition of several passages and in the order in which the adopted statements are presented. A Comparison with Lombard’s Sententiarum libri quattuor

Dixit Martha, using Super Quattuor sententiarum as a conduit, expresses ideas that originally came from Lombard, particularly from distinction 45 of his theological textbook Sententiarum libri quattuor. Lombard is the source of the Augustinian idea that offerings of prayers for the dead do not benefit the wicked but serve only to provide solace to the bereaved (Sententiae, iv. 45. 2. 2, p. 524 and below in this mentioned distinction; Dixit Martha, p. 161; Super IV Sententiarum, 45. 1, p. 712), of the idea that prayer does not grant merit but can moderate punishment or accelerate the gaining of glory (Sententiae, iv. 45. 2. 4, p. 525; Super IV Sententiarum, p. 716; Dixit Martha, p. 168), and of Augustine’s statement ‘Non eis nova merita conparantur…’, which indicates that all merit must be earned personally during one’s earthly life (Sententiae, iv. 45. 2. 3, p. 525; Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 5, p. 716; Dixit Martha, p. 165). Lombard does not speak directly about purgatory as a place in his work, although he does occasionally mention purgatorial fire for light sins (Sententiae, iv. 45. 5. 1, p. 527 or iv. 21. 4. 1, p. 381) in addition to speak‐ ing about ‘mediocriter boni’ (Sententiae, iv. 21. 4. 1, p. 381). Hus even adopts one of Lombard’s statements in Dixit Martha that he does not use in his commentary on the Sentences. It is a statement that originally comes from Augustine: ‘Preclaras exequias in conspectu hominum purpurato illo diviti exhibuit turba famulorum, sed multo cariores in conspectu Domini ulceroso illi pauperi ministerium angelorum exhibuit, qui eum extulerunt non in marmoreum tumulum, sed in Abrahe gremium’ (Dixit Martha, p. 161; Sententiae, iv. 45. 3, p. 525).

PURGATORY IN THE SERMON DIXIT MARTHA AD IESUM

A Comparison with Wycliffe’s Sermon Dixit Martha ad Jesum (Ioh. 11. 21)

Jan Sedlák26 has already noted that in Dixit Martha Hus draws from Wycliffe’s sermon of the same name.27 Hus exclusively borrows ideas that are closely related to funerals, especially ideas about prayers for the dead and criticism of the ostentatious nature of funerals. Hus paraphrases Wycliffe more often than he cites him. Wycliffe, however, in his sermon sees funerals as just one of several problems, and they never lead him to thinking about purgatory. Wycliffe mentions purgatory only three times (Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, pp. 20–21); he instead focuses on Christ’s divine and human nature and on his understanding of the Eucharist. Wycliffe’s sermon provides Hus’s with a basic framework for extensive moralizing. Hus, like Wycliffe, draws from John 11. 21, and on the basis of this biblical verse also criticizes the superficiality of Church practices, particularly those related to funerals. And thus in the introduction he cites several statements from Wycliffe’s sermon nearly verbatim (Dixit Martha, pp. 157–58; Iohannis Wyclif Sermones,28 iv, pp. 13–14). Hus also paraphrases Wycliffe’s astonishment at the fact that prayers for the dead were being overemphasized even though there was no biblical basis for them: Circa hoc evangelium dubitatur utrum exequie mortuorum et ritus gentiles introducti sunt fundabiles in scriptura. (Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 17; cf. Dixit, p. 171: ‘Sed currit dubium cur homines moderni temporis […]’). Unlike Hus, Wycliffe considers Maccabees to be proof that funerals should be solemn because of their miraculous, spiritual nature, not because of their materiality. But Hus adopts a great number of Wycliffe’s other critical views, primarily his criticism of harmful pagan customs (e.g., feasts — Dixit Martha, pp. 164–65, Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 19; ceremonious funerals — Dixit Martha, pp. 162–63, Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 19; paying for a large number of masses to be held — Dixit Martha, p. 170, Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 20; manipulating wills — Dixit Martha, pp. 162–63, Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 19; the reliance of rich people

26 Sedlák, M. Jan Hus, p. 217 and notes 4 and 5 on this page. These sermons are also compared, without focusing on eschatology, in de Vooght, L’hérésie, ii, pp. 918–31. 27 In Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, ed. by Loserth, iv. sermo 2, pp. 11–24. I have taken the titles of Wycliffe’s works (including the abbreviations of biblical references) from the editions with which I work. 28 Due to the similar titles of Wycliffe’s and Hus’s sermons, I refer to Wycliffe’s using the title of the entire collection it is contained in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones.

201

202

CHAPTER 5

on the prayers of the bereaved and the clergy — Dixit Martha, pp. 159–60, Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 20), and further develops these ideas (Dixit Martha, pp. 159–60). In these sermons both preachers criticize funerals because they are conducted based on improper ideas about the true meaning of such rituals and their importance for salvation. And thus Hus adopts from Wycliffe’s sermon Augustine’s idea that ostentatious funerals only serve to provide solace to the living but do not help the dead (Dixit Martha, p. 161; Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 18). Hus, like Wycliffe, believes that funeral rituals are of limited benefit to the dead, the limits being set by the deceased’s merit, and that adhering to certain funeral practices is an expression of craving for worldly glory and solace: Cum enim mortui ex fide sunt iam extra statum merendi, patet quod omnes tales exequie vel consuetudines quantumcunque sumptuose fuerint non prosunt defunctis nisi fere de quanto meritorie fuerint viventibus. (Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 18). Compare: Ex quo patet, quod suffragantur sancti in purgatorio homini proporcionaliter, ut meruit hic in via, quia solum hic est locus merendi, loquendo de merito, quod est libera sui dignificacio ad beatitudienem (Dixit Martha, p. 165; cf. Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 45. 5, p. 716). Non enim videtur racio quare mundo dives tam sumptuose et sollempniter sepelitur nisi vel propter mundanam gloriam servandam in genere vel propter solacia in viventibus conservanda. (Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 18) Compare: Aspice quinto, ad quid est sumptuosa divitis sepultura, que est bonorum inutilis consumcio et fama volatilis superstitum. (Dixit Martha, pp. 159–60) This assumes another idea that Hus shares in common with Wycliffe — that the dead no longer have status merendi (Dixit Martha, pp. 164–65; Io‐ hannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 19). In the end, God distributes merit based on dignitas (Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 21; Dixit Martha, pp. 163, 166). Wycliffe, unlike Hus, believes that people must work manually, that is, build roads or do anything else that benefits others. Wycliffe’s sermon is also more daring in another respect: Wycliffe includes Antichrist terminol‐ ogy. Giving alms with profane objectives supports Antichrist’s activities.

PURGATORY IN THE SERMON DIXIT MARTHA AD IESUM

A Comparison with Wycliffe’s Sermon Omne quod dat mihi pater ad me veniet (Ioh. 6. 37)

Another of Wycliffe’s sermons that Hus frequently cites, often quoting long passages, is Omne quod.29 These citations are found in Anežka Schmid‐ tová’s edition of Positiones marked in italics. Therefore, I refer only to these citations as presented in this edition. Immediately following the introduction, which Hus largely adopts from Wycliffe’s Dixit Martha ad Jesum, he begins to extensively cite Wycliffe’s Omne quod. The first citation, which Hus borrows nearly verbatim, distinguishes be‐ tween the praiseworthy and condemnable reasons for contemporary fu‐ neral practice: Multiplex ponitur causa quare fiunt in ecclesia exequie mortuorum, aliqua vera et laudabilis et aliqua sophistica et dampnabilis. Laudabilis autem consistit in tribus, primo quod de morte Christi et de causa nostri peccati devocius recolamus, secundo ut attendendo ad miserias mortui nosmet ipsos in moribus corrigamus et tercio ut devocius orando pro mortuis dormienti ecclesie adiutorium impendamus. Triplex autem ponitur causa nephanda dyaboli quare mortuorum exequie sunt hodie sic sollempnes; prima ut apud mundum nomen divitis defuncti solempnius celebretur, secunda ut vita mortui per multa mendacia commendetur et tercia pharisaica ut lucrum temporalium sacerdotibus cumuletur. (Omne quod, pp. 89–90; cf. Dixit Martha, pp. 158–59 and p. 161) Hus also paraphrases a long passage about how contemporary funeral practices harm both the living and the dead, for they magnify the sins of the dead, and thus prayers for the dead miss their mark. Hus adopts from Omne quod (and Wycliffe’s Dixit Martha ad Jesum) the idea that people can earn merit only during their time on earth, which thus has an impact on the efficacy of prayers: Circa hoc evangelium dubitatur utrum exequie tantum sollempnisate hodie sint generaliter meritorie, et certum est quod non; quia communiter nocetur tam vivis quam mortuis in sollempnisando tales exequias; vivis quidem, quia vane pro honore mundi bona pauperum superflue expenduntur, et nocent mortuis, quia suffragium superstitum amicorum subtrahitur et occasione ministrata de male quesitis temporalibus inchoatum peccatum perficitur; (Omne quod,

29 Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, ed. by Loserth, iv. 11, pp. 89–95.

203

204

CHAPTER 5

p. 92, cf. Dixit Martha, p. 159, where it is not set in italics: ‘nocent vivi pauperibus […] perficitur’) Hus also adopts from Wycliffe’s sermon the concept of commendable grounds for conducting funerals and criticism of worldliness. Once again, he cites from Wycliffe’s Omne quod (Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 95), including an important reference to Ecclesiasticus 7. 40. He also adopts Wycliffe’s challenge to admonish the bereaved during funerals and his criticism of wills, which he deemed to be driven by sin (Omne quod, p. 95): […] rectificant exequias mortuorum, et specialiter ad hoc valent viventibus quod possent contueri ut in speculo quomodo, sicut talis defunctus est mortuus sic illi sunt necessario morituri. Et consideracio talis speculi moveret superstites ad in omni genere peccati tribus hostibus resistendum […] Nam saccus stercorum hic tenerius educatus dum fuerit mortuus plus vilescit et dum sepe mali spiritus fuerant super vivum corpus huiusmodi dominati, pari evidencia dominabuntur et agitabunt ipsum iam mortuum, specialiter si possunt ex hoc superstites habundancius perturbare […] Quid ergo valet sibi transacta gula sive luxuria, cum finis talis necessario consequetur? […] Tales ergo hortaciones faciende sunt in exequiis mortuorum et non vane laudes vel gesta infidelia aut opera machinata per que tam superstites quam mortui sunt gravati. Aptemus ergo hortaciones ad fletum pro commisso crimine populum provocantes […] Attendendo autem communiter ad vitas vel modos executorum vel carnalium amicorum, patet quod talis dives est communiter maledictus qui confidit in tali homine, cum tales communiter plus nocent mortuis ex malicia vite sue. Ideo testamenta facta hodie sapiunt communiter peccatum tam ex parte mortui testantis quam ex parte superstitis legem testancium exequentis. Ideo securum foret vivere modo quo docuerunt Christus et sui apostoli et edificando ecclesiam, quantum sufficimus, calcando temporalia in parva quantitate et paupere ministrata sine facta solempnisacione huiusmodi in celestibus conversari. (Omne quod, pp. 94–95; Dixit Martha, pp. 161–62) In Omne quod dat michi Wycliffe does not deal with purgatory in detail and only addresses prayers for the dead. Thus, it seems Wycliffe has no influence on Hus’s incorporation of ideas about purgatory. Likewise, Hus’s concluding passage about the mystery of the mass was not influenced by Wycliffe.

PURGATORY IN THE SERMON DIXIT MARTHA AD IESUM

A Comparison with Works Based on Hus’s Dixit Martha A Comparison with Nicholas of Dresden’s De purgatorio

Hus’s sermon Dixit Martha was a major source of inspiration for Nicholas of Dresden’s treatise De purgatorio.30 Nicholas’s objective, however, differs greatly from Hus’s, for Nicholas attempts to refute the existence of purga‐ tory. Jana Nechutová has documented Hus’s influence on Nicholas and the fact that Nicholas wrote this work, which except for the introduction is written in the form of a dialogue between a Mohammedan (here de Vooght claims that Catholics were referred to as Mohammedans) and a Wycliffite (representing Nicholas’s ideas), in late 1415 at the earliest.31 Nicholas, like Hus and Wycliffe, criticizes laudabilis consuetudo and consuetudines humanae, contemporary Church practices. He too sees the Bible as the only model for how to act. He is, however, convinced that people can only earn salvation through their actions during their worldly life and that prayers for souls in purgatory do not help because purgatory does not exist. Nicholas draws from Hus’s ideas in the introduction, when he attempts to demonstrate that good behaviour is the only way to heaven and relies on Christ as the only unquestionable authority and on the original Christian tradition. He borrows an enormous number of statements from Hus’s sermon, and therefore, I will only refer to the most important: • Denique nec prophete, nec Christus cum suis appostolis nec sancti eorum sequaces proximi orare pro mortuis docuerunt explicite sed docuerunt valde solicite populum ut, vivens sine crimine, esset sanctus. Unde Salvator in sermone suo quem fecit in monte […] (De purgato‐ rio, p. 154; Dixit Martha, p. 172) • Matthew 7. 13–14. (De purgatorio, p. 154; Dixit Martha, p. 173) • Sic, sine dubio, si homines bene viverent more sanctorum, immediate post mortem ad patriam pervenirent. Quis enim ignorat quoniam via securissima ad vitam est vivere ut Christus et appostoli eius docuerunt. (De purgatorio, p. 154; Dixit Martha, pp. 177, 179)

30 De Vooght, ‘Le dialogue “De purgatorio” (1415) de Nicolas de Dresde’ (edition on pp. 153– 223). De Vooght also compares the main ideas of the dialogue and Hus’s Dixit Martha on pp. 147–50. 31 Nechutová, ‘Husovo kázání “Dixit Martha” a Mikuláše z Drážďan traktát “De purgatorio”’. Sedlák makes the opposite claim that before Hus’s death a version of Nicholas’s dialogue already existed − ‘Mikuláš z Drážďan’, p. 697.

205

206

CHAPTER 5

• Beatius est quippe liberum exire quam post vincula libertatem que‐ rere […] quia nemo recipit de mercede post hanc vitam, nisi secun‐ dum quod meruit in hac vita, quia solus status huius vite est status meritorius […] (De purgatorio, p. 155; Dixit Martha, p. 166; Super IV Sententiarum, iv. 5, p. 717) • Ecclesiastes 9. 10 (De purgatorio, p. 155; Dixit Martha, p. 165) Nicholas, like Hus, cites Gregory’s Dialogues – Dialogorum libri IV, iv. 62. 3, p. 206 (Dixit Martha, p. 166; De purgatorio, p. 156) — and Augustine’s De civitate Dei, i. 2 (De purgatorio, p. 156; Dixit Martha, p. 163). But Nicholas does not forget about the essential condition for salvation: God’s mercy. It is at this point that Nicholas’s and Hus’s ideas diverge. Nicholas uses the idea of good behaviour in his theory of tristega domus, in which there is no place for purgatory and by extension for prayers for the dead (De purgatorio, from p. 158 onwards). Nicholas applies some of Hus’s other statements and ideas from Dixit Martha, which originally had a different purpose, to argue against the existence of purgatory and the effectiveness of prayer in De purgatorio: astonishment at the excessive reliance on prayer, for which there is no support in the Bible (De purgatorio, p. 159; Dixit Martha, p. 171; cf. Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv. 2, p. 17); the rejection of apparitions as an argument for the existence of purgatory (De purgatorio, p. 161; Dixit Martha, pp. 170–71); a passage about the Book of Maccabees, whose value is called into question, in which evidence from the New Testament is called for (De purgatorio, pp. 159–61; Dixit Martha, pp. 171– 72, 177); a criticism of wills (De purgatorio, p. 176; Dixit Martha, p. 162; cf. Omne quod, p. 95); a refutation of lies incorrectly attributed to Gregory (De purgatorio, p. 162; Dixit Martha, p. 172); criticism of the thirty masses, mystery of the mass (De purgatorio, pp. 162–64; Dixit Martha, pp. 170–76); a long passage about improper reasons for holding funerals and their harmful impact on society, including a story about a rich man from Luke 16. 27–28 (De purgatorio, pp. 173–77; Dixit Martha, pp. 159– 63); a story about how Augustinus returned his inheritance (De purgatorio, pp. 176–77; Dixit Martha, p. 162); Luke 14. 12–14 (De purgatorio, p. 175; Dixit Martha, p. 160; Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv. 2, p. 19); and Aurelius Augustinus, De civitate Dei, i. 12, p. 14 (De purgatorio, p. 175, Dixit Martha, pp. 160–61, Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv. 2, p. 18). Nicholas even adopts Hus’s critically important reference to Ecclesias‐ ticus 7. 40 (De purgatorio, p. 177; Dixit Martha, p. 161; Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv. 11, p. 89). But Nicholas does not reject memorializing the dead and its importance during funerals, although in comparison with Hus and Wycliffe there is the fundamental difference that he does not believe in purgatory (De purgatorio, p. 178; Dixit Martha, p. 162).

