Observant preachers and theologians in the struggle against the Hussites
p. 425-439
Résumés
This article examines the role of religious orders, especially the mendicants and Observants, in the multifaceted struggle against Hussitism. Preachers and theologians of reformed congregations involved in the anti-Hussite inquisition, the preaching of crusades and in theological polemics are identified. Although the role of Observants was not paramount in terms of numbers, representatives of Observant branches of various orders were always at work when important issues connected with Hussitism were debated. Possible thematic emphases resulting from the allegiance of individual anti-Hussite authors to Observant movements are exemplified in Giovanni da Capestrano’s first treatise against the Hussites. Thanks to the authors who specialized in the production of topical treatises, both Observance and Hussitism became important themes of intellectual discourse in the fifteenth century
Cet article examine le rôle des ordres religieux, en particulier des mendiants et des observants, dans la lutte multiforme contre le hussitisme. Il identifie les prédicateurs et les théologiens des congrégations réformées qui ont participé à l’inquisition anti-hussite, à la prédication des croisades et à la polémique théologique. Bien que le rôle des observants n’ait pas été primordial en termes quantitatifs, les représentants des branches observantes de divers ordres étaient toujours à l’œuvre lorsque des questions importantes liées au hussitisme étaient débattues. Le premier traité de Giovanni da Capestrano contre les hussites illustre bien les inflexions thématiques qui peuvent résulter de l’appartenance de certains auteurs anti-hussites à des mouvements observants. Grâce aux auteurs qui se sont spécialisés dans la production de traités thématiques, l’observance et le hussitisme sont devenus des thèmes importants du discours intellectuel au XVe siècle.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Hussitisme, Inquisition, polémiques, prédication pour la croisade
Keywords : Hussitism, Inquisition, polemics, crusade preaching
Texte intégral
1Even before the Bohemian reform movement known as Hussitism was condemned at the Council of Constance, Hussite teachings became the subject of intensive religious polemics. The debates continued over much of the fifteenth century and gave rise to a massive literary output. Soon after the learned dispute was set in motion, the Roman Church reacted to the challenge posed by Hussite teachings with official condemnations. These climaxed in 1415: Jan Hus was sentenced to death at the Council of Constance as a follower of John Wyclif and communion under both kinds for the laity (called Utraquism) condemned. Although officially illegal, Hussitism continued to gain support in Bohemia and Moravia. Despite the efforts of the newly elected Pope Martin V, Church authorities failed to eradicate the Hussite “heresy” by means of inquisition. In March 1420, the same Pope proclaimed the first crusade against Hussite Bohemia. The Bohemians reacted with concerted defensive military actions, along with the theological reinforcement of their demands. The common Hussite programme of the so-called Four Articles of Prague, included the lay chalice, freedom of preaching, disendowment of the Church and the punishment of public sinners. These Four Articles became the basis for subsequent learned polemics, accompanied by repeated attempts to resolve the issue on the battlefield. It was only eleven years later, in 1431, that the Council of Basel introduced a new policy and invited the Hussites to peace negotiations. These began in Basel and Bohemia in 1433 and resulted in an agreement on the Four Articles of 1436, known as the compactata. The subsequent period of compromise turned out to be a short intermezzo which waned along with the influence of conciliarism in the Catholic Church. In 1462, Pope Pius II nullified the compactata and five years later, his successor Paul II proclaimed a new crusade against the Hussite King George of Bohemia.1
2The repression of Hussitism included legal actions and intensive theological polemics, two waves of crusades in 1420-31 and 1467-71 and the execution of numerous Hussite sympathizers identified by the inquisitorial investigations outside the Kingdom of Bohemia. In this chapter, I will examine the role of religious orders, especially the mendicants and Observants, in the multifaceted struggle against Hussitism. Given the current state of research into the anti-Hussite campaigns, where most of the sources remain unedited and many even unregistered, the following pages should be regarded as initial findings rather than conclusive results. Nevertheless, some key preachers and theologians of reformed and Observant congregations, who played more or less important roles in the anti-Hussite inquisition, the preaching of crusades and in theological polemics aimed against Hussite teachings, can be identified.2