PURGATORY IN THE SERMON DIXIT MARTHA AD IESUM

Overall, Nicholas sees the reasons behind why people thought up purgatory in what Hus and Wycliffe consider to be the misguided aspects of funerals, in the improper behaviour of the clergy and the bereaved, especially in terms of selling indulgences in an effort to gain material wealth. For example, he writes: ‘Nescio enim quare hodie ita sollemnes fiunt exequie nisi, ut docet experiencia, quod aput mundum nomen divitis solemnius celebretur et ut vita mortui per multa mendacia comendetur et lucrum temporalium sacerdotibus cumuletur’ (De purgatorio, p. 173; Dixit Martha, p. 159, the editor sets borrowing from Hus’s Dixit Martha in italics; Omne quod, pp. 89–90). Nicholas also adopts from Hus’s sermon a very long series of ideas32 about the meaning of eschatological statements that can be found in a passage about praiseworthy grounds for holding funerals, which is also contained in Wycliffe’s Omne quod dat michi (De purgatorio, pp. 177–78; Dixit Martha, pp. 161–62; Omne quod, p. 89). Nicholas also tries to refute evidence that had been given for the existence of purgatory, and he interprets gaining forgiveness through suffering as something that happens during this life. Ecclesia dormiens does not mean the Church is sleeping in purgatory. Sleep can be interpreted in various ways, as the limbus of Fathers before the coming of Christ, as the sleep of the dead buried in the ground, or as four types of sleep of the living: the sleep of infidelity, sin, torpidity, and poor habits. Prayers were to be made for awakening from such slumber.

32 ‘Causa autem laudabilis exequiarum consistit primo in hoc ut de morte Christi turpissima et de peccato nostro, quod fuit causa mortis sue, cogitent, scilicet pensantes quoniam sicut talis defunctus mortuus est, sic illi necessario morientur. Et talis consideracio monere debet quod in omni genere peccati tribus hostibus est resistendum. Quid, rogo, valet tentacio diaboli ad superbiam […] Consideracio autem illa tolleret accidiam et avariciam, que sunt peccata seculi, cum defunctis non prosint divicie nisi de quanto erant media viventibus ad meritorie operandum et tunc congaudebunt quod, expulsa accidia, instanter erant meritorie operati. Tercio est illa consideracio contra peccata carnis, que sunt gula atque luxuria. Ideo si vis habere frenum idoneum ad carnem tuam in concupiscenciis suis moderandum, meditare mortem tuam assidue, iuxta illud: ‚non poterit melius caro tua viva domari morte tua qualis erit quam semper premeditari’. Et Ecclesiastici, VII° […] Nam constat experimento certissimo quod hominis cadaver mortuum est vilius, horribilius et fetidius quam cadavera bestiarum, nam saccus stercorum hic, tenerius educatus, dum fuerit mortuus plus vilescit. Quid ergo sibi valet, transacta gula sive luxuria […] Bona ergo est memoria novissimorum ad respuendum carnis vicia, pensando attente qualis erit caro mortua et, post resurreccionem, igni tradenda perpetue cremanda et crucianda. Ecce tales exortaciones faciende sunt in exequiis mortuorum, et non vane laudes vel gesta infidelia aut opera incerta vel mendosa, per que tam superstites quam mortui sunt gravati. Aptemus ergo exortaciones, ad fletum pro comisso crimine provocantes, attendendo autem communiter ad vitam vel exequiarum modum vel carnalitatem amicorum et ad laudes mendosas predicancium. Patet quod talis qui confidit in tali horrore est communiter maledictus, cum tales plus nocent mortuis ex malicia vite sue, etc.’ (De purgatorio, pp. 177–78; Dixit Martha, pp. 161–62; Omne quod, p. 89).

207

208

CHAPTER 5

Although de Vooght33 claims that Nicholas’s dialogue has theological deficiencies and that Nicholas never touches the heart of the matter of the existence of purgatory, when we compare this work to Hus’s sermons, we see a large difference in the role attributed to this eschatological subject. Hus uses it as a base for his moral beliefs and for his criticism of prayers. Nicholas, however, attempts to systematically and in detail deal with the existence of purgatory.34 A Comparison with Nicholas of Pelhřimov’s Confessio Taboritarum

In Confessio Taboritarum35 Nicholas of Pelhřimov essentially adopts the ideas of Nicholas of Dreseden contained in his De purgatorio. Nicholas of Pelhřimov is, just like Hus, Wycliffe, and Nicholas of Dresden, convinced that good behaviour is the only certain way to salvation and that relying on the prayers of others is inadvisable (Confessio, p. 102; Dixit Martha, p. 166; De purgatorio, p. 155; Gregorius Magnus, Dialogorum libri IV, iv. 60. 1, p. 200). Like Nicholas of Dresden, Nicholas of Pelhřimov also denies the existence of purgatory because there is no evidence for it in the Bible (Confessio, p. 102). Nicholas of Pelhřimov also adopts ideas and even borrows verbatim statements from Hus’s Dixit Martha and Nicholas of Dresden’s De pur‐ gatorio. He incorrectly assumes that in Dixit Martha Hus concurs with Chrysostom and Augustine that purgatory does not exist: […] quod tantum duo certa sunt loca post Cristi in celum ascensionem animarum de corpore exutarum post hanc vitam, et tercius non est ullus, nec esse in Scripturis reperitur. Cum quibus [i.e. cum istis auctoritatibus] concordat et magister Iohannes Hus sancte memorie in sermone ‘Dixit Martha ad Iesum’. (Confessio, p. 103) Qui quamvis plura ibi opinative de illo loco purgatorii scribat tangatque modos, quibus melius vivi, dato, quod sint aliqui in tali purgatorio, possint mortuis suffragari, sequens in hoc Thomam et alios de hoc sine Scripture expresse auctoritate loquentes. Quid tamen solus finaliter de eo senciat, conclusive manifestat, quando dicit: ‘In 33 De Vooght, Le dialogue, p. 151. 34 Nicholas himself considered his ideas to be theological in nature. We can see this when he analyses the idea of apocalypse and adds ‘Pro quo sciendum quod non semper in theologia locuciones universales et distributive tenentur proprie, sed aliquando improprie, figurative, sicut patet Luce ultimo […]’ (De purgatorio, p. 166). 35 Confessio Taboritarum, ed. by Molnár and Cegna, pp. 65–370. Nicholas writes about purgatory on pp. 96–115 and 158–90. For more on the contents and purpose of this work, see Molnár and Dobiáš’s introductory study contained in the Czech translation Mikuláš z Pelhřimova – Vyznání a obrana táborů, pp. 13–68, or Molnár and Cegna’s introductory study in the edition Confessio Taboritarum, pp. 7–60.

PURGATORY IN THE SERMON DIXIT MARTHA AD IESUM

tota sacra Scriptura non docuit Dominus expresse’ orare pro mortuis ‘preter librum Machabeorum [II Mach. 12. 43], qui non est de veteris testamenti apud Iudeos canone’. Denique subdit: ‘Neque prophete neque Cristus cum suis apostolis nec sancti eorum sequaces propinqui orare pro mortuis docuerunt explicite, sed docuerunt valde solicite populum, ut vivens sine crimine foret sanctus’. Hec ille. (Confessio, pp. 103–04; we can find Hus’s statement in Dixit Martha on pp. 171– 72, although in a significantly different context) He explains the cleansing of sins in a similar manner as Nicholas of Dres‐ den, that is, as a process that happens during one’s worldly life. Nicholas of Pelhřimov finds no evidence of purgatory in the Bible or in early Church practice. Following the example of Nicholas of Dresden, he notes the disunity among masters on the question of purgatory (Confessio, pp. 115 and 120; see also De purgatorio, esp. p. 157). He interprets I Corinthians 3. 12–13 as a reference to the fire of the Final Judgement (Confessio, pp. 106– 07). In his understanding purification occurs during this life in the form of trials and tribulations. In the second part of his chronicle, in which he responds to Rokycana’s accusations, he quotes Nicholas of Dresden’s De purgatorio. Among the material adopted from De purgatorio we find the example of the Monk Justus also used by Hus (Confessio, p. 190; Dixit Martha, p. 170; De purga‐ torio, p. 161; Gregorius Magnus, Dialogorum libri IV, iv. 57, pp. 188–94) and criticism of biblical evidence from the Book of Maccabees (Confessio, pp. 178–79; Dixit Martha, pp. 171–72; De purgatorio, p. 160). Nicholas also takes many statements from De purgatorio that we do not find in Hus’s work, but because I am primarily interested in authors’ relationships with Hus, I do not examine this material here.

A Comparison with the Ideas of Hus’s Predecessors and Contemporaries A Comparison with Jakoubek of Stříbro’s Sermon Factum est ut moreretur mendicus (Luc. 16. 22–23)

Here we can only compare Hus with one author, Jakoubek, because Milíč does not speak about purgatory at all and Matěj only mentions it in Regulae and in the process reveals his belief in its existence (Regulae, i. i. 2. 1, p. 68; see also iv. iii. 6, p. 380). Jakoubek’s work, however, provides fertile ground for comparison.

209

210

CHAPTER 5

Although Jakoubek’s sermon Factum est36 is based on a different bibli‐ cal passage than Hus’s Dixit Martha, both sermons are very similar and even share several identical passages. The explanation here is simple: both Jakoubek and Hus draw from Wycliffe’s Dixit Martha ad Jesum and Omne quod dat michi, and at the time their sermons were written these authors had the same idea about the existence of purgatory and the form of prayers for the dead. Jakoubek also reads Luke 16. 22–23 as a reference to anniversaries or funerals, when the dead are commemorated and remembered as being meritorious. Like Hus, Jakoubek begins by distinguishing and describing condemnable and commendable ways of commemorating the dead (Fac‐ tum est, p. 201; cf. Dixit Martha, p. 158; cf. Omne quod, pp. 89–90). He also criticizes the laudatory exaltation of the dead, whereby he certainly means the funerals of the rich and powerful. This is of benefit to no one, but is to the detriment of all (Factum est, p. 202; cf. Dixit Martha, p. 159; part of the citation is from Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, p. 19). He also criticizes other transgressions associated with contemporary funeral practices: luxurious funeral feasts (Factum est, p. 202; Dixit Martha, p. 160; Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv. 2, p. 19; De purgatorio, p. 175; Luc. 14. 12–14), the unfair distribution of money, which according to Jakoubek leads not to salvation but to the thriving of Antichrist’s limbs (Factum est, p. 203; Dixit Martha, p. 159; De purgatorio, p. 173; Matth. 6. 2), unfair wills (Factum est, p. 203; cf. Dixit Martha, p. 159; cf. De purgatorio, e.g., p. 171), and in general the ostentatiousness of funerals (Factum est, p. 203; cf. Dixit Martha, p. 159, cf. De purgatorio, p. 174) and practices related to the thirty masses (Factum est, pp. 114, 119, 135–36, 205; cf. Dixit Martha, p. 159; cf. De purgatorio, p. 173). He presents the second Book of the Maccabees, however, in a different light than Hus (see, e.g., Factum est, pp. 207–08). According to Jakoubek, it demonstrates that the dead must be treated well, kindly and with love. But this idea does not guide funeral practice in Jakoubek’s day. Jakoubek’s understanding of funerals seems to be even closer to Wycliffe’s than Hus’s is. But in the end, death, the last thing of man, has the same meaning for Jakoubek as it does for Hus; it serves to make people think about their lives and to behave well, for salvation is dependent on it (Factum est, pp. 211, 365–76, 212; cf. Dixit Martha, pp. 161–62; cf. Omne quod, pp. 94–95; cf. De purgatorio, pp. 177–78). And this fact must be reiterated during funerals.

36 I work with the edition Le sermon ‘Factum est ut moreretur mendicus’ de Jacobellus de Stříbro (no. 1413), ed. by de Vooght. In this edition, citations from Wycliffe’s Dixit Martha ad Jesum and Omne quod dat michi are in italics. Bartoš (Literární činnost M. Jakoubka ze Stříbra) dates it to 29 November 1413.

PURGATORY IN THE SERMON DIXIT MARTHA AD IESUM

Figure 3. ‘The end of the sermon Dixit Martha and the beginning of the sermon State succincti’, Prague, National Library of the Czech Republic, MS XI D 9, fol. 14v. First third of the fifteenth century. Reproduced with permission of the National Library of the Czech Republic.

211

ChAPtER 6

A Postscript on Hus’s Eschatology

Threats and the End of the World In Confirmate corda vestra (Iac. 5. 8), a university sermon commemorating Charles IV that1 Hus delivered on 3 December 1409,2 Hus adopts the definition of the last things contained in Bernard of Clairvaux’s Sermones in festivitate omnium sanctorum.3 This definition incorporates last things that have negative connotations and are meant to coerce people into good behaviour: death (predominately described as bad, but also good), the Final Judgement, and hell: Equum indomitum flagella domant, animam inmitem contricio spiritus et assiduitas lacrimarum […]4 ‘Ergo in omnibus operibus tuis memorare novissima tua’.5 Et in eternum, id est usque ad mortem, ait Glosa,6 non peccabis. [Eccli. 7. 40] Que novissima certe mortis horrorem, iudicii tremendum valde discrimen, ardentis iehenne metum ab oculis cordis tui, inquit Bernhardus, elongari nullatenus patiaris.7 (Confirmate, p. 122) Although this definition captures certain elements of Hus’s sermons in general, in them Hus also regularly speaks about death and judgement as events that are in a sense positive before he mentions salvation and heaven. The point of moralizing is not just to reproach people. It is also about providing strength and hope to those that are good, a cardinal idea contained in Hus’s correspondence. Hus also follows the definition of novissima put forth by Peter Lombard and Abraham Calov. 1 Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, pp. 119–30. The text is also available in Op. ii, fols 40r–42r (Op. 1715 ii, fols 62a–66b). 2 Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, p. 236. It was a so-called higher type of homily (Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, p. 229). 3 Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermones in festivitate omnium sanctorum, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, 10, p. 335. 4 Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermones in festivitate omnium sanctorum, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, sermo 1. 9, p. 335. 5 Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermones in festivitate omnium sanctorum, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, sermo 1. 10, p. 335. 6 Lombard frequently uses the phrase ‘usque ad mortem’ in the Sentences. 7 Bernardus Claraevallensis, Sermones in festivitate omnium sanctorum, ed. by Leclercq and Rochais, sermo 1. 10, p. 335.