3The history of the Bohemian inquisition in the century before Hus relates a period of expansion followed by decline. The papal inquisition was introduced in the Czech Lands in 1315. Around the mid-fourteenth century, inquisitors organized large-scale campaigns of repression aimed against the Waldensians. In the 1340s and 1350s, the newly established archbishopric of Prague took over the initiative of appointing inquisitors. Initially, the archbishop continued with the earlier practice of selecting inquisitors from both major mendicant orders. In this period, we know of five Dominican, three Franciscan and two secular inquisitors.3 With the new generation emerging from the 1370s on, we find more links between the inquisition and the diocesan administration. Among the inquisitors, we find three or four Dominicans, one Franciscan, one member of a military order and two members of the secular clergy. The mendicant inquisitors of the later fourteenth century were more attached to the administrative apparatus of the archbishopric, as they mostly served as titular, auxiliary bishops. During the second half of the fourteenth century, the inquisition gradually lost momentum. Since the inquisitors were no longer specialists dedicated primarily to the tasks of repressing heresy, but rather served a number of administrative duties, they were unable to keep up with the rise of Wycliffism in the city and province of Prague.4
4The last three of the inquisitors before the Hussite Wars worked no longer against the Waldensians, but against the Wycliffites. In 1408, the Franciscan Jaroslav of Bezmíř, along with another inquisitor, Mařík of Prague, presided over the court where Jan Hus unexpectedly appeared to advocate for a defendant. On another occasion, Mařík interrogated Jan Hus about certain accusations. Mařík, a member of the Order of the Knights with the Red Heart and professor of theology, also authored a polemical writing against Hus. Later in Constance and even later in Polish exile, Mařík would compose several anti-Hussite treatises. The final figure, the Dominican Nicolaus Wenceslai, was the first papal inquisitor after six decades of episcopal appointments. However, it was too late for the papal inquisition to put an end to the growing Hussite heresy. On the contrary, the inquisitor even issued a certificate of Hus’s orthodoxy and moral integrity before the latter left for the Council of Constance in 1414. Later at the Council, Nicolaus was arrested and escaped in disguise.5
5This inglorious end of the Bohemian inquisition marked the beginning of a new, completely different era. With a charter issued in February 1418 in Constance, Pope Martin V established an inquisition aimed at the detection and extermination of the Hussite heresy.6 Yet in Bohemia, which was largely dominated by the Utraquists, the activity of such an office was impossible. Nevertheless, the anti-Hussite inquisition remained active outside the Bohemian Kingdom during the Hussite wars. Regional traditions and specificities were in place. In Poland, for example, the role of the mendicants in prosecuting heresy was traditionally strong. In the diocese of Krakow, only local Dominicans were appointed inquisitors.7 In contrast, we find no mendicants at all in the well documented processes against German-speaking Hussites in the dioceses of Worms and Speyer in 1421 and 1425, respectively. The judges were all members of Heidelberg’s University, many of them had positions in the diocesan administration and some of them maintained close links to the Count Palatine’s court.8 In similar processes which led to the immolation of two German Hussites in Regensburg in 1421 and 1423, the body in charge was the local bishopric. In these cases, we know of the special involvement of a mendicant: the provincial of the Augustinian Hermits, Berthold Puchhauser, delivered sermons before the stake was lit.9 Generally, we can assume the strong influence of diocesan bishops in persecuting the Hussite heresy in this period, be it through appointing ad hoc inquisitors, or passing anti-heretical legislation at particular and provincial synods.