214

CHAPTER 6

The terms and rhetorical devices that Hus uses in his threats are traditional ones. He emphasizes the true nature of punishment, that is, the ‘second death’ (mors secunda: Apocalypse 21. 8; Diliges, fol. 29r). I will illustrate this point with some examples from the sermons Diliges and State. Hellfire, sulphur, weeping, and the gnashing of teeth are described with brutal realism. In Diliges Hus uses the following terms: ‘ignis aeternus’ (Matth. 25. 41; Diliges fol. 30r), ‘ignis gehennae’ (Diliges, fol. 30v), ‘ardens ignis’ (Apoc. 21. 8, Diliges, fol. 29r), ‘ardere sine fine’ (Diliges, fol. 30v), ‘En‐ dor’ (Ps. 82. 11, Diliges, fol. 30v), ‘sulfur’ (Apoc. 21. 8), and ‘ignis sulfureus’ (Diliges fol. 29r). In Diliges he also warns about eternal punishment and suffering (‘in aeternum perire’, Iob 4. 19, fol. 31r; ‘poenae perpetuae inflic‐ tio’, fol. 29r; ‘aeternaliter dolere in tormento’, fol. 30v), the impossibility of achieving the kingdom of heaven (‘regnum Dei non consequi’, Gal. 5. 19, fol. 29r; ‘regnum Dei non possidere’, I Cor. 6. 9, fol. 29r); being cast out (‘abiecti’, fol. 30v); excommunication (‘excommunicatus’, ‘excommuni‐ cati’, fols 30v–31r); separation (‘separatus’, ‘separati’, fols 30v–31r; ‘separa‐ tio’, fol. 29r); perdition (‘perditus’, ‘perditi’, fols 30v–31r); condemnation (‘damnatus’, ‘aterenaliter condemnati’ — fols 30v–31r); and deprival of the heavenly kingdom and God’s grace (‘regni coelestis privatio’, ‘privans regno gloriae’, both fol. 29r; ‘non exaudiet eos et abscondet faciem suam ab eis in tempore illo’ — Mich. 3. 4, fol. 29v). In State eternal punishment is not the only thing threatened; so too is physical death. Hus references death with the following terms: ‘interitus’ (fol. 33v), ‘exitus’ (fol. 35v), ‘dies calamitatis, amaritudinis et miseriae’ (fol. 34v), ‘eversa est et deleta de superficie terrae’ (fol. 36r), ‘perditio’ (fol. 36v), ‘perire’ (fol. 33v), ‘consumi in stultitia’ (cf. Iob 36. 12; fol. 35v), ‘transire in gladium’ (cf. Iob 33. 18; fol. 35v), ‘vitam perdere’ (fol. 36r), ‘damnationem invenire’ (fol. 36r), ‘auxilium nullius’ (cf. Is. 10. 3; fol. 35v), ‘gloria nullibi’ (fol. 35v), and ‘melius erit ei, si natus non fuisset homo ille’ (cf. Matth. 26. 24; fol. 33v). In Hus’s sermons, threats significantly outweigh positive motivation, which Hus usually offers right before the end. His letters differ fundamen‐ tally in this regard. They emanate ceaseless optimism. Most of them were written in situations in which threats were not only unnecessary, but often even counterproductive. The following are some examples of the terminology Hus uses in his letters: ‘gaudium infinitum (in secula)’ (no. 53 — pp. 156, 152 — p. 315; similarly no. 161 — p. 331), ‘in vita eterna gaudium perfectum’ (no. 16 — p. 55), ‘in eterno gaudio collocare’ (no. 69 — p. 179), ‘vitam in ineffa‐ bili gaudio eternam dare’ (no. 49 — p. 147), ‘celestia gaudia’ (no. 69 — p. 179), ‘leticia sempiterna’ (no. 70 — p. 181), and ‘leticia eterna’ (no. 72 — p. 185).

A POSTSCRIPT ON HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

The succinctness of Hus’s threats is most likely caused by the combination of his extreme focus on the Bible and his indifference to describing this world. In this respect, Hus does not diverge from the already established preaching tradition. Instead, it is Matěj of Janov who stands out by includ‐ ing an unusually large number of statements about the Eucharist’s role in salvation,8 and thus his works are exceptional for containing more positive messages than threats. Dies irae is a subject that can be found sparingly in the works of Milíč, who mentions in passing the connections between God’s wrath and the occurrence of plague, war, and hunger. Hus does not comment at all on this matter. Eschatological expectations and fear of the Last Judgement and the events of the apocalypse already existed in the Czech lands before Hus (see Milíč and Matěj).9 Hus warns of the impending Final Judgement in his earlier works by mentioning the coming of the Lord (see, e.g., Česká kázání sváteční). Hus, however, is not apocalyptic. Although we find longer descriptions of the Final Judgement in the university sermon Spiritum nolite extinguere10 (I Thess. 5. 19) of 4 May 141011 and Confirmate corda vestra, this is a rare topic in Hus’s works. Whenever Hus mentions the end of the world, it is usually the result of the biblical topic of his sermon. For example, we find the following in State: ‘[…] in die malo perfecta resistentia resistere […]’ (fol. 32r) and ‘Apostolus […] dicit: “State succincti lumbos” [Eph. 6. 14], etc., quasi diceret “manete mites et humiles, iusti et pauperes, casti et veraces” […] quia sic Christo facti similes, confortati in Domino et in potentia virtutis eius, poteritis “in die malo resistere ac perfecte stare” [Eph. 6. 13] “adversus insidias diaboli” [Eph. 6. 11], “carnem et sanguinem, adversus principes et potestates, adversus rectores tenebrarum” [Eph. 6. 12], “contra spiritualia nequiciae” [Eph. 6. 12], nec solum adversus haec, sed poteritis in omnibus perfecte stare ac tela ignea extinguere Antichristi [cf. Eph. 6. 16]. Propter haec enim magister militiae dedit praeceptum Christi militibus ita dicens: “State succincti” [Eph. 6. 14], etc.’ (fol. 32v)

8 For a detailed description, see Mazalová ‘Radost a strach v počátcích české reformace’ (unpublished master’s thesis, Masaryk University, 2005). 9 Cf. Fudge, ‘The Night of Antichrist’, p. 36. 10 Editions: Op. ii, fols 42v–44r (Op ii 1715, fols 66a–69b); I work with the edition Positiones, ed. by Schmidtová, pp. 140–48. 11 Bartoš and Spunar, Soupis pramenů, no. 26, p. 86 and Schmidtová in Positiones, p. 238. Novotný, M. Jan Hus I, 1, p. 383 gives a date of 15 February 1410. The biblical theme of the sermon reflects the celebration of the Pentecost. Hus delivered this sermon at a university mass on Whitsun before Trinity Sunday.

215

216

CHAPTER 6

To illustrate the fact that Hus sparingly mentions the end of the world in his correspondence, I will give the three most significant examples of where he does so. Letter no. 100: A tiem buďte pilnějšie, čím viece Antikrist sě protiví; neboť súdný den se blíží, smrt mnohé trutí a synóm božím nebeské se královstvie blíží. Pro něž své tělo kroťte a smrti sě nebojte, spolu se milujte a pamětí, rozumem a vólí v bohu vždycky stójte. Den súdný buď vám před očima hrozný, aby nehřěšili, a radost věčná, aby po nie túžili. (p. 224) [A]nd be the more cautious, the more Antichrist troubles you. For the day of judgment is approaching, death is laying many low, and the kingdom of heaven is drawing near to the sons of God. For the sake of obtaining this kingdom, keep your bodies under, lest ye be afraid of death, love one another, and in memory, reason and will abide steadfast in God. Let the terrible day of judgment live before your eyes, that ye sin not; and the eternal joy likewise that ye may seek after it.12 Letter no. 147: Tyto věci majíce přěd očima, nedajte sebe uhroziti, aby, což sem psal, nečtli aneb aby jim knihy své dali k upálení. Pomněte, co jest spasitel milosrdný nám na výstrahu pověděl Mat. 24, že přěd súdným dnem bude tak náramné trápenie, že od počátka světa nebylo, aniž potom bude tak veliké, že, by to mohlo býti, i vyvolení byli by uvedeni v blud; ale budú dnové ukráceni pro vyvolené. [cf. Matth. 24. 21–24] (Korespondence, pp. 305–06) Keep these examples before you, that you may not under stress of fear give up reading what I have written and hand over your books to be burnt by them. Remember what the merciful Saviour said to us by way of warning in Matt. xxiv., that before the Judgment Day shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened [cf. Matth. 24. 21–24].13 Letter no 161: Unde ex hesterna percepi litera, primo, quomodo meretricis magne, id est malignantis congregacionis, de qua in Apokalypsi, denudatur

12 Jan Hus, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Workman and Pope, pp. 164–65. 13 Jan Hus, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Workman and Pope, pp. 305−06.

A POSTSCRIPT ON HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

iniquitas et denudabitur, cum qua meretrice fornicantur reges terre, ut ibidem dicitur, fornicantur spiritualiter, a Christo et ab eius veritate discedentes et consencientes Antichristi mendacio, ex seduccione, ex timore, vel ex spe confederacionis propter honorem adquirendum seculi. 2° percepi ex litera, quomodo iam inimici veritatis incipiunt turbari. 3° percepi vestre caritatis fervidam constanciam, qua profitemini audacter veritatem, cognita turpitudine meretricis magne. 4° cum gaudio percepi, quod iam vanitati seculi et laborioso servicio wltis finem imponere, et domi Ihesu Christo domino militare. Cui servire, regnare est, ut dicit Gregorius. Cui qui fideliter servit, ipsum Ihesum Christum in celi patria ministrum habebit, ipso dicente: ‘Beatus est servus ille, quem, cum venerit dominus inveniet ita facientem. [Luc. 12. 43] Amen dico vobis’, quod surgens ‘precinget se et ministrabit ei’. [cf. Luc. 12. 47] (Korespondence, p. 331) How Hus deals with the subject of Antichrist corresponds with his ten‐ dency to mention hell in connection to the biblical pericope. In Hus’s understanding, the term Antichrist is not used by itself to announce the end of the world and the coming of Antichrist; instead Hus uses this term to report on and criticize contemporary morals. Hus declares that action must be taken with unprecedented urgency. Because Hus mainly deals with Antichrist to stir up his followers, one feature of Antichrist is pushed aside: Antichrist’s activities in the final days. Hus is neither an apocalyptic nor a millenarian. In his works we find only important reminders of the end times, which are often expressed by emphasizing the expected coming of the Lord, by observing an increase in persecution and mortal sin, and by stressing the urgency of action. All these things, when added to Antichrist’s presence in the world, are evidence for Hus that the end of the world was approaching. Hus himself reacted to the critical situation by making a direct appeal to Christ against the criticism and condemnation levelled at him by the Church.14 Amedeo Molnár (Eschatologická nadějnost) noted that Hus’s hopes are not apocalyptic in nature15 and that his understanding of Antichrist is topical and morality based. I do not however agree with his claim that Hus’s understanding of Antichrist is timeless, because in Hus’s works there is a palpable, important connection to the end times, although it is weaker than in the works of Milíč and Matěj. Hus’s criticism and agitation focused on Antichrist had now changed because Hus now took note of the growing moral decline. It is here that we find an eschatological element that charged Hus’s work with a certain urgency. 14 Korespondence, no. 46, pp. 129–33. 15 In contrast, in the monograph Čechy na konci věků Cermanová finds apocalyptic ideas in Hus’s work. She assumes that Hus ‘articulates [his ideas] in a clear way informed by radical apocalyptical symbolism’ (p. 57), sees in his work ‘an apocalyptic mode of commentary’ (p. 58), and considers Hus’s thinking to be apocalyptic.

217

218

CHAPTER 6

According to Hus, no one can know for sure just how close the end is. Hus does not concern himself with such calculations, nor does he ever try to determine the year of Antichrist’s coming. Although Milíč and Matěj of Janov both calculated the date of Antichrist’s coming, they, like Jakoubek of Stříbro, did not consider it possible to calculate the exact timing of the Final Judgement. According to Hus, the end times had arrived, and the most important thing people could do was deal with Antichrist’s presence and the impending end in such a way that their salvation would not be forfeited. Nonetheless, Hus manages to evoke a sense of urgency and thus follows in the tradition of reform preachers who called for ecclesiastical reform in the end times, an era that the official Church denied was im‐ pending.16

Death Hus does not speak very often about death in general. When he does, he usually just briefly mentions it. Thus, a long, rhetorically well-crafted passage in the sermon Confirmate in which he demonstrates generally widespread Christian ideas, stands out as being exceptional. In it he uses the rhetorical devices of amplification and repetition and draws attention to all aspects of death. But he does not deserve the credit for this section, for nearly all these rhetorically strong passages have been adopted from the works of other authors from various periods: Nicolaus von Bibra (thirteenth century), Claudian (fourth century), Hildebert of Lavardin (eleventh–twelve century). Hus additionally draws from both the Old and New Testaments. Mors est ventura, que non curat tua iura. Mors est ventura, que non vult dare tempora plura. Mors est ventura, nec prece nec precio fugitura. Mors est ventura, quam non fugat potencia dura. Mors est ventura, quid fiet de prepositura? Mors est ventura, que dissipabit beneficia plura. Mors est ventura, quam non excuciet et papatura. Mors est ventura, que caput quaciet et tua crura. Mors est ventura, non fac, que scis nocitura. Mors est ventura, fac, que sunt Deo placitura. Mors est ventura, transibis ad altera iura. (Nicolaus von Bibrach, Carmen historicum, pp. 866–95, pp. 216–17).17 16 Molnár, ‘Endzeit und Reformation’, p. 74; see also Holeton, ‘Revelation and Revolution’, p. 29. 17 Nicolaus von Bibrach, Carmen historicum occulti autoris saec. XIII, ed. by von Höfler.

A POSTSCRIPT ON HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

Another more specific theme in Hus’s work is martyrdom and its realiza‐ tion. Hus hones in on this issue in his correspondence, where he shares his own experiences (e.g., in connection with Matth. and Luc.); nonetheless, we can find references to martyrdom in Hus’s earlier commentary on Psalms, as Dušan Coufal has noted.18 For Hus, a preacher must always count on martyrdom as a real eventuality. This idea is also shared by Hus’s contemporaries; for example, like Hus, Jakoubek of Stříbro, who draws heavily from Milíč and Matěj, considers martyrdom to be something that Christians needed to be prepared for and that priests should even consider to be likely and necessary. However, it was only when Hus found himself in a critical situation in which he was certain that his death was imminent if he did not recant that Hus’s statements about martyrdom took on greater intensity. The following statements capture Hus’s beliefs that he presents in his correspondence: Melius est bene mori, quam male vivere. (no. 63, p. 170; cf. Eccli. 40. 29; Ioh. 4. 8; I Mach. 3. 59) Propter mortis suplicium non est peccandum. Presentem vitam finire in gracia est exire de miseria. (no. 63, p. 170) Although during his trial in Constance Hus doubted whether he could endure and defend his ideas until his death, in the end it was impossible for him to deny everything that he stood for. He was convinced that he would die a martyr, an idea he also convinced Jakoubek of Stříbro and others who admired his ideas of. Thus, due to the manner in which Hus died and the meaning his death had for others, his eschatology lived on even after he had passed away. Moreover, his martyrdom and the thoughts he entertained while waiting for death confirm that to the very end he maintained his principles and ideas about Antichrist, Antichrist’s connection to schism, and life after death.

Hus’s Eschatology and its Place in Medieval Thought Hus’s eschatology was influenced by the overall atmosphere in Bohemia. Moralism, biblicism, and Wycliffe’s works were all part of the Czech tradition. Hus does not insert ‘roles and scenes’19 that are not found in the Bible. Before Hus, Waldhauser, who did not elaborate an eschatology, sharply criticized simony and frequently spoke about the truth, the neces‐ sity of living according to Christian ideals, the moral life of the clergy, and living a good life in general. These principles to a large extent formed Hus’s eschatology and the eschatologies of Matěj and Milíč. As far as 18 Coufal, ‘Neznámý postoj Jana Husa k mučednictví’. 19 Cf. McGinn, ‘The Apocalyptic Imagination’, p. 84.

219

220

CHAPTER 6

Wycliffe is concerned, no matter to what extent Hus directly adopted ideas from Wycliffe’s works, it is clear that Wycliffe played another role in Hus’s eschatological struggle. According to Hus, Antichrist persecutes the adherents of Wycliffe’s true ideas, and therefore, Hus himself was suffering and would eventually end in Constance. Hus’s relationship with Wycliffe practically sealed his fate. Hus’s emphasis on morality does not detract from the significance of his eschatology: Hus discusses morality in nearly all his works, and eschatology is closely connected to morality. The fact that Hus most frequently addresses moral issues tends to suggest that for him eschatology was something living, something he experienced himself (which we know to be true from his sermons and correspondence). From the beginning, Hus feels himself to be part of eschatological events. Although Hus imbues his doctrine of the last things with this personal aspect, he is primarily interested in collective eschatology, in the salvation of people and the erad‐ ication of wickedness from the crumbling Church. And thus his works and his personal life are informed by the maxim ‘Fili, in omnibus operibus tuis memorare novissima et in eternum non peccabis’. (Eccli. 7. 40) Reminding people of death and the end of the world leads them to thinking about the meaning of earthly existence and to living their lives properly. Thus, Hus’s eschatological statements are often meant to motivate (as either threats or incentives), to provide solace, to call his listeners to action, and to stir up his followers. His eschatology is intellectually and rhetorically consistent and topical, but it is not premeditated. It is presented clearly and is easy to understand. The only logically unresolved matter is predestination. Hus does not present it as a separate eschatological topic, but he uses it to support his ecclesiology and his criticism of Antichrist. Although predes‐ tination, together with ideas about good behaviour, is the most salient starting point of all of Hus’s thoughts, from a theological perspective he provides the weakest arguments for it. But this is just the result of Hus’s inconsistency in his arguments, for if Hus were to maintain his conviction that preternatural occurrences cannot be described, then he would not make any logical contradictions here either. Hus’s concentration on Antichrist fully aligned him with the early Bo‐ hemian Reformation’s focus but not with general medieval eschatological thought as described by Wicki in Lexikon des Mittelalters.20 Nonetheless, further comparison with other medieval intellectual streams seems to be appropriate. As we have seen, there are small but important differences between Hus and his predecessors. Although they all address the same subject matter,

20 Wicki, ‘Eschatologie’, col. 5.

A POSTSCRIPT ON HUS’S ESCHATOLOGY

the scenario that McGinn speaks about changes thanks to how each author treats certain details and how he expresses Christian optimism.21 Milíč relies on the pope, Matěj sees practical help in the Eucharist, and Hus’s Christian optimism is firmly connected with expectations of his own demise. Moreover, Hus’s eschatology introduces a new role, the one played by Hus himself. The fact that Hus does not view his present day as dies irae is also unique. Could this be not so much the result of indifference but in contrast a consequence of the severely critical situation in society? The extreme tension caused by the schism, which had pushed all other issues to the side, was to blame. Hus was not interested in the other factors that scholars have linked to the crisis of the late Middle Ages. This finding supports Nodl’s claim that fear of death is common and that in the fourteenth century and beyond it was not necessarily related only to plague,22 or Jana Nechutová’s observation that fear was only one of many characteristics of the Middle Ages. The ideas of Hus and his predecessors were unique as a result of the overall crisis, but the only crisis they viewed was the one inside the Church as a result of the schism. Now, I must answer three questions that I posed in the introduction. How does Hus imagine the relationship between time, space, and people or society in its entirety in the eschatological context? For Hus experiences are of crucial importance. We must all act in some way during our life on earth; eternity can be either a punishment or a reward for one’s actions. What is important for Hus is the effort to draw attention to the transience of life, the need for urgency of action, and the end times. The psychological aspects of time are important as well23 – expectations and feelings of urgency and imminence. For Hus determining the exact timing of the coming of Antichrist or the Last Judgement is not important, and he says that he knows nothing about this issue. The other two questions are closely related: What influence does eschatological thinking have on Hus’s ideas about reforming morals and how does Hus’s approach correspond with the idea that true reform can only occur with the second coming of Christ?

21 I apply a broad understanding of the modern concept of Christian optimism, describing throughout this book its specific manifestations. This understanding is connected to Étienne Gilson’s interpretation of this concept based on Genesis 1. 31. He defines Christian optimism as joy from the fact that everything that God created is good (e.g., Gilson, The Spirit, pp. 109–10; this work contains an entire chapter on this concept, pp. 108–27). He also saw such joy in the European thought of the Hellenistic period. Ioana Munteanu, in ‘La joie dans la poésie d´Hildegarde de Bingen’ (p. 82), notes this definition and gives practical examples of this concept. 22 See Nodl’s epilogue ‘Strach, ďábel a muka pekelná českého středověku’, pp. 275–76. 23 Cf. Augustine’s conception of time.

221

222

CHAPTER 6

Hus’s efforts at reforming morals and Church practices in particular are fundamentally connected with eschatology. Human salvation is the goal of reform, and reminding people of the last things was the means of reform. We can also answer a question that has already been posed by Ivana Dolejšová: ‘Is it worth [struggling] for the improvement of the institution, or is the institution in the end dispensable?’24 Indeed, it is worth struggling to improve this institution, for it is an assembly of priests, the essential mediators of human salvation. At this historically unique epoch, at the end times, it is particularly important for salvation. The institute of the Church Visible is crucial because it guides the people that trust in it. The only head of the Church is Christ, but his body, that is, the Church itself, is important for people. Therefore, Hus calls for the entire Church to be reformed.25 In the process of reform Hus plays a key role not only in the eyes of his followers but in his own eyes as well. The coming of Christ marks the culmination of the reform that Hus and others endeavoured for. True reform through the coming of Christ, unlike individual salvation, is certain, just as is the existence of heaven and hell, and therefore it is not necessary to explore this idea in any detail. For Hus, it is a given fact that should be used to motivate people.

24 Dolejšová, ‘Eschatological Elements in Jan Hus’s Ecclesiology’, p. 138. 25 For more on the significance of Milíč’s and Matěj’s pro-reform preaching, on its effects on people, and on the importance of preaching in the Reformation, see Molnár, ‘K otázce reformační iniciativy lidu’, pp. 5–8.

Epilogue

My general conclusions correspond with those of Amedeo Molnár and Jana Nechutová: Hus’s eschatology is not apocalyptic or millenarian, but it is morality based. Thus, I feel I can rightfully apply my findings to a larger part of Hus’s work than previous scholars have done. In fact, I am quite sure my findings can be applied to Hus’s work as a whole. I discovered a close link between Hus’s eschatology, his moral teachings, and other fac‐ tors, especially his disposition and his life’s mission as a preacher. Although some of the as-of-yet unstudied circumstances surrounding Hus’s works changed, the circumstances that I have already named, the ones crucial for his eschatology, were constant throughout his life and work. All these circumstances were connected to the eschatology that Hus developed dur‐ ing extreme situations in his life. His eschatology also provides evidence of what he truly thought. I also found that Hus’s eschatology was built upon similar principles as the eschatologies of other writers of the Bohemian Reformation and, in some respects, as Wycliffe’s eschatology. The thinkers of the Bohemian Reformation also influenced each other, both directly and indirectly. There is no doubt that Hus believed that he could make a fundamental contribution to people’s salvation as a preacher acting as the steward of common people and perhaps even more importantly as a preacher correct‐ ing the ways of his fellow priests, who as a group were the stewards of many more souls. Because Hus’s eschatology featured a salvation-focused element, he called for people to live a good life (of course with God’s grace) and for them to take responsibility for their actions. Thus, his eschatology provided the means for motivating people. When he was awaiting his death, Hus made eschatological statements that were similar to those contained in his less personal sermons. Towards the end of his life, these statements were associated with a more specific, graver, and more personal situation than Hus could have ever imagined before. But not even in the most trying of moments did he cease thinking positively. He never lost faith, hope, or his love for Christ, and he passed his positivity onto others. Hus’s eschatology is not a theory; it is a doctrine for both clergy and laity, a doctrine of how to live.

224

EPILOGUE

Hus’s rhetoric, his impressive delivery of sermons, and the simplicity of his commentary certainly merit attention. All these means for influencing listeners and readers become much more effective when combined with Hus’s actions. It is here that Hus’s eschatology and Hus himself stand out. His eschatology, which is inseparable from his tragic fate and which is associated with negative criticism and threats, is still an eschatology with an overall positive message. In fact, as Hus found himself in increasingly fraught situations in which he could test his own eschatological ideas and hopes in practice, his eschatology became even more positive. Hus lived his eschatology, an experience that helped him address fundamental social issues, especially what we would call today ‘freedom of speech’. His listen‐ ers did not need to understand theological terminology and concepts to comprehend his eschatology. It was enough to find in his words guidance for achieving salvation and, despite his heavy-handed criticism, great hope and Christian joy.

Bibliography

Primary Sources Adso Dervensis, De ortu et tempore Antichristi, ed. by Daniel Verhelst, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 45 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1976), pp. 20–30 Aurelius Augustinus, De civitate Dei, ed. by Bernhard Dombart and Alfons Kalb, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 47–48 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1955) ———, Enchiridion de fide, spe et caritate, ed. by Ernest Evans, in Aurelius Augustinus, De fide rerum invisibilium. Enchiridion ad Laurentium de fide et spe et caritate. De catechizandis rudibus. Sermo ad catechumenos de symbolo. Sermo de disciplina christiana. De utilitate ieiunii. Sermo de excidio urbis Romae. De haeresibus, ed. by Michael Petrus Josephus van den Hout, Ernest Evans, Iohannes Baptist Bauer, Roel Vander Plaetse, S. Dominic Ruegg, Marie Vianney O’Reilly, and Clemens Beukers, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 46 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1969), pp. 49–114 ———, Homélies sur la première épître de saint Jean. In Iohannis epistulam ad Parthos tractatus decem, ed. by John William Mountain, Oeuvres de Saint Augustin, 76 (Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2008) ———, Sermones, in Patrologiae cursus completus: series latina, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne, 221 vols (Paris: Migne, 1844–1864), 38 (1845) *1 Bernardus Claraevallensis, De consideratione libri V, in S. Bernardi Opera, 3, ed. by Jean Leclercq and Henri M. Rochais (Roma: Editiones Cistercienses, 1963), pp. 393–493* ———, Epistulae, in S. Bernardi opera, 7–8, ed. by Jean Leclercq and Henri M. Rochais (Roma: Editiones Cistercienses, 1974–1977)* ———, Sermo in nativitate beatae Mariae Virginis, in S. Bernardi Opera, 5, ed. by Jean Leclercq and Henri M. Rochais (Roma: Editiones Cistercienses, 1968), pp. 275–88*

1 * = sources accesible via the databases Corpus Augustinianum Gissense a Cornelio Mayer editum, Library of Latin Texts (LLT, Brepols 2011 and CLCLT, Brepols 2008), Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Patrologia Graeco-Latina, Patrologia Latina Database, or The Digital Library of Classic Protestant Texts.

226

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, Sermones in festivitate omnium sanctorum, in S. Bernardi Opera, 5, ed. by Jean Leclercq and Henri M. Rochais (Roma: Editiones Cistercienses, 1968), pp. 327–70* ———, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, in S. Bernardi Opera, I, ed. by Jean Leclercq, Charles H. Talbot, and Henri M. Rochais (Roma: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957)* Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria novisque additionibus, a Strabo Fulgensi collecta (Venezia: apud Iuntas, 1603) Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, ed. by Roger Gryson, notes by Robert Weber. 4th edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) Calov, Abraham, Systema locorum theologicorum (Wittenberg: Johannes Wilkius, 1677)* Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, ed. by Joseph Alberigo, Joseph A. Dossetti, Periclīs-Petros Joannou, Claudio Leonardi, and Hubert Jedin, 3rd edition (Bologna: Instituto per le scienze religioze, 1973)* Confessio Taboritarum, ed. by Amedeo Molnár and Romolo Cegna, reprint (Roma: Nella Sede dell´Istituto Palazzo Borromini, 1983) Corpus iuris canonici, ed. by Albert Friedberg, 2 vols (Graz: Akademische Druck u. Vorlagsanstalt, 1959) Documenta Mag. Ioannis Hus vitam, doctrinam causam in Constantiensi concilio actam et controversias de religione in Bohemia annis 1403–1418 motas illustrantia, ed. by František Palacký (Praha: Tempsky, 1869) Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, ed. by Heinrich Denzinger (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1976) Gregorius Magnus, Dialogorum libri IV, 4th book, in Grégoire le Grand, Dialogues, iii. 4, ed. by Adalbert de Vogüé, Sources chretiennes, 265 (Paris: Cerf, 1980) ———, Homiliae in evangelia, ed. by Raymond Étaix, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 141 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999)* ———, Registrum epistularum, ed. by Dag Norberg, S. Gregorii Magni Opera, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 140 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1982) ———, Regula pastoralis, in Grégoire le Grand, Regle pastorale, I, ed. by Floribert Rommel, Bruno Judic, and Charles Morel (Paris: Cerf, 1992) Hieronymus, Tractatus sive homiliae in psalmos. In Marci evangelium. Alia varia argumenta, ed. by Germain Morin, Bernard Capelle, and Johannes Fraipont, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, 78 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1958) Iacobus de Tharamo ab Ancharano, Processus Luciferi contra Jesum coram judice Salomone, ed. by Melchior Goldast, in Processus Iuris Ioco-serius (Hanoviae: Conr. Biermann, 1611), pp. 37–366 Jan Hus (Iohannes Hus), Abiciamus opera tenebrarum, in Positiones – recommendationes – sermones. Universitní promluvy, ed. by Anežka Schmidtová (Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1958), pp. 99–113

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, Confirmate corda vestra, in Positiones – recommendationes – sermones. Universitní promluvy, ed. by Anežka Schmidtová (Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1958), pp. 119–30 ———, [Magister Iohannis Hus:] Constantiensia, ed. by Helena Krmíčková, Jana Nechutová, Dušan Coufal, Jana Fuksová, Lucie Mazalová, Petra Mutlová, Libor Švanda, Soňa Žákovská, and † Amedeo Molnár, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 274 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016) ———, Česká nedělní postila. Vyloženie svatých čtení nedělních, ed. by Jiří Daňhelka, Magistri Iohannis Hus Opera omnia, ii (Praha: Academia, 1992) ———, Česká sváteční kázání, ed. by Jiří Daňhelka, Magistri Iohannis Hus Opera omnia, III (Praha: Academia, 1995) ———, De sanguine Christi sub specie vini, in Ioannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et monumenta I, ed. by M. Flacius Illyricus (Nürnberg: Officina Ioannis Montani & Ulrici Neuberi, 1558), fols 42r–44r ———, De sufficientia legis Christi, in Ioannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et monumenta, i, ed. by M. Flacius Illyricus (Nürnberg: Officina Ioannis Montani & Ulrici Neuberi, 1558), fols 44r–48r ———, Diliges Dominum Deum, in Ioannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et monumenta, ii, ed. by M. Flacius Illyricus (Nürnberg: Officina Ioannis Montani & Ulrici Neuberi, 1558), fols 27v–31v ———, Diliges Dominum Deum, in Zuzana Lukšová, ‘Synodální kázání Jana Husa Diliges Dominum Deum’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Masarykova univerzita, Brno, 2018) ———, Diliges Dominum Deum, in Zuzana Lukšová, Die Synodalpredigt von Jan Hus Diliges Dominum Deum (Erlangen: FAU University Press, 2021), pp. 111– 31 ———, Dixit Martha ad Iesum, in Positiones – recommendationes – sermones. Universitní promluvy, ed. by Anežka Schmidtová (Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1958), pp. 157–78 ———, Enarratio Psalmorum (Ps. 109–18), ed. by Jana Nechutová, Helena Krmíčková, Dušan Coufal, Jana Fuksová, Petra Mutlová, Anna Pumprová, Dana Stehlíková, and Libor Švanda (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013) ———, [Jana Husi] Korespondence a dokumenty, ed. by Václav Novotný (Praha: Komise pro vydávání pramenů náboženského hnutí českého ve stol. XIV. a XV., zřízené při České akademii věd a umění, 1920) ———, Responsiones ad deposiciones testium contra M. Iohannem Hus, in Magister Iohannis Hus: Constantiensia, ed. by Helena Krmíčková, Jana Nechutová, Dušan Coufal, Jana Fuksová, Lucie Mazalová, Petra Mutlová, Libor Švanda, Soňa Žákovská, and † Amedeo Molnár, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio mediaevalis, 274 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 211−43

227

228

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, Responsiones breves ad articulos ultimos, in Magister Iohannis Hus: Constantiensia, ed. by Helena Krmíčková, Jana Nechutová, Dušan Coufal, Jana Fuksová, Lucie Mazalová, Petra Mutlová, Libor Švanda, Soňa Žákovská, and † Amedeo Molnár, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio mediaevalis, 274 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 291−306 ———, Sermo de pace, in Ioannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et monumenta, i, ed. by M. Flacius Illyricus (Nürnberg: Officina Ioannis Montani & Ulrici Neuberi, 1558), fols 52r–56v ———, Spiritum nolite extinguere, in Positiones – recommendationes – sermones. Universitní promluvy, ed. by Anežka Schmidtová (Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1958), pp. 140–48 ———, Spisy M. Jana Husi, 3, De sanguine Christi, ed. by Václav Flajšhans, (Praha: Bursík, 1903) ———, Spisy M. Jana Husi, 4–6, Super IV Sententiarum, ed. by Václav Flajšhans (Praha: Bursík, 1904–1906) ———, State succincti, in Ioannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et monumenta, ii, ed. by M. Flacius Illyricus (Nürnberg: Officina Ioannis Montani & Ulrici Neuberi, 1558), fols 32r–36v ———, Super canonicas, in Ioannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et monumenta, ii, ed. by M. Flacius Illyricus (Nürnberg: Officina Ioannis Montani & Ulrici Neuberi, 1558), fols 105r–228v ———, The Letters of John Hus, ed. by Herbert B. Workman and R. Martin Pope (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1904) ———, Tractatus De ecclesia, ed. by S. Harrison Thomson (Praha: Komenského evangelická fakulta bohoslovecká, 1958) John Wycliffe (Iohannes Wyclif), De Christo et adversario suo Antichristo, ed. by Rudolf Buddensieg (Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1880) ———, Confortamini in Domino et in potencia virtutis eius, in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iii, ed. by Iohann Loserth (Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1966), 55, pp. 473–82 ———, Dixit Martha ad Jesum, in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, ed. by Iohann Loserth (London: Trübner, 1890), 2, pp. 11–24 ———, Hora est iam nos de somno surgere, in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iii, ed. by Iohann Loserth (Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1966), 1, pp. 1–8 ———, Induamur arma lucis, in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, ed. by Iohann Loserth (London: Trübner, 1890), 24, pp. 206–12 ———, Nisi habundaverit iusticia vestra plus quam scribarum et phariseorum, in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, i, ed. by Iohann Loserth (London: Trübner, 1887), 38, pp. 252–58 ———, Nos autem fratres secundum Isaac promissionis filii sumus, in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, ed. by Iohann Loserth (London: Trübner, 1890), 34, pp. 290–96