6The papacy faced the challenge of Hussitism by sending out envoys of various legal statuses, commissioned with organizing the struggle against heresy and/or performing the inquisition. Right at the beginning, we find an important figure of the Dominican Observance: in 1418, Giovanni Dominici was sent as a legate to Central Europe. The subsequent legates – Branda da Castiglione, Giordano Orsini, Henry Beaufort and Giuliano Cesarini – focused on organizing the crusade and they recruited from the high episcopate rather that from religious orders.10 In many regions, especially in the Empire, the centrally-controlled papal inquisition carried out by mendicant specialists faded into the background. In 1435, the ambassador of the Council of Basel, Juan Palomar, appeared in the position of an anti-Hussite inquisitor.11 After the first phase of the Hussite Wars was brought to an end, papal inquisitors reappeared. Famous figures of the Franciscan Observance were commissioned with investigating the Hussites: Giacomo della Marca, Giovanni da Capestrano and Gabriele Rangoni. If they performed inquisitorial duties at all, it was outside Bohemia: the territory assigned to Giacomo della Marca did not include Bohemia at all and the Franciscan persecuted Hussite followers in the Kingdom of Hungary.12 It is significant, however, that in the latter part of the fifteenth century, the inquisition was firmly connected to the expanding Franciscan Observant movement. One late exception is Heinrich Institoris, a Dominican conventual who was appointed papal inquisitor and sent to Moravia in 1499.13 While inquisition seems to have been a task for the regulars, the numerous legates sent to Bohemia and East-Central Europe in the second half of the fifteenth century continued to come from the high ranks of the secular clergy.14
7The tasks of the legates varied according to contemporary papal policy. In more peaceful times, their ultimate aim was to return the Hussites into the fold of the Church through dispute and diplomacy. In times of crusades, they instead featured as leaders of preaching campaigns. Recruitment for the crusades against the Hussites was organized according to the classical, time-proven pattern: the pope appointed a legate and commissioned him with preaching the verbum crucis. The faculties included the power of sub-delegation of preaching the Cross and thus the task was passed on, either directly or through episcopal and other intermediaries, to individual preachers. This procedure was used by Paul II in the late 1460s, as well as by Martin V in the 1420s. It is difficult to estimate how many crusade preachers were active in the two phases of the Hussite wars. We can assume that the preaching office was closely overseen, especially where it was connected to the collection of subsidies from the faithful. Occasionally, the sources give us the names of the preachers who really addressed the audience at the bottom end of the organizational structure. In some cases we know of the official appointment, in other cases we hear about the preacher’s activities, but these two categories rarely overlap. Even more precious are extant texts of sermons.15
8Among the preachers of the Hussite crusade, we find members of religious communities mixed with cathedral and other secular clergy. In more than one case, the inclination of the preachers towards reformed and Observant institutions comes to light. The connection between crusade propaganda and Church reform during the pontificate of Martin V has been pointed out in scholarship,16 and Branda da Castiglione in particular stressed the affinity of the two concepts. His appointment of two abbots from the reformed Benedictine congregation of Melk is telling: Nikolaus von Respitz from the Schottenstift in Vienna and Nikolaus Seyringer from Melk became crusade preachers in 1423.17 Another crusade preacher from the same period, the anti-Hussite polemicist Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, is known as a supporter of monastic reform and a friend of Seyringer, although himself a secular priest and professor at the University of Vienna.18 Before the Council of Basel, possibly in 1427, another outstanding figure of the Transalpine Observance, the Dominican Johannes Nider, took part in crusading propaganda.19