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, Omne quod dat mihi pater ad me veniet, in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, ed. by Iohannes Loserth (London: Trübner, 1890), 11, pp. 89–95 ———, Sanatus est puer in illa hora, in Iohannes Wyclif Sermones, iv, ed. by Iohann Loserth (London: Trübner, 1890), 28, pp. 238–45 ———, [Johannis Wyclif] Tractatus De potestate pape, ed. by Iohann Loserth (London: Trübner, 1907) ———, Vinum non habent, in Iohannis Wyclif Sermones, iv, ed. by Iohann Loserth (London: Trübner, 1890), 27, pp. 232–38 Jakoubek of Stříbro ( Jakoubek ze Stříbra, Iacobellus de Misa, Jacobellus of Misa), [Mgri Jacobi de Misa] defensio libri Decalogi Mgri Johannis Wiklef, in Jan Sedlák, Studie a texty k náboženským dějinám českým, II – Studie a texty k životopisu Husovu (Olomouc: Arcibiskupská knihtiskárna, 1915), pp. 316–28 ———, ‘“Factum est ut moreretur mendicus” de Jacobellus de Stříbro (no. 1413)’, ed. by Paul de Vooght, Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale, xxxvi (1969 Janvier–Décembre), 201–12 ———, Posicio de Anticristo, in Jitka Sedláčková, ‘Jakoubek ze Stříbra a jeho kvestie o Antikristu’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Masaryk University, Brno, 2001), pp. 28–60 Julian of Toledo, Prognosticum futuri saeculi, trans, ed. and introd. by Tommaso Stancati, OP (New York: The Newman Press, 2010) Matěj of Janov (Matěj z Janova, Matthias de Janov, Matthias of Janov), [Matěje z Janova, Mistra pařížského], Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti (Matthiae de Janov dicti Magister Parisiensis Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti), ed. by Vlastimil Kybal, Otakar Odložilík, Jana Nechutová, and Helena Krmíčková, 6 vols (Praha: Universitního Knihkupectví Wagnerova, 1908–1913; Komise pro vydávání pramenů českého hnutí náboženského ve stol. XIV. a XV., zřízené při České akademii věd a umění, 1926; München: Oldenbourg, 1993) Milíč of Kroměříž (Milíč z Kroměříže, Milicius de Chremsir), Epistula ad papam Urbanum V., ed. by Ferdinand Menčík, Věstník Královské české společnosti nauk, třída filosoficko-historicko-filologická, a part of the study Milíč a dva jeho spisy z r. 1367 (1890), 318–25 ———, [Milicii] Libellus de Antichristo, ed. by Vlastimil Kybal, in Matěje z Janova, Mistra pařížského, Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti, vol. iii, iii (Innsbruck: Univerzitní knihkupectví Wagnerovo, 1911), l, pp. 369–70 ———, [Milíčův] Sermo de die novissimo, ed. by František M. Bartoš, in Reformační sborník, 8 (Praha: Blahoslavova společnost, 1941), pp. 49–58 ———, [Jana Milíče z Kroměříže] tři řeči synodní (Iohannis Milicii de Cremsir tres sermones synodales), ed. by Vilém Herold and Milan Mráz (Praha: Academia, 1974)

229

230

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nicolaus de Dresda (Nicholas of Dresden), Tabule veteris et novi coloris, ed. by Howard Kaminsky, in Master Nicholas of Dresden: The old color and the new, ed. and trans. by Howard Kaminsky, Dean Loy Bilderback, Imre Boba, and Patricia N. Rosenberg (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1965), pp. 38–64 Nicolaus von Bibrach, Carmen historicum occulti autoris saec. XIII, ed. by Constantin von Höfler, Sitzungsberichte/Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 37 (Wien: Gerold, 1861) Ondřej of Brod (Ondřej z Brodu, Andreas de Broda), Testimonium Christi confirmatum est in vobis, in Jaroslav Kadlec, Studien und Texte zum Leben und Wirken des Prager magisters Andreas von Brod (Münster: Aschendorff, 1982), pp. 114–25 Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, ed. by Ignatius Brady, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum, 4–5 (Grottaferrata: Ed. Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1971–1981)* ———, Commentaria in Psalmos, in Patrologiae cursus completus: series latina, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne, 221 vols (Paris: Migne, 1844–864), 191 (1879), cols 61−1296* Prokop of Pilsen (Prokop z Plzně), ‘Prokop von Pilsen vertheidigt Wiclifs Traktat de ideis’, in Johann Loserth, Hus und Wyclif (Leipzig: Tempsky, 1884), pp. 277–85 Pseudo-Chrysostomus, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, in Patrologiae cursus completus: series graeca, ed. by Jacques-Paul Migne, 161 vols (Paris: Migne, 1857–866), 56 (1859), hom. 43, cols 611–944* Stanislav of Znojmo (Stanislav ze Znojma, Stanislaus de Znoyma), Vos testimonium perhibebitis de me, in Ioannis Hus et Hieronymi Pragensis, confessorum Christi Historia et monumenta, II, ed. by M. Flacius Illyricus (Nürnberg: Officina Ioannis Montani & Ulrici Neuberi, 1558), fols 25r–27r Thomas Aquinas, S. Thomae Aquinatis Opera omnia 1. In quattuor libros sententiarum, ed. by Roberto Busa, Index Thomisticus – Supplementum (Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 1980) Tabule veteris et novi coloris, ed. by Petra Mutlová, in Jenský kodex, ed. by Kamil Boldan (Praha: Gallery, 2009)

Secondary Works Andrews, Frances, ‘The Influence of Joachim in the 13th Century’, in A Companion to Joachim of Fiore, ed. by Matthias Riedl (Leiden: Brill, 2018), pp. 190−266 Appold, Kenneth G., Abraham Calov’s Doctrine of Vocatio in Its Systematic Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arndt, William, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) **2 Assmann, Jan, and Aleida Assmann, ‘Mythos’, in Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe. Band IV, ed. by Hubert Cancik, Burkhard Gladigow, Matthias Laubscher, and Karl-Heinz Kohl (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998), pp. 179−200 Bartoš, František M., Dantova Monarchie, Cola di Rienzo, Petrarka a počátky reformace a humanismu u nás (Praha: Královská česká společnost nauk, 1952) ———, Literární činnost M. Jakoubka ze Stříbra (Praha: Česká akademie věd a umění, 1925) ———, ‘Příspěvky k dějinám Karlovy university v době Husově a husitské’, in Sborník historický, 4, ed. by Václav Vojtíšek (Praha: Academia, 1956), pp. 33– 70 Bartoš, František M., and Pavel Spunar, Soupis pramenů k literární činnosti M. Jana Husa a M. Jeronýma Pražského (Praha: Historický ústav ČSAV, 1965) Bauckham, Richard J., ‘Eschatology’, in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. by James Dixon Douglas, 3rd edn (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2001), pp. 333−39 Bobková, Lenka, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české, IV.a. (Praha: Paseka, 2003) Boilloux, Marc, ‘Antichrist – Exegesis’, in Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, ed. by André Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Michael Lapidge (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2000), p. 73 Boublík, Vladimír, Teologická antropologie: člověk v Kristu Ježíši (Kostelní Vydří: Karmelitánské nakladatelství, 2006) Bousset, Wilhelm, Der Antichrist in der Überlieferung des Judentums, des neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der Apokalypse (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895) Cancik, Hubert, ‘Eschatologie’, in Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe. Band II, Apokalyptik – Geschichte, ed. by Hubert Cancik, Burkhard Gladigow, and Matthias Laubsche (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990), pp. 341−43 Cermanová, Pavlína, ‘Constructing the Apocalypse: Connections between English and Bohemian Apocalyptic Thinking’, in Europe after Wyclif, ed. by J. Patrick Hornbeck II and Michael van Dussen (New York: Fordham University Press, 2017), pp. 66−88 ———, ‘“Čas nynější den pomsty slove a tresktánie…” O zatracení a spáse ve středověkých Čechách’, in Evropa a Čechy na konci středověku: sborník příspěvků věnovaných Františku Šmahelovi, ed. by Eva Doležalová, Robert Novotný, and Pavel Soukup (Praha: Filosofia, 2004), pp. 233–51 ———, Čechy na konci věků. Apokalyptické myšlení a vize husitské doby (Praha: Argo, 2013)

2 ** = dictionaries and encyclopedias accesible via Logos Bible Library

231

232

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, ‘Eschatologie a apokalyptika jako módní téma na lucemburském dvoře’, in Dvory a rezidence ve středověku III. Všední a sváteční život na středověkých dvorech, ed. by Jaroslav Boubín and Dana Dvořáčková-Malá (Praha: Historický ústav AV ČR, 2009), pp. 515–31 ———, ‘Využití apokalyptických figur v díle Jana Husa’, in Jan Hus 1415 a 600 let poté, Husitský Tábor, Supplementum, 4, ed. by Jakub Smrčka and Zdeněk Vybíral (Tábor: Husitské muzeum, 2015) pp. 23‒40 Closs, Alois, ‘Fegfeuer – Religionsgeschichtlich’, in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 4 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1960), pp. 49–55 Coufal, Dušan, ‘Neznámý postoj Jana Husa k mučednictví v jeho Enarratio Psalmorum (cca 1405–1407): Na cestě do kruhu zemských svatých’, Časopis Matice moravské, 129.2 (2010), 241–57 Cullmann, Oscar, Heil als Geschichte. Heilsgeschichtliche Existenz im Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, Siebeck, 1965) Čechura, Jaroslav, ‘Mor, krize a husitská revoluce’, Český časopis historický, 92.2 (1994), 286–303 Červenka, Miroslav, Významová výstavba literárního díla (Praha: Karolinum, 1992) Český slovník bohovědný, ed. by Antonín Podlaha (Praha: V. Kotrba, 1926) Čornej, Petr, Dějiny zemí koruny české. 1, Od příchodu Slovanů do roku 1740 (Praha: Paseka, 1992) ———,‘Husitství: katastrofa, nebo východisko z pozdně středověké krize?’, in Kolaps a regenerace: cesty civilizací a kultur. Minulost, současnost a budoucnost komplexních společností, ed. by Miroslav Bárta and Martin Kovář (Praha: Academia, 2011), pp. 319–44 ———, ‘Směřování Josefa Macka k historické sémantice’, in Josef Macek, Česká středověká šlechta (Praha: Argo, 1997), pp. 134–51 ———, Velké dějiny zemí Koruny české (Praha: Paseka, 2000) de Ghellinck, Joseph, ‘Peter Lombard’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 11, ed. by Charles G. Herbermann (New York: Robert Appleton, 1911) Delumeau, Jean, Le péché et la peur. La culpabilisation en Occident (XIIIe-XVIIIe siècles) (Paris: Fayard, 1983) de Vooght, Paul, ‘Le dialogue “De purgatorio” (1415) de Nicolas de Dresde’, in Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 42 (Louvain: Abbaye du Mont Cesar, 1975), pp. 132–223 ———, L’hérésie de Jean Hus, II (Louvain: Bureaux de la Revue, Bibliothèque de ľ Université, 1975) ———, Jacobellus de Stříbro († 1429) premier théologien du hussitisme (Louvain: Bureaux de la R.H.E., 1972) Dinzelbacher, Peter, Die letzte Dinge. Himmel, Hölle, Fegefeuer im Mittelalter (Freiburg: Herder, 1999) ———, Unglaube im “Zeitalter des Glaubens”. Atheismus und Skeptizismus im Mittelalter (Badenweiler: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Bachmann, 2009)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dolista, Josef, Perspektivy naděje. (Teologická výpověď o naději ve vzkříšení) (Brno: Cesta, 1997) Dolejšová, Ivana, ‘Eschatological Elements in Hus’s Understanding of Orthopraxis Introduction’, in The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, 4, ed. by Zdeněk V. David and David R. Holeton (Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Main library, 2002), pp. 127–41 ———, ‘Eschatological Elements in Jan Hus’s Ecclesiology and Their Implications for a Later Development of the Church in Bohemia’, in Verborgener Gott – verborgene Kirche? Die kenotische Theologie und ihre ekklesiologischen Implikationen’, ed. by Johannes Brosseder (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001), pp. 138–55 Emmerson, Richard Kenneth, ‘Antichrist as Anti-Saint: The Significance of Abbot Adso’s Libellus de Antichristo’, The American Benedictine Review, 30 (1979), 175–90 ———, ‘From Epistola to Sermo: The Old English Version of Adso’s Libellus de Antichristo’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 82 (1983), 1–10 Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, ed. by Jean-Yves Lacoste (New York: Routledge, 2005) Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. by Lindsay Jones (Detroit: Macmillan, 2005) Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, ed. by André Vauchez, Michael Lapidge, and Barrie Dobson (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2000) Evans, Gillian Rosemary, Bernard of Clairvaux (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) Figal, Günter, Für eine Philosophie von Freiheit und Streit: Politik, Ästhetik, Metaphysik (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1994) Finkenzeller, Josef, ‘Eschatologie’, in Lexikon der katolischen Dogmatik, ed. by Wolfgang Beinert (Freiburg: Herder 1997), pp. 137−43 Flajšhans, Václav, ‘Předmluva’, in Mistra Jana Husi sebrané spisy III. Spisy latinské 3, ed. by Milan Svoboda and Václav Flajšhans (Praha: Jos. R. Vilímek, 1904), pp. 1−6 Friberg, Timothy, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000) ** Fudge, Thomas A., Jan Hus between Time and Eternity (Lanham: Lexington, 2016) ———, ‘The Night of Antichrist: Popular Culture, Judgment and Revolution in Fifteenth-Century Bohemia’, Communio viatorum, 37.1 (1995), 33–45 Galík, Josef, Panorama české literatury: literární dějiny od počátků do současnosti (Olomouc: Rubico, 1994) Gandev, Christo N., ‘Joachimitské myšlenky v díle Matěje z Janova Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti’, Časopis Národního Muzea, 111 (1937), 1–28 Gardner, Edmund, ‘Joachim of Flora’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 8, ed. by Charles G. Herbermann (New York: Robert Appleton, 1910) Gatto, Alfredo, ‘The Life and Works of Joachim of Fiore−An Overview’, in A Companion to Joachim of Fiore, ed. by Matthias Riedl (Leiden: Brill, 2018), pp. 20−40

233

234

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gilson, Étienne, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, trans. by Alfred Howard Campbell Downes (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991) Greshake, Gisbert, ‘Eschatology’, in Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, ed. by JeanYves Lacoste (New York: Routledge, 2005), pp. 487−92 Grondin, Jean, Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) Haight, Roger, ‘Eschatology – Contemporary Issues’, in Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. by Wolfgang Beinert and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (New York: Crossroad, 1995), pp. 220−24 Hanna, Edward, ‘Purgatory’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 12, ed. by Charles G. Herbermann (New York: Robert Appleton, 1911) Harpáň, Michal, Teória literatúry, 3rd edn (Bratislava: Tigra, 2004) Herold, Vilém, ‘Kultura, vzdělanost a filozofie ve feudální společnosti XIV. a začátku XV. století’, Filosofický časopis, 37.1 (1989), 120–35 ———, ‘Philosophische Grundlagen der Eschatologie im Hussitismus’, in Ende und Vollendung, ed. by Jan A. Aertsen and Martin Pickavé, Miscellanea Mediaevalia, 29 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 735–44 ———, ‘The Spiritual Background of the Czech Reformation: Precursors of Jan Hus’, in A Companion to Jan Hus, ed. by František Šmahel and Ota Pavlíček (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 69−95 Herold, Vilém, and Milan Mráz, ‘K dialektice ideových zdrojů a společenského působení českého filozofického myšlení doby předhusitské’, Filosofický časopis, 24.1 (1976), 721–50 Hlaváček, Ivan, ‘Husovy knihy (několikero úvah o Husově bibliotéce a užívání knih)’, in Jan Hus mezi epochami, národy a konfesemi: sborník z mezinárodního sympozia konaného 22. – 26. září 1993 v Bayreuthu, ed. by Jan Blahoslav Lášek (Praha: Univerzita Karlova – Husitská teologická fakulta, 1995), pp. 90–95 ———, Středověké soupisy knih a knihoven v českých zemích (Praha: Universita Karlova, 1966) Hödl, Ludwig, ‘P. Lombardus’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, VI (München: Artemis & Winkler, 1993), cols 1977−78 Holeček, František J. ‘Eschatologická úzkost mobilizující. Změny pohledu na konec světa do středověku’, Katolický týdeník, 11 (14 March 2004), č. 11, p. 2 ———, ‘Istis ultimis temporibus… Husovo drama jako problém relativizace církevní autority v eschatologickém modelu církve? Podnět k diskusi’, Teologická reflexe, 4.1, (1998), 54–76 ———, ‘Jan Hus a proroctví Giacoma Palladiniho z Terama’, in Nový Mars Moravicus, aneb Sborník příspěvků, jež věnovali Prof. Dr Josefu Válkovi jeho žáci a přátelé k sedmdesátinám, ed. by Bronislav Chocholáč, Libor Jan, and Tomáš Knoz (Brno: Matice Moravská, 1999), pp. 111–18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, ‘“Ministri dei possunt in dampnacionem perpetuam papam male viventem detrudere…” (Hus a problém Antikrista)’, in Husitský tábor. Sborník husitského muzea – supplementum 1, ed. by Miloš Drda, František J. Holeček, Zdeněk Vybíral (Tábor: Husitské muzeum v Táboře – Albis International Kristiny Kaiserové v Ústí nad Labem, 2001), pp. 219–45 Holeton, David R., ‘Revelation and Revolution in Late Medieval Bohemia’, Communio viatorum, 36.1 (1994), 29–45 Hrabák, Josef, Jedenáct století (Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1982) Hrdlička, Jaroslav, ‘Vlastimil Kybal’, in Slovník českých filozofů, ed. by Jiří Gabriel, Josef Krob, Helena Pavlincová, and Jan Zouhar (Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 1998), p. 323−324 Hroch, Jaroslav, Filosofická hermeneutika v dějinách a současnosti (Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2003) Hudson, Anne, Lollards and their Books (London: Hambledon, 1985) ———, ‘Lollardy and Eschatology’, in Eschatologie und Hussitismus, ed. by Alexander Patschovsky and František Šmahel (Praha: Historisches Institut, 1996), pp. 99–113 ———, The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988) Hughes, Kevin L., Constructing Antichrist (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005) Chytil, Karel, Antikrist v naukách a umění středověku a husitské obrazné antithese (Praha: Česká akademie, 1918) Jäger, Gerhard, Einführung in die Klassische Philologie (München: Beck, 1980) Jeschke, Josef B., ‘Husova věroučná závislost’, Theologia evangelica, 3 (1950), 298– 334 ———, ‘K theologickým předpokladům Husovy reformace’, in Husův sborník (Praha: Ústřední církevní nakladatelství, 1966), pp. 20–24 Kadlec, Jaroslav, Leben und Schriften des Prager Magisters Adalbert Rankonis de Ericinio (Münster: Aschendorff, 1971) ———, ‘Mistři Karlovy university jako synodální kazatelé’, published posthumously, ed. by Zdeňka Hledíková, Studie o rukopisech = Studie über Handschriften = Etudes codicologiques, XLI (2011), 246–58 Kalivoda, Robert, ‘Hus a Viklef ’, Filosofický časopis, 14 (1966), 253–62 Kaminsky, Howard, A History of Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967) Kantůrková, Eva, Jan Hus. Příspěvek k národní identitě (Praha: Ideál, 2008) Kejř, Jiří, Husovo odvolání od soudu papežova k soudu Kristovu (Ústí nad Labem: Albis International, 1999) ———, Husův proces (Praha: Vyšehrad, 2000) ———, Jan Hus známý i neznámý (Resumé knihy, která nebude napsána) (Praha: Karolinum, 2009)

235

236

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, Z počátků české reformace (Brno: L. Marek, 2006) Kestenberg-Gladstein, Ruth, ‘A Joachimite Prophecy concerning Bohemia’, The Slavonic and East European Review, 34.82 (1955), 34–55 Kienzle, Beverly Maine, ‘Introduction’ and ‘conclusion’, in The Sermon, ed. by Beverly Maine Kienzle (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), pp. 143–74 and 963–83 Kratochvíl, Zdeněk, and Jan Bouzek, Proměny interpretací (Praha: Herrmann, 1996) Kremer, Jacob, Die Zukunft der Toten: Hoffnung auf persönliche Auferstehung im Wandel der Zeiten (Leipzig: St Benno, 1990) Krmíčková, Helena, Studie a texty k počátkům kalicha v Čechách (Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 1997) ———, ‘Předchůdcové’, in Pro defensa veritatis evangelice, ed. by Helena Krmíčková (Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2015), pp. 7−30 Kučera, Zdeněk, ‘Ekklesiologický výklad posledního soudu – pokus o porozumění Janu Husovi’, in Jan Hus mezi epochami, národy a konfesemi: sborník z mezinárodního sympozia konaného 22. – 26. září 1993 v Bayreuthu, ed. by Jan Blahoslav Lášek (Praha: Univerzita Karlova – Husitská teologická fakulta, 1995), pp. 147–53 ———, ‘Eschatologische Ekklesiologie bei Johannes Hus’, in Ökumenismus im Wandel, ed. by Johann Marte and Gerhard Wilfliger (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 2001), pp. 174–79 ———, ‘Husova nauka o predestinaci’, in Husitský tábor. Sborník husitského muzea – supplementum 1, ed. by Miloš Drda, František J. Holeček, and Zdeněk Vybíral (Tábor: Albis International, 2001), pp. 209–18 ———, ‘Pokus o porozumění Janu Husovi. Ekleziologický výklad posledního soudu’, Teologické texty. Časopis pro teologii a službu církve: Jan Hus a ekumena, 8.3 (1997), 80–83 Kybal, Vlastimil, ‘Matěj z Janova a M. Jakoubek ze Stříbra’, Český časopis historický, 11 (1905), 22–37 ———, M. Jan Hus: život a učení, 2, I–III (Praha: Laichter, 1923–1931) La Due, William J., The Trinity Guide to Eschatology (New York: Continuum, 2004) Lahey, Stephen E., ‘Matěj of Janov: Corpus Mysticum, Communionem, and the Lost Treatise of His Regulae’, Religions 9.1 (2018), 16, pp. 1−21 [accessed 9 January 2018] ———, John Wyclif (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) ———, ‘The Sentences Commentary of Jan Hus’, in A Companion to Jan Hus, ed. by František Šmahel and Ota Pavlíček (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2015), pp. 130−169 ———, ‘Wyclif in Bohemia’, in A Companion to the Hussites, ed. by Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup (Leiden: Brill, 2020), pp. 63−98 Lanczkowski, Günter, ‘Eschatologie – Religionsgeschichtlich’, in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 3, ed. by Josef Hofer and Karl Rahner (Freiburg: Herder, 1959), no. 1083

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lambert, Malcolm, ‘Die Häresie der Zeit’, in Jan Hus – Zwischen Zeiten, Völkern, Konfessionen. Vorträge des internationalen Symposions in Bayreuth vom 22. bis 26. September 1993, ed. by Ferdinand Seibt (München: Oldenbourg, 1997), pp. 59–66 ———, Předhusitské hereze, trans. by Martin Wernisch, Theologická revue: náboženský dvouměsíčník Husitské teologické fakulty University Karlovy v Praze, 65.6 (1994) 88–90. ———, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992) Lášek, Jan Blahoslav, Kristův svědek Mistr Jan Hus (Praha: Blahoslav, 1991) ———, ‘Slovo na úvod’, in Jan Hus mezi epochami, národy a konfesemi: sborník z mezinárodního sympozia konaného 22. – 26. září 1993 v Bayreuthu, ed. by Jan Blahoslav Lášek (Praha: Česká křesťanská akademie, 1995), pp. 12–15 Le Goff, Jacques, La naissance du Purgatoire (Paris: Gallimard, 1981) Lenz, Antonín, ‘Učení katolické o Antikristovi, o theologických domněnkách stran jeho osoby i konání jeho, a učení Petra Chelčického o těchže předmětech’, Vlasť: časopis pro poučení a zábavu, 12 (1895−96), 423–30, 519–29, 625–35, 729–37, 832–39 Lerner, Robert E., ‘Millenialism’, in The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, 2, Apocalypticism in Western History and Culture, ed. by Bernard McGinn (New York: Continuum, 2000), pp. 326−360 ———, ‘“Popular Justice”: Rupescissa in Hussite Bohemia’, in Eschatologie und Hussitismus, ed. by Alexander Patschovsky and František Šmahel (Praha: Historisches Institut, 1996), pp. 39–49 Levy, Ian Ch., ‘Wyclif and the Christian Life’, in A Companion to John Wyclif: Late Medieval Theologian, ed. by Ian Ch. Levy (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 293−363 Lexikon der Katolischen Dogmatik, ed. by Beinert. Wolfgang (Freiburg: Herder, 1997) Liddell, Henry G., and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) Lochman, Jan Milíč, ‘Eschatologický náboj české reformace’, in Evangelikální fórum. Sborník evangelikálních teologů. Eschatologie, 2, ed. by Jiří Lukl (Praha: Sdružení evangelikálních teologů, 2000), pp. 15–23 Maas, A. ‘Antichrist’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1, ed. by Charles G. Herbermann (New York: Robert Appleton, 1901) Macek, Josef, ‘Historická sémantika’, Český časopis historický, 89.1 (1991), 1–30 Machovec, Milan, ‘Jan Hus’, in Slovník českých filozofů, ed. by Jiří Gabriel, Josef Krob, Helena Pavlincová, and Jan Zouhar (Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 1998), pp. 210−11 Malý, Karel, ‘Mistr Jan Hus a Univerzita Karlova’, in Husitský Tábor. Sborník husitského muzea – supplementum 1, ed. by Miloš Drda, František J. Holeček, and Zdeněk Vybíral (Ústí nad Labem: Albis International, 2001), pp. 395–403

237

238

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Manselli, Raoul, ‘Cola di Rienzo’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, III (München: Artemis & Winkler, 1995), cols 26–28 ———, Georg Jenschke, and Walter Ullmann, ‘Antichrist – Theologie und Politik – I. Christentum’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, I (München: Artemis & Winkler, 1980), cols 703−05 Marin, Olivier, ‘Libri hereticorum sunt legendi: svoboda výuky na pražské univerzitě (1373–1412)’, trans. by Alena Niklová, an abridged German version on pp. 57−58, Acta Univeristatis Carolinae, Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis, XLII, 1–2 (2002), 33–58 ———, L’archevêque, le maître et le dévot: genèses du mouvement réformateur pragois: années 1360−1419 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2005) ———, ‘The Early Bohemian Reform’, in A Companion to the Hussites, ed. by Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup (Leiden: Brill, 2020), pp. 25−62 Maur, Eduar, ‘Příspěvek historického demografa k objasnění počátku lidového kacířství na Táborsku’, in Husitský Tábor, 4 (Tábor: Muzeum husitského revolučního hnutí, 1981), pp. 101–06 ———, ‘Příspěvek k demografické problematice předhusitských Čech’, Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et historica, Studia Historica, XXXIV (1989), 7–71 Mazalová, Lucie, Eschatologie v díle Jana Husa, Spisy Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity, 432 (Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2015) ———, ‘“Neb čert čertu oka nevykline”. Příspěvek ke srovnání Husovy eschatologie v kázáních “ad populum” a kázáních “ad clerum”’, Studia historica Brunensia, 62.1 (2015), 249−66 ———, ‘“Non sedit super equum fervidum, sed super asinam”: Concerning One of Jan Hus’s Antitheses in His Czech Postilla’, in Filosofický časopis, The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, 66.1 (Special Issue, 2018), pp. 37‒ 49 ———, Radost a strach v počátcích české reformace (unpublished master’s thesis, Masaryk University, Brno, 2005) Mazalová, Lucie, and Zuzana Lukšová, ‘Gradus summus et animus infimus: The contrast between ideas of the ideal priest and the real priest in Prague synodal sermons’, Medieval Sermon Studies, 64.1 (2020), 48–65 McGinn, Bernard, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000) ———, ‘Apocalypticism and Church Reform: 1100−1500’, in The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, 2, Apocalypticism in Western History and Culture, ed. by Bernard McGinn (New York: Continuum, 2000), pp. 74−109 ———, Apocalyptic Spirituality. Treatises and Letters of Lactantius, Adso of Montieren-Der, Joachim of Fiore, The Spiritual Franciscans, Savonarola (New York: Paulist, 1979)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, ‘St Bernard and Eschatology’, in Bernard of Clairvaux: Studies Presented to Dom Jean Leclerq (Washington: Cistercian publications, 1973), pp. 161–85 ———, ‘The Apocalyptic Imagination in the Middle Ages’, in Ende und Vollendung: eschatologische Perspektiven im Mittelalter, ed. by Jan A. Aertsen and Martin Pickavé (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002), pp. 79–94 Mezník, Jaroslav, ‘Mor z roku 1380 a příčiny husitské revoluce’, Český časopis historický, 93.4 (1995), 702–09 Michálek, Emanuel, ‘Antikrist – klíčové slovo v jazyce doby husitské’, in Sborník Muzea husitského revolučního hnutí 4 (Tábor: Muzeum husitského revolučního hnutí, 1981), pp. 110–12 Mikulášek, Miroslav, Umění interpretace “Techné hermeneutiké” (Banská Bystrica: Univerzita Mateja Bela v Banskej Bystrici, 2009) Mojsejová, Kateřina, ‘Karel Chytil’, Akademický bulletin 7–8 (2007) [accessed 28 September 2020] Molnár, Amedeo, ‘Endzeit und Reformation’, Heidelberger Jahrbücher, 9 (1965), 73–80 ———, ‘Eschatologická naděje české reformace’, in Od reformace k zítřku (Praha: Synodní rada českobratrské církve evangelické, 1956), pp. 13–101 ———, ‘Eschatologická nadějnost počínající české reformace’, Křesťanská revue, 21.6 (1954), 182–85 ———, Husovo místo v evropské reformaci, Československý časopis historický, 14 (1966), 1–14 ———, ‘Husovo odvolání ke Kristu’, in Husův sborník, ed. by Rudolf Říčan (Praha: Ústřední církevní nakladatelství, 1966), pp. 73–83 ———, ‘K otázce reformační iniciativy lidu. Svědectví husitského kázání’, in Příspěvky k dějinám utrakvismu, Acta reformationem Bohemicam illustrantia, I, ed. Amedeo Molnár (Praha: Kalich, 1978), pp. 5–44 ———, ‘Poslední věci v pohledu Jakoubka ze Stříbra’, Theologická příloha Křesťanské revue, 22 (1955), 38–42 ———, Valdenští: evropský rozměr jejich vzdoru (Praha: Ústřední církevní nakladatelství, 1973) Morée, Peter C. A., Preaching in Fourteenth-Century Bohemia (Heršpice: EMAN, 1999) Munteanu, Ioana, ‘La joie dans la poésie d’Hildegarde de Bingen’, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch, 33 (1998), 81–132 Murphy, George L., ‘Hints from Science for Eschatology – and Vice Versa’, in The Last Things: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Eschatology ed. by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2002), pp. 146–68