9A less known, but no less interesting figure of the Observant movement is the Augustinian Hermit Oswald Reinlein. He, too, can serve as an example of a figure who combined reform efforts with the anti-Hussite campaign. Reinlein, a native of Nuremberg, is first attested as prior of the Augustinian convent in Vienna in 1422, where he was entrusted with the introduction of the strict Observance of the Saxon Congregation of Augustinian Hermits. With help of the Duke Albrecht V of Austria, whose castle was located in the proximity of the Augustinians’ house, the reform was completed in February 1423. In 1426, Oswald Reinlein assumed the function of a crusade preacher with the task of inciting the participants in Albrecht’s campaign against the Moravian Hussites. His sermons are among the few extant full-text collections calling for a crusade against the Hussites. In 1432, Reinlein abdicated from the office of Viennese prior. When he passed through his native city two years later, Nuremberg magistrates approached him and requested the introduction of Observance in the local monastery. Reinlein cooperated with the head of the Saxon Reform Congregation, Heinrich Zolter. Conflict soon arose and Reinlein was forced to resign in 1436, yet the reformation of the Nuremberg convent continued nonetheless.20
10The crusade campaign against King George of Bohemia, launched in 1467, was led by two legates: Rudolf von Rüdesheim and, from 1468, Lorenzo Roverella.21 Only at this point in time do we find the Franciscans among the preachers of the Cross. This can be ascribed to the establishment of the Observant vicariate in East-Central Europe in the wake of Giovanni da Capestrano’s grand tour and generally to the reputation the Franciscans gained in the anti-Ottoman crusading propaganda both before and especially after the fall of Constantinople.22 In May 1467, legate Rudolf commissioned Paul of Moravia, the guardian of the Observants in Prague and Bonaventura of Bavaria, the guardian in Graz, with preaching the crusade against the Utraquist king of Bohemia.23 In August of the same year, Bonaventura, a founding figure of the Austrian Observant vicariate, preached the Cross “very exquisitely” at the imperial diet in Nuremberg.24 In July 1468, the new legate Roverella appointed the Observant Franciscan Angelus of Styria as his deputy to preach the Cross in the southern and western parts of Germany and the former head of the Austrian-Bohemian-Polish vicariate, James of Głogów, crusade preacher in north-eastern Germany.25 In January 1469, Roverella paid out smaller amounts to cover the expenses of four crusade preachers against the Bohemians: Gabriele Rangoni of Verona, Bonaventura of Bavaria, Angelus of Styria and a certain Johannes Bohemus.26 In 1470, a new fundraising campaign for the crusade against King George was launched and it was again the Observants who were at the disposal of the papal collector, Angelo Cialfi.27 Bonaventura of Bavaria and Bernardin of Ingolstadt travelled in person with the collector. Thanks to the preserved accounts, we know even such details as the price brother Bonaventura paid to a barber to shave him and his fellows (2 grossi).28 Although diocesan clergy and members of various other religious orders continued to feature among the preachers of the Cross,29 the intensive engagement of the Observant Franciscans in the late 1460s is striking.
11Many of the anti-Hussite inquisitors, envoys and preachers were literarily active and we find them again as authors of polemical treatises. As research on manuscript tracts refuting Hussite teachings is ongoing, any conclusions based on a survey of the large corpus of anti-Hussite polemics are inevitably preliminary. At the present stage, I know of more than 250 preserved treatises contra Hussitas composed by a total of 75 authors, with 90 treatises surviving anonymously.30 From the known authors, one third belonged to religious orders and two thirds were secular clerics active at universities and/or in Church administration. As for the affiliation of the regulars, two thirds were mendicants and the remaining third was divided between monastic orders on the one hand and regular canons and military orders on the other. From the mendicants, the most prolific anti-Hussite authors were the Dominicans who form more than a third of all regular clergy involved. The second most active order were the Friars Minor. Looking at the development over time, we can note that the number of authors involved reached its peak before and during the Council of Basel (although further research is likely to increase the numbers for the later periods). The share of authors from religious orders grew constantly. Regular theologians were mostly not involved in the initial phases of the polemics in Prague and Constance. With the promulgation of the Four Articles, the geographical radius of the debate was enlarged and the participation of the regulars increased – a trend that continued until the end of the fifteenth century.
12The Observants became involved in the debate only in later stages and their share among participants grew gradually. Among them was the aforementioned Augustinian Oswald Reinlein, who reworked his sermons into the Tractatus exhortatorius pro cruce signatis contra Hussitas. Johannes Nider, apart from his activity as crusade preacher, authored an extensive treatise against Hussite arguments. Nider was a leading character of Dominican Observance in South-German regions, in Nuremberg and, in the early 1430s, in Basel. Thanks to him, the Dominican convent became one of the centres of the conciliar debate at Basel. In 1430, Nider was one of the many Catholic theologians who composed polemical responses to the propagandistic letter of the Taborites, a radical Hussite faction. Ten different replies to the Taborite manifesto survive.31 The one by Johannes Nider, known as Contra heresim Hussitarum, is an interesting piece inasmuch as it deals in detail not only with the Taborite critique of the Roman clergy, but also with their demand to be heard and confronted in debate. Nider did not entirely reject the discussion with condemned heretics. Not much later, during the talks between the Council of Basel and the Hussites, he played a major role among the conciliar representatives.32 Later in his literary career, Nider discussed the Hussites on several occasions in his Formicarius, an allegory of human society as an anthill.33
13The mission of Giovanni da Capestrano in Central Europe was also accompanied by controversial literary production.34 From the ca. 20 letters Capestrano sent to Utraquist priests and secular lords, several grew into long polemical treatises. The extensive reaction to the letter of master Jan of Borotín from September 1451, addressed to Jan Tovačovský of Cimburk, the Provincial Captain of Moravia, was followed early in the following year by a tract written in response to Jan Roykcana, the Utraquist Archbishop of Prague. These writings, like the apology sent by Capestrano to the Bohemian nobles in April 1452, survive in a great number of manuscripts and were clearly intended for a larger audience. Similarly extensive, though not so widely disseminated, were the polemical letters to George of Poděbrady and the Utraquist priests from the town of Kroměříž that Capestrano authored in 1454.35 One of Capestrano’s companions and biographers, Gabriele Rangoni da Verona, also authored three polemical treatises against the Hussites. The first of them dates back to Rangoni’s visit to Moravia with Capestrano in 1451 and responds to the treatise by Jan Borotín. The other writings originated in the context of Rangoni’s diplomatic activities in Central Europe in 1466-1467. One is a polemical letter against Gregor von Heimburg, a defender of King George of Poděbrady, and the other is a treatise against the king himself.36
14The late 1460s witnessed further contributions to the anti-Hussite polemics penned by Observants. The Burgundian Dominican Nicolas Jacquier, protagonist of the Observant Congregation of Holland, is known as an inquisitor and persecutor of witchcraft and superstition. In 1467, he travelled to Silesia in the diplomatic service of the Dukes of Burgundy. One of his projects was to confront Jan Rokycana in a disputation about the lay chalice. While this disputation never happened, a preparatory work that Jacquier composed back home in 1466 has survived. This Dyalogus super sacra communione contra Hussitas recalls a debate between Jacquier and Rokycana that allegedly took place at the Council of Basel. On his way back from Silesia, Jacquier met another author of anti-Hussite treatises, the Erfurt Carthusian Johannes Hagen. The two men engaged in a dispute about how to refute Utraquism correctly and both of them put their positions into writing. Contrary to Hagen’s text which is lost, Jacquier’s contribution survives as De quadrifaria ultime cene dominice distinctione, a treatise he finished in 1470 in Paris.37
15How this polemical production was shaped by the affiliation of its authors to the Observant movement appears a fruitful research question for the future. One noteworthy, although by no means surprising feature already observable at this stage is the predilection for quoting authors from the same order. Oswald Reinlein’s Tractatus, for example, devotes much space to block quotations from Augustine of Ancona. A long passage about crusade indulgence from his Summa de potestate ecclesiastica, spanning over almost four pages in the manuscript, is introduced with magister Augustinus de Anchona, frater ordinis nostri, videlicet fratrum heremitarum sancti Augustini.38 Similarly, the Dominican Jacquier devoted much space to quotes from Thomas Aquinas.39 Possible thematic emphases resulting from the allegiance of individual anti-Hussite authors to Observant movements may be more difficult to identify. Let us take as an illustrative example Giovanni da Capestrano’s polemic against Jan Borotín, also known as Capestrano’s first treatise against the Hussites.40
16The work is an extensive letter-treatise with rather repetitive argumentation. It aims to refute the communion of laymen under both kinds and the compactata, denouncing the Hussites as heretics and demonstrating the reasons for and consequences of this verdict. As for the Utraquist liturgy, Capestrano insists that the biblical command to drink from the chalice must be understood as referring to spiritual communion.41 This is in itself nothing new, but rather a mainstream anti-Hussite argument, although it might be interesting to note that the aforementioned Nicolas Jacquier held the argument of spiritual communion as invalid.42 The core of Capestrano’s argument consists in his conviction that nothing in the world can benefit a man who is not united with the Church. For the friar, to be part of the Church means to observe its precepts. Capestrano notes this in his introduction: Quae vera, quae katholica, quae salubria sunt et quae a sacrosancta Romana ecclesia docta […] observo et observanda pronuntio ab omni katholico populo christiano.43 In his treatise, the word observantia appears mostly in connection with ecclesiastical rites and sacraments, namely in the sense of compliance with certain regulations. Obedience to the Church and the pope was among the most important arguments of many anti-Hussite authors. To what extent Capestrano’s vocabulary was different and possibly influenced by his allegiance to the Franciscan Observance, must be left to future comparative analyses.