239

240

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mutlová, Petra, ‘Communicating Texts through Images: Nicholas of Dresden’s Tabule’, in Public Communication in European Reformation: Artistic and Other Media in Central Europe 1380–1620 (Praha: Artefactum, AV ČR, 2007), pp. 29–37 ———, ‘Na okraji společnosti: valdenští a husité’, in Humanitas Latina in Bohemis, ed. by Giorgio Cadorini and Jiří Špička (Kolín, Treviso: Albis, Girogio Cadorini, 2007), pp. 51–59 ———, ‘Radicals and Heretics: Rethinking the Dresden School in Prague’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central European University, Department of Medieval Studies, Budapest 2010) ———, ‘Vybrané prameny k existenci drážďanské školy’, in Querite primum regnum Dei, ed. by Helena Krmíčková, Anna Pumprová, Dana Růžičková, and Libor Švanda (Brno: Matice moravská, 2006), pp. 353–60 Nechutová, Jana, ‘Bernard z Clairvaux v díle Mikuláše z Drážďan’, in Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, E10 (Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně, 1965), pp. 313–20 ———, ‘Eschatologie in Böhmen vor Hus’, in Eschatologie und Hussitismus, ed. by Alexander Patschovsky and František Šmahel (Praha: Historisches Institut, 1996), pp. 61–72 ———, ‘Gioacchino da Fiore ed i principi della riforma Boema (Considerazioni sulle origini dei fattori non ortodossi nel sistema del Maestro Mattia di Janov’, in Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, E 14 (Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně, 1969), pp. 229–33 ———, ‘Hus a eschatologie’, in Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské univerzity, E13 (Brno: Universita J. E. Purkyně, 1968), pp. 179–87 ———, ‘Husovo kázání “Dixit Martha” a Mikuláše z Drážďan traktát “De purgatorio”’, Listy filologické, 88 (1965), 147–57 ———, Latinská literatura českého středověku do roku 1400 (Praha: Vyšehrad, 2000) ———, ‘Matěj z Janova – M. Jan Hus?’, in Husitský Tábor. Sborník husitského muzea – supplementum 1, ed. by Miloš Drda, František J. Holeček, and Zdeněk Vybíral (Ústí nad Labem: Albis International, 2001), pp. 71–79 ———, ‘Reform- und Bussprediger von Waldhauser bis Hus’, in Kirchliche Reformimpulse des 14./15. Jahrhunderts in Ostmitteleuropa, ed. by Winfried Eberhard and Franz Machilek (Köln: Böhlau, 2006), pp. 239–54 ———, ‘Středověká eschatologie jako víra v lepší budoucnost světa’, Universitas: Revue Univerzity Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Brně, 1.4 (1968), 1–12 ———, Středověká latina (Praha: KLP, 2002) ———, ‘Vzdělanost a křesťanské učení’, in Aurelius Augustinus, Křesťanská vzdělanost. De doctrina christiana (Praha: Vyšehrad, 2004), pp. 11−36 Nodl, Martin, Dekret kutnohorský (Praha: Lidové noviny, 2010)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, ‘Strach, ďábel a muka pekelná českého středověku’, in Delumeau, Jean, Strach na Západě ve 14. – 18. století. Obležená obec I, trans. by Jana SmutnáLemonnierová (Praha: Argo, 1997), pp. 274−288 ———, ‘The Hussites and the Bohemian Reformation’, in From Hus to Luther: Visual Culture in the Bohemian Reformation (1380−1620), ed. by Kateřina Horníčková and Michal Šroněk, Medieval Church Studies, 33 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2016), pp. 17−46 Novotný, Adolf, Biblický slovník (Praha: Kalich, 1992) Novotný, Václav, M. Jan Hus: život a učení, I, 1–2 (Praha: Laichter, 1919–1921) Ntedika, Joseph, L’Évocation de l’au-delà dans prière pour les morts. Étude de patristique et de liturgie latines (IVe – VIIIe siècle) (Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1971) Oberman, Heiko A., ‘Hus und Luther. Der Antichrist und die zweite reformatorische Entdeckung’, in Jan Hus – Zwischen Zeiten, Völkern, Konfessionen. Vorträge des internationalen Symposions in Bayreuth vom 22. bis 26. September 1993, ed. by Ferdinand Seibt (München: Oldenbourg, 1997), pp. 319–46 Ohler, Norbert, Sterben und Tod im Mittelalter (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2004) Ott, Michael, ‘Jacobus de Teramo’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 8, ed. by Charles G. Herbermann (New York: Robert Appleton, 1910) Pásztor, Edith, ‘Joachim v. Fiore’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, V, (München: Artemis &Winkler, 1991), cols 485–87 Patschovsky, Alexander, ‘“Antichrist” bei Wyclif ’, in Eschatologie und Hussitismus, ed. by Alexander Patschovsky and František Šmahel (Praha: Historisches Institut, 1996), pp. 83–98 Pavlíček, Ota, ‘Wyclif ’s Early Reception in Bohemia and His Influence on the Thought of Jerome of Prague’, in Europe after Wyclif, ed. by J. Patrick Hornbeck II and Michael van Dussen (New York: Fordham University Press, 2017), pp. 89−114 ———, ‘The Chronology of the Life and Work of Jan Hus’, in A Companion to Jan Hus, ed. by František Šmahel and Ota Pavlíček (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 9−68 Pekař, Josef, Žižka a jeho doba I (Praha: Vesmír, 1927) Pinc, Zdeněk, ‘Mistr Jan Hus v zápase mezi Kristem a Antikristem. Duchovní člověk nebo intelektuál?’, Lidé města – revue pro antropologii, etnologii a etologii komunikace, 9.2–3 (21) (2007), 304–15 Pohle, Joseph, ‘Dogmatic Theology’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 14, ed. by Charles G. Herbermann (New York: Robert Appleton, 1912) Pokorný, Petr, Hermeneutika jako teorie porozumění: od základních otázek jazyka k výkladu bible (Praha: Vyšehrad, 2006) Polc, Jaroslav V., ‘Duchovní proudy v Čechách ve XIV. století’, in Husitský Tábor. Sborník husitského muzea – supplementum 1, ed. Miloš Drda, František J. Holeček, and Zdeněk Vybíral (Ústí nad Labem: Albis International, 2001), pp. 59–69 Polc, Jaroslav V., and Zdeňka Hledíková, Pražské synody a koncily předhusitské doby (Praha: Karolinum, 2002)

241

242

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Potestà, Gian Luca, ‘Radical Apocalyptic Movements in the Late Middle Ages’, in The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, 2, Apocalypticism in Western History and Culture, ed. by Bernard McGinn (New York: Continuum, 2000), pp. 110−142 Preuss, Hans, Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im spätern Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906) Ransdorf Miloslav, Kapitoly z geneze husitské ideologie (Praha: Videopress MON, 1986) Ratzinger, Joseph, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, trans. by Michael Waldstein (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1988) Rauh, Horst D., Das Bild des Antichrist im Mittelalter: Von Tyconius zum Deutschen Symbolismus (Münster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1973) Reeves, Marjorie, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study in Joachimism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969) Rejchrtová, Noemi, ‘Amedeo Molnár historik a teolog “reformace”’, in Ročenka Evangelické teologické fakulty Univerzity Karlovy 1996–1999, ed. by Petr Macek (Praha: ETF UK, 1999), pp. 43–53 Rowland, Charles, Christian Origins: An Account of the Setting and Character of the Most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985) Rudge, Florence Marie, ‘John of Roquetaillade (de Rupescissa)’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 8, ed. by Charles G. Herbermann (New York: Robert Appleton, 1910) Scase, Wendy, ‘Lollardy’, in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, ed. by David Bagchi and David C. Steinmetz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 15–21 Schaffczyk, Leo, and Bernward Deneke, ‘Fegfeuer’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, IV, (München: Artemis & Winkler, 1989), cols 328–31 Schmidt, Lawrence K., Understanding Hermeneutics (Stockfield: Acumen, 2006) Schwarz, Hans, Eschatology (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000) Scribner, Robert W., For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) Sedlák, Jan, ‘Mikuláš z Drážďan’, Hlídka: měsíčník vědecký se zvláštním zřetelem k apologetice a filosofii, 31 (1914), 35–39, 122–26, 204–09, 291–93, 349–52, 445–49, 540–43, 619–26, 697–701, 760–64, 824–26, 898–901 ———, M. Jan Hus, 2nd edn (Olomouc: Matice cyrilometodějská s. r. o., 1996) Segl, Peter, ‘Schisma, Krise, Häresie und Schwarzer Tod’, in Jan Hus – Zwischen Zeiten, Völkern, Konfessionen. Vorträge des internationalen Symposions in Bayreuth vom 22. bis 26. September 1993, ed. by Ferdinand Seibt (München: Oldenbourg, 1997), pp. 27–38 Seibt, Ferdinand, ‘Die Hussitische Revolution als europäisches Modell’, in Jan Hus und die Hussiten in europäischen Aspekten (Trier: Karl-Marx-Haus, 1987), pp. 29–41 ———, ‘Zu einem neuen Begriff von der Krise des Spätmittelalters’, in Europa 1400. Die Krise des Spätmittelalters, ed. by Ferdinand Seibt (Stuttgart: KlettCotta, 1984), pp. 7–23

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Seifert, Joseph, ‘Pravda jako fundament svobody a svědomí (K etice Jana Husa)’, in Husitský tábor. Sborník husitského muzea – supplementum 1, ed. by Miloš Drda, František J. Holeček, and Zdeněk Vybíral (Tábor: Husitské muzeum v Táboře – Albis International, 2001), pp. 281–99 Selge, Kurt-Victor, ‘Handschriften Joachims von Fiore in Böhmen’. in Eschatologie und Hussitismus, ed. by Alexander Patschovsky and František Šmahel (Praha: Historisches Institut, 1996), pp. 53–60 Skalický, Karel, ‘Církev Kristova a církev Antikristova v teologii Matěje z Janova’, in Mistr Matěj z Janova ve své a v naší době. Sborník z vědeckého symposia, konaného na Teologické fakultě Jihočeské univerzity 29. – 30. listopadu 2000, ed. by Karel Skalický and Jan Blahoslav Lášek (Brno: L. Marek, 2002), pp. 47–69 Slovník latinských spisovatelů, ed. by Eva Kuťáková, Anežka Vidmanová, and Jan Janoušek (Praha: Leda, 2004) Souček, Josef Bohumil, Řecko-český slovník k Novému zákonu, 6th edn (Praha: Kalich, 2003) Soukup, Pavel, Reformní kazatelství a Jakoubek ze Stříbra (Praha: Filosofia, 2011) ———, ‘Jan Hus as a Preacher’, in A Companion to Jan Hus, ed. by František Šmahel and Ota Pavlíček (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2015), pp. 96−129 Shogimen, Takashi, ‘Wyclif ’s Ecclesiology and Political Thought’, in A Companion to John Wyclif: Late Medieval Theologian, ed. by Ian Ch. Levy (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 199−240 Spinka, Matthew, John Hus’ Concept of the Church (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966) Spiritual Information: Knowing the Unknowable about God and the Universe (2005) http://humbleapproach.templeton.org/Spiritual_Information/participants/ mcginn.html [accessed 18 October 2020] Spunar, Pavel, Repertorium auctorum Bohemorum provectum idearum post universitatem Pragensem conditam illustrans, Tomus 1, Studia Copernicana 25 (Wratislawiae: Instytut Ossolinianum, 1985) Steiner, Václav, ‘Eklesiologie Matěje z Janova v podání E. Valáška’, in Mistr Matěj z Janova ve své a v naší době. Sborník z vědeckého symposia, konaného na Teologické fakultě Jihočeské univerzity 29. – 30. listopadu 2000, ed. by Karel Skalický and Jan Blahoslav Lášek (Brno: L. Marek, 2002), pp. 112–18 Stodola, Jiří, ‘Rekonstruktivní hermeneutika jako obecná metodologie informační vědy’, ProInflow, 3.1 (2011), 19−50 18 October 2020] Swanson, James, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997) ** Szondi, Peter, Introduction to Literary Hermeneutics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) Šmahel, František, ‘Das Purgatorium sompniatum in der hussitischen Topographie des Jenseits’, in Eschatologie und Hussitismus, ed. by Alexander Patschovsky and František Šmahel (Praha: Historisches Institut, 1996), pp. 115–38 ———, Dějiny Tábora I, 1 (České Budějovice: Jihočeské nakladatelství, 1988)

243

244

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———, Husitská revoluce. 2, Kořeny české reformace, 2nd edn (Praha: Karolinum, 1996) ———, Husitské Čechy. Struktury, procesy, ideje (Praha: Nakladatelství lidové noviny, 2008) ———, Jan Hus. Život a dílo (Praha: Argo, 2013) ———, Jeroným Pražský (Praha: Svobodné slovo, 1966) ———, Život a dílo Jeronýma Pražského: zpráva o výzkumu (Praha: Argo, 2010) Švanda, Libor, ‘Husova Enarratio Psalmorum: k Husově metodě výkladu žalmů’, Studia historica Brunensia, 56.1−2 (2009), 37–47 The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, ed. by Alister E. McGrath (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993) The Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. by Charles G. Herbermann (New York: Robert Appleton, 1907–1912) ** The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1985) ** Thompson, Augustin, OP. ‘From Texts to Preaching: Retrieving the Medieval Sermon as an Event’ in Preacher, Sermon and Audience in the Middle Ages, ed. by Carolyn Muessig (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 13–36 Tichý, Ladislav, Slovník novozákonní řečtiny (Olomouc: Nakladatelství Burget, 2001) Toner, Patrick, ‘Eschatology’, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 5, ed. by Charles G. Herbermann (New York: Robert Appleton, 1909) Töpfer, Bernhard, ‘Lex Christi, dominium und kirchliche Hierarchie bei Jan Hus im Vergleich mit John Wyklif ’, in Jan Hus – Zwischen Zeiten, Völkern, Konfessionen. Vorträge des internationalen Symposions in Bayreuth vom 22. bis 26. September 1993 ed. by Ferdinand Seibt (München: Oldenbourg, 1997), pp. 157–65 Uhlíř, Zdeněk, Mistři a studenti Karlovy univerzity ve středověku a jejich dílo v dobovém kontextu (Praha: Národní knihovna České republiky, 1998) ———, ‘Poslední soud a jiný život v pozdním středověku’, in Seminář a jeho hosté. II. Sborník příspěvků k nedožitým 70. narozeninám doc. dr. Rostislava Nového (Praha: Scriptorium, 2004), pp. 35−50 ———, Středověké kazatelství v českých zemích: nástin problematiky, Almanach historyczny, 7, (2005), pp. 57−94 ———, ‘The Bohemian Reformation: Sanctity and/or Piety’, in The Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice, 5, ed. by Zdeněk V. David and David R. Holeton (Prague: Academy of Science of the Czech Republic, 2004), pp. 13−31 Vágner, Petr, ‘Hus v Oděse’, Lidé města – revue pro antropologii, etnologii a etologii komunikace, 9.2–3 (21) (2007), 302–03

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Van Dussen, Michael, From England to Bohemia. Heresy and Communication in the Later Middle Ages (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012) Vidmanová, Anežka, ‘Adso Menasteriensis’, in Slovník latinských spisovatelů, ed. by Eva Kuťáková, Anežka Vidmanová, and Jan Janoušek (Praha: Leda, 2004), pp. 69−70 Vorgrimler, Herbert, Hoffnung auf Vollendung. Aufriss der Eschatologie (Freiburg: Herder, 1980) Vyznání a obrana táborů, ed. by František M. Dobiáš and Amedeo Molnár (Praha: Academia, 1972) Wadstein, Ernest, Die eschatologische Ideengruppe: Antichrist – Weltsabbat – Weltende und Weltgericht, in den Hauptmomenten ihrer christlich-mittelalterlichen Gesamtentwickelung (Leipzig: O. R. Reisland, 1896) Wenzel, Siegfried, Medieval Artes praedicandi: A Synthesis of Scholastic Sermon Structure (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015) Wicki, Nikolaus, ‘Eschatologie – Lateinisches Mittelalter – Theologie’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, IV (München: Artemis & Winkler, 1989), cols 4−6 Zitte, Augustin, Lebensbeschreibung der drey auszeichnesten Vorläufer des berühmten M. Johannes Hus von Hussinecz benanntlich: des Konrad Stiekna, Johannes Milicz und Mathias von Janov; nebst einer kurzen Uebersicht der böhmischen Religionsgeschichte bis auf seine Zeit (Prag: Wolfgang Gerle, 1789)

245

Index

abomination of desolation: 111, 117, 119, 121, 152, 159 adinvenciones hominum: 128 Adso of Montièr-en-Der (Menasteriensis): 98, 99, 176 De ortu et tempore Antichristi: 98, 99 angels: 43, 89, 125, 166, 200 angelus. See angels Antichrist: 19, 20, 22−32, 46, 47, 51−53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 62−69, 71, 74, 75, 84, 90, 97−189, 202, 210, 215, 216, 218, 220, 221 Antichristus mysticus: 168, 173 Antichristus summus: 168, 187 caput Antichristi: 175 antichristeitas: 175 antitheses: 19, 62, 97, 109, 122−24, 131, 135, 165, 166, 177, 187 apocalyptic: 22, 27, 31, 32, 46, 47, 66, 73, 90, 98, 101, 130, 133, 141, 172, 174, 182, 215, 217, 223 apocalypticism: 31, 46, 47, 66, 98, 101 Aristotle: 25, 28, 44, 78−81, 85 ars moriendi: 64 baptism: 88, 114, 156 Bartoš, František M.: 9, 52, 157 Bernard of Clairvaux: 29, 77, 101, 112, 113, 116, 121, 122, 149, 159, 165, 167, 171, 180, 213 bestia: 115, 125, 130, 166, 207 Bethlehem Chapel: 21−23, 67, 92−95, 133, 134, 141, 142 Bible, study of: 78, 83, 84