17For Capestrano, the imperative of ecclesiastical obedience had hermeneutic consequences. The Church understands the Scriptures better than heretics and thus the true interpretation of religious contents depends on the appartenance to the Church. Whatever the Church decrees is automatically true. This is why Capestrano defends the binding character of ecclesiastical tradition.44 The observance of ecclesiastical tradition is inseparably connected with obedience to the pope: Et haec sanctae ecclesiae universalis consuetudo sub obedientia summi Romani pontificis successivis temporibus per tot annorum centenaria laudabiliter observata est etiam hodie pro lege salubriter observanda.45 Capestrano speaks here about communion under one kind, but he applies this same logic to other controversial topics as well. His objection to the compactata rests on the fact that they were concluded without the involvement and consent of the pope and thus the agreement lacks the necessary authority. Their disobedience to papal decrees disqualifies the Utraquist leaders in their priestly status, making them unable to administer sacraments anyway.46
18Capestrano’s argument in the matters of Utraquism is primarily aimed against the Hussite thesis that communion under both kinds is necessary for salvation. Capestrano denies this and points out that thousands of saints (whose salvation no one can doubt) never received communion under both kinds. As examples he names St Benedict and St Francis who, out of humility, never wanted to perform priestly tasks and always received communion sub una.47 One of the reasons why communion from the chalice is not imperative is the belief that each sacramental kind contains both the body and the blood of Christ. Capestrano illustrates this with an exemplum taken from Alexander of Hales. Certain monks desired to communicate under both kinds, although they were not ordained. Miraculously, the broken host began to bleed and when the pieces were reassembled, the blood disappeared again. Thus the monks were educated and desisted from their excessive desire.48 The sufficiency of the communion in one kind alone is also the reason why the primitive Church, contrary to the Utraquists’ belief, admitted but did not enforce lay communion from the chalice. The fact that the chalice was permitted in the primitive Church and, for a certain period up to the councils of Constance and Basel, conceded to some members of the Cistercian order, does not mean that the Hussites are allowed the show any disobedience to Church regulation effective in the moment.49
19Against the Hussites’ emphasis on the binding character of Christ’s commandments as transmitted through the Bible, Capestrano maintained the magisterium of the Church. Details concerning sacramental communion that were not fixed by Jesus himself are regulated by the Holy Spirit through the enactments of the Church.50 Institutional authority is crucial: for instance, Capestrano dismissed one passage from Cyprian that the Hussites read as favouring communion in both kinds, arguing that Cyprian was not speaking praeceptive, since he was neither pope nor did he preside over a general council.51 Capestrano went even further: in his opinion, the Church was allowed not only to regulate matters Jesus was silent about, but also to change the provisions of the Bible and Christ. With support in a decretal of Innocent III, Capestrano insists that the word of God (i.e. its understanding) can be changed by the Church and that human statutes may vary according to the demands of the time (secundum varietatem temporum).52
20The idea of changing times is conceptualized in the framework of the seven ages, drawn from the symbolism of the number seven in the Revelation of John. Capestrano speaks of seven steps of revelation and points out how certain laws were altered in new waves of legislation. He also uses the widespread concept of the seven ages of the Church. After the fifth age of the monks, he postulates a sixth age – that of the mendicants, which commenced with the appearance of St Dominic and St Francis. Following St Bonaventure, he points to Francis’s stigmata as proof that he was the angel of the sixth seal.53 The purpose here is to stress the passing of time which demands adequate flexibility in jurisdiction: Cum itaque alia sint hodie moderna tempora, quam fuerint in ecclesia primitiva, alia etiam ecclesiastica traditio servanda est, quam fuerit tunc servata. If the reasons why the lay chalice was conceded to the primitive Church lost relevance, the practice should be abandoned.54 In sum, Capestrano’s occasional references to monastic matters serve a polemical purpose along with other arguments which, by the mid-fifteenth century, had belonged to the anti-Hussite arsenal for several decades. Nevertheless, the references to St Francis and the mendicants and the emphasis on the observance of ecclesiastical legislation may be ascribed to the author’s Franciscan identity and Observant background.