Black Death. See plague books of Aristotle: 78, 79, 81 of the Maccabees: 97, 193, 194, 201, 206, 209, 210 of Wycliffe: 79−82, 94, 132, 134, 135, 138, 148, 167 burning of Wycliffe’s books: 132, 134 Bosom of Abraham: 46 Bousset, Wilhelm: 109 Calov, Abraham: 37, 213 Cermanová, Pavlína: 31 Charles University: 29, 30, 44, 45, 55, 62, 77−80, 83, 84, 90, 94, 95, 132–35, 139, 152 Chytil, Karel: 19, 20, 176 communion: 148, 160, 174, 188 councils, ecclesiastical Lateran: 43, 45, 48, 114 of Constance: 18, 21, 31–32, 67, 95, 146, 219, 220. See also Jan Hus: correspondence of Lyon: 45, 46, 194, 195 of Pisa: 133 of Trent: 195 crisis factors: 71−77, 118, 162, 221 Čechura, Jaroslav: 73 Čornej, Petr: 73 de Vooght, Paul: 187−189, 205, 208 death: 37, 46, 64, 69, 70, 74, 75, 192, 210, 213, 214, 218, 219, 221 of Hus: 19, 21, 31, 32, 54, 62, 63, 148, 150, 152

248

INDEX

devil: 74, 103, 108, 139, 163, 166, 175, 178, 180, 183, 187 diabolus: 108, 110, 115, 125, 179, 180, 183, 207, 215 dies irae: 47, 215, 221 Dolejšová, Ivana: 29, 222 ecclesiology: 24−29, 31, 167, 174, 188, 220 education: 44, 71, 77−80 eschatology definition: 36−38 medieval Christian: 41−47 eucharist: 68, 94, 106, 115, 175, 185, 201, 215, 221 exemplum: 197 Faculty of Arts: 30, 77−79, 81, 83 Faculty of Theology: 77, 83, 84, 138, 144 fire: 87, 89, 90, 135, 146, 166, 170, 196, 200, 209, 214 Flajšhans, Václav: 79 Fudge, Thomas A.: 32−33 funerals: 64, 86, 113, 114, 191, 193, 198, 199, 201−04, 206, 207, 210 Gadamer, Hans-Georg: 34 Giovanni Scrivani da Piacenza: 66 Gregory the Great: 116, 122, 149, 150, 163, 165, 167, 184, 197, 198, 208, 209 hell: 20, 42, 45, 46, 66, 74, 87, 89, 197, 213, 214, 217, 222 hermeneutics: 25, 34 Herold, Vilém: 79, 81, 164 Holeček, František: 26−28, 51, 75, 99, 127 Hus. See Jan Hus imitating Christ: 106−08, 123, 160, 183 imitatio Christi. See imitating Christ

indulgences: 113, 138, 207 inventions, human: 171, 174, 175, 188. See also adinvenciones hominum Jacobus de Teramo: 27, 66, 134 Jakoubek of Stříbro Factum est ut moreretur mendicus: 63, 209, 210 Mgri Jacobi de Misa defensio libri Decalogi Mgri Johannis Wiklef: 135 Posicio de Anticristo: 63, 137, 184−86, 188 Jan Hus Abiciamus opera tenebrarum: 23, 103, 109, 117, 155, 159, 165, 169, 179, 180, 182 appeal to Christ: 30, 32, 134, 139, 217 as a martyr: 21, 24−28, 33, 63, 84, 127, 140, 142, 145, 153, 160, 219 as a philosopher: 29, 35, 78, 82 as a preacher: 82, 83, 91, 92, 94, 105, 106, 223 Confirmate corda vestra: 133, 192, 213, 215, 218 Contra octo doctores: 28, 145 Contra Stanislaum de Znoyma: 145 correspondence: 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32, 107, 109, 127−53, 186, 197, 213, 216, 219, 220 Česká kázání sváteční: 23, 100, 107, 145, 180, 215 Česká nedělní postila: 124 De ecclesia: 20, 22, 25, 27−29, 31, 107, 145, 149, 163, 169 De sanguine Christi glorificato: 23, 31, 104, 112, 116, 159 De sanguine Christi sub specie vini: 149

INDEX

De sufficientia legis Christi: 149 Diliges Dominum Deum: 17, 27, 28, 103−13, 119−24, 133, 159, 169, 177, 178, 181, 184, 214 Dixit Martha ad Iesum: 17, 20, 26, 88, 191−210 Enarratio Psalmorum: 21, 84, 142 Replica ad scripta M. Stephani Palecz: 145 Responsiones ad articulos Palecz: 20, 149 Responsiones ad articulos Wyclef: 20 Responsiones ad deposiciones testium: 67 Responsiones breves ad articulos ultimos: 67 Sermo de pace: 28, 31, 149 Spiritum nolite extinguere: 133, 135, 159, 215 State succincti: 17, 104, 105, 108−10, 116, 118, 121, 122, 124, 125, 129, 132, 155, 158, 159, 162, 163, 169, 179−82, 214, 215 Super canonicas: 21, 23, 83, 101, 102, 106, 109−11, 159, 162 Super IV Sententiarum: 87−89, 120, 156, 193, 195, 196, 198– 200, 202, 206 Vos estis sal terrae: 135 Jan of Jenštejn: 62, 69, 70, 77 Jan of Jesenice: 134, 143 Jan of Nepomuk: 99 Jan Protiva: 99, 133 Joachim of Fiore: 48, 49, 50−53, 59, 66, 173, 174 Joachimites: 50−52, 66, 173, 174 Johlín of Vodňany: 55 John of Rupescissa: 48, 49, 52, 56, 57, 59, 68, 70, 74, 157

judgement, final: 46, 48, 61, 75, 87, 90, 100, 119, 133, 155, 156, 163, 169, 182, 185, 209, 213, 215, 218 Julian of Toledo: 43 Kantůrková, Eva: 30 Kejř, Jiří: 32, 92, 133, 142 Konrad Waldhauser: 50, 61, 113, 174, 219 Kozí Hrádek: 54, 146 Krakovec: 146 Kučera, Zdeněk: 24, 25, 28, 76 Kutná Hora Decree: 132 Kybal, Vlastimil: 9, 20, 21, 33, 170, 186, 189 Last Judgement. See judgement, final law of Christ: 65, 139, 177 lex Christi. See law of Christ locus merendi: 197, 202 locus meriti: 197 Lochman, Jan Milíč: 60, 61, 160 Lollards: 48, 49, 58, 59 masses: 63, 133, 138, 183, 198, 199, 201, 204, 206, 210 Matěj of Janov Regulae Veteris et Novi Testamenti: 53, 62, 63, 65, 135, 167−76, 185, 209 Matouš of Cracow: 60, 64, 92, 113, 132 McGinn, Bernard: 28, 29, 46, 113, 221 merits: 197, 200, 202, 206, 207, 210 method, literary: 35 Mezník, Jaroslav: 72 Milíč of Kroměříž Epistula ad papam Urbanum V.: 61, 74, 160 Iohannis Milicii de Cremsir tres sermones synodales: 164−65

249

250

INDEX

Libellus de Antichristo: 61, 62, 157–59, 161−66, 169, 171, 172, 176, 187 Sermo de die novissimo: 61, 157 millenarianism: 22, 23, 27, 30, 51, 98, 185, 217, 223 Molnár, Amedeo: 21−24, 29, 32, 52, 54, 55, 59−62, 160, 185, 217, 223 Morée, Peter C. A.: 160, 162 Mráz, Milan: 79, 164 Munteanu, Ioana: 221 Nechutová, Jana: 9, 22, 23, 32, 47, 51−53, 61, 62, 68, 69, 100, 132, 167, 185, 205, 221, 223 Nicolaus von Bibrach: 218 Nicholas of Dresden: 55, 81, 86, 113, 124, 153, 205−09 Tabule veteris et novi coloris: 19, 124 De purgatorio: 153, 205−08 Nicholas of Pelhřimov: 59, 194, 208, 209 novissima: 36, 37, 44, 101, 102, 155, 166, 169, 172, 180, 182, 192, 207, 213, 220 Novotný, Václav: 77, 82, 86, 88, 91 Oberman, Heiko A.: 24, 25, 26, 28 Oldcastle, John: 128, 131 Ondřej of Brod: 184 Testimonium Christi confirmatum est in vobis: 184 paradise: 46, 197 Patschovsky, Alexander: 120, 182 Peter Lombard: 18, 26, 43−45, 77, 79, 81, 83−88, 90, 133, 155, 156, 193, 200, 213 philosophy: 25, 29, 34, 38, 77−79, 81, 82 Pinc, Zdeněk: 29, 30 plague: 57, 67, 72−76, 116, 118, 163, 215, 221

pope: 28, 32, 53, 57, 59, 61, 63, 66−67, 94, 107, 114, 119, 124, 132−34, 137−39, 143−45, 149, 151, 157, 162−64, 167, 174, 178, 179, 184, 187, 188, 221 prayers for the dead: 191, 193, 195−201, 203−08, 210 preaching, ban on: 128, 132, 134, 136−38, 146 tradition: 61, 81, 92, 93, 99, 107, 215, 218 predecessors of Jan Hus: 35, 49, 59−62, 65, 68−70, 79, 82, 92, 113, 209, 220, 221 predestination: 25−28, 32, 65, 77, 87, 188, 189, 197, 220 Prokop of Pilsen: 135 prophecy of Daniel: 57, 67, 157, 163 of Giacomo Palladini da Teramo: 27, 66, 67, 134 of Hildegard: 77 of Pseudo-Joachim: 49, 53 Prophecia abbatis Joachim de regno Bohemie: 67 Sibylline oracle: 68 super flumina: 67 Vaticinium angelicum Cyrilii: 67 Pseudochristus: 104, 109, 110, 116, 122, 175 Pseudo-Chrysostomus: 86, 161, 186, 208 punishment: 42, 45, 73−75, 87, 134, 194, 195, 200, 214, 221 purgatory: 20, 26, 45, 46, 53, 55, 62, 63, 74, 80, 86−89, 153, 177, 191−210 Ratzinger, Joseph: 47 resurrection: 20, 37, 41, 43−46, 85, 87 salvation: 51, 83, 85, 91, 104, 107, 128, 136, 138, 147, 158, 160, 170,

INDEX

172, 174, 193, 196, 202, 205, 206, 208, 210, 213, 215, 218, 220, 222–24 Sathanas: 115, 131, 144, 179 second coming of Christ: 17, 20, 21, 42, 66, 69, 150, 221 Sedlák, Jan: 94, 99, 179, 183, 193, 201 Segl, Peter: 71 Seibt, Ferdinand: 71 semantics, historical: 34 sermons synodal: 18, 97−125, 129, 132, 133, 158, 159, 162, 164−66, 170, 183 university: 18, 103, 159, 165, 191, 192, 213, 215 schism: 57, 67, 71−73, 75−77, 81, 84, 101, 102, 105, 106, 109, 116−18, 132, 152, 159, 166, 168, 171, 174, 175, 187, 219, 221 schismatici. See schismatics schismatics: 111, 119, 166 sin mortal: 87, 169, 217 venial: 194, 196, 197 Skalický, Karel: 174, 62 Stanislav of Znojmo: 64, 79, 90, 94, 95, 143, 146, 183 Šmahel, František: 9, 26, 51, 73−76, 94 tempus Antichristi: 98, 111, 120, 123, 156, 187 tempus novissimum: 84, 101, 102, 172 Tertullian: 196 Thomas Aquinas: 196, 198, 200 threats: 47, 74, 97, 99, 106, 115, 169, 213−15, 220, 224 timing: 72, 157, 162, 166, 171, 180, 187, 218, 221

tristega domus: 206 Tychonius: 168 Uhlíř, Zdeněk: 79, 80, 92 Václav IV: 73, 76 Vehemoth: 131, 175 Waldensians: 23, 48, 49, 53−56, 59, 68, 71 William of Saint Amour: 62, 167, 169 wills: 201, 204, 206, 210 Wycliffe, John Confortamini in Domino et in potencia virtutis eius: 180 De Christo et adversario suo Antichristo: 177 Dixit Martha ad Jesum: 62, 191, 201–03, 210 Hora est iam nos de somno surgere: 179 Induamur arma lucis: 180, 182 Nisi habundaverit iusticia vestra plus quam scribarum et phariseorum: 119, 120, 123 Nos autem fratres secundum Isaac promissionis filii sumus: 182 Omne quod dat mihi pater ad me veniet: 191, 192, 199, 203, 204, 206, 207, 210 Sanatus est puer in illa hora: 182 Tractatus De potestate pape: 121 Vinum non habent: 181 Wyche, Richard: 31, 128, 129, 131, 136 Zbyněk, archbishop: 67, 94, 105, 132−35

251

Europa Sacra

All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without con‐ flicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field.

Titles in Series Religious and Laity in Western Europe, 1000-1400: Interaction, Negotiation, and Power, ed. by Emilia Jamroziak and Janet E. Burton (2007) Anna Ysabel d’Abrera, The Tribunal of Zaragoza and Crypto-Judaism: 1484–1515 (2008) Cecilia Hewlett, Rural Communities in Renaissance Tuscany: Religious Identities and Local Loyalties (2009) Charisma and Religious Authority: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Preaching, 1200– 1500, ed. by Katherine L. Jansen and Miri Rubin (2010) Communities of Learning: Networks and the Shaping of Intellectual Identity in Europe, 1100-1500, ed. by Constant J. Mews and John N. Crossley (2011) Alison Brown, Medicean and Savonarolan Florence: The Interplay of Politics, Humanism, and Religion (2012) Faith’s Boundaries: Laity and Clergy in Early Modern Confraternities, ed. by Nicholas Terpstra, Adriano Prosperi, and Stefania Pastore (2013) Late Medieval and Early Modern Ritual: Studies in Italian Urban Culture, ed. by Samuel Cohn Jr., Marcello Fantoni, Franco Franceschi, and Fabrizio Ricciardelli (2013) Thomas A. Fudge, The Memory and Motivation of Jan Hus, Medieval Priest and Martyr (2013) Clare Monagle, Orthodoxy and Controversy in Twelfth-Century Religious Discourse: Peter Lombard’s ‘Sentences’ and the Development of Theology (2013) Darius von Güttner-Sporzyński, Poland, Holy War, and the Piast Monarchy, 1100– 1230 (2014)

Tomas Zahora, Nature, Virtue, and the Boundaries of Encyclopaedic Knowledge: The Tropological Universe of Alexander Neckam (1157–1217) (2014) Line Cecilie Engh, Gendered Identities in Bernard of Clairvaux’s Sermons on the Song of Songs (2014) Mulieres religiosae: Shaping Female Spiritual Authority in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods, ed. by Veerle Fraeters and Imke de Gier (2014) Bruno the Carthusian and his Mortuary Roll: Studies, Text, and Translation, ed. by Hartmut Beyer, Gabriela Signori, and Sita Steckel (2014) David Rosenthal, Kings of the Street: Power, Community, and Ritual in Renaissance Florence (2015) Fabrizio Conti, Witchcraft, Superstition, and Observant Franciscan Preachers: Pastoral Approach and Intellectual Debate in Renaissance Milan (2015) Mendicant Cultures in the Medieval and Early Modern World: Word, Deed, and Image, ed. by Sally J. Cornelison, Nirit Ben-Aryeh Debby, and Peter Howard (2016) Adriano Prosperi, Infanticide, Secular Justice, and Religious Debate in Early Modern Europe (2016) Studies on Florence and the Italian Renaissance in Honour of F.W. Kent, ed. by Peter Howard and Cecilia Hewlett (2016) Relics, Identity, and Memory in Medieval Europe, ed. by Marika Räsänen, Gritje Hartmann, and Earl Jeffrey Richards (2016) Boundaries in the Medieval and Wider World: Essays in Honour of Paul Freedman, ed. by Thomas W. Barton, Susan McDonough, Sara McDougall, and Matthew Wranovix (2017) Marie-Madeleine de Cevins, Confraternity, Mendicant Orders, and Salvation in the Middle Ages: The Contribution of the Hungarian Sources (c. 1270–c. 1530) (2018) Authority and Power in the Medieval Church, c. 1000–c. 1500, ed. by Thomas W. Smith (2020) Convent Networks in Early Modern Italy, ed. by Marilyn Dunn and Saundra Weddle (2020) Renaissance Religions: Modes and Meanings in History, ed. by Peter Howard, Nicholas Terpstra, and Riccardo Saccenti (2021)

In Preparation Matteo Al Kalak, The Heresy of the Brothers, a Heterodox Community in SixteenthCentury Italy