21Even this brief overview suggests that the role of Observant theologians and preachers in the struggle against Hussitism was not paramount in terms of numbers. On the other hand, we can note that representatives of Observant branches of various orders were always at work when important issues connected with the Bohemian question were debated. Both Oswald Reinlein’s Tractatus and Johannes Nider’s response to the Taborite manifesto are among those important sources that bear witness to the approaches to the Hussite heresy in the first phase of the war. Their authors were chief representatives of the South-German reform movement in the Augustinian and Dominican orders, respectively. The impact of these writings on contemporaries, however, remains questionable, considering that each of them survives in only two copies. Over time, the importance of Observant Franciscans increased, especially in the third quarter of the fifteenth century. Franciscans featured not only in the (mostly nominal) position of inquisitors, but also among the active preachers against the Hussites, both within and outside crusading campaigns. Although their activity in facing Hussitism was probably far smaller than was their significance in anti-Ottoman crusade preaching, they nevertheless formed a large and influential group of anti-Hussite crusade preachers.
22In refuting Hussitism through theological tractates, the Franciscan Observants Capestrano and Rangoni were joined by members of other reformed orders, such as the Observant Dominican Jacquier and the Carthusian Hagen. Indeed, among the anti-Hussite theologians, it is not only the members of Observant congregations who show interest in monastic and mendicant reform. We find the same interest in other key authors from the ranks of the secular clergy, such as Jean Gerson and Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, who also contributed to the vast corpus of anti-Hussite polemics. These correspondences also include further topics: it is striking how many reform-oriented authors who penned anti-Hussite treatises were also active in combatting superstition or witchcraft. Figures like Jean Gerson, Pierre d’Ailly, Nikolaus von Dinkelsbühl, Nikolaus Magni, Johannes von Frankfurt, Johannes Nider, Thomas Ebendorfer, Giovanni da Capestrano, Nicholas Jacquier and Heinrich Institoris represent an important section of the anti-Hussite squad. The connection between reform and superstition is seldom made explicit, but it existed inasmuch as the amendment of religious life was considered the best protection from demonic assaults.55 In the case of Hussitism, explicit links to Church reform were perhaps more frequent, but the principle was certainly the same: the prevailing sense was that reluctance in institutional and moral reform produced easy targets for heretical critique. Heresy, reform and superstition all belonged to the range of themes of current interest. They proved especially attractive for the new type of author who specialized in the production of topical treatises, a type that has famously been labelled the late medieval “public intellectual”.56 Thanks to these authors and their vision of religious life, both Observance and Hussitism became important topics of intellectual discourse in the fifteenth century.57
Notes de bas de page
1For overviews of Hussite history, see Šmahel 2002; Van Dussen – Soukup 2020.
2A general account of anti-Hussite efforts is missing. The material treated in Soukup 2017 suggests the extent of the problematics. Selected figures, institutions, and regions have recently been subject to monographic treatments, see Petrášek 2018; Traxler 2019; Marin 2020; Kaar 2020. Despite its title, the article by Filip 2014 does not deal with the Observants’ participation in anti-Hussite crusades at all.
3Patschovsky 1975, p. 15-29 and 1979, p. 123-130.
4Soukup 2010.
5Kejř 2005, p. 28-31, 128-129, 147; Soukup 2010, p. 161-167.
6Eršil 1996, p. 98-108, no 218.
7Kras 2004, p. 267-281.
8The prosopography of the court was worked out by Heimpel 1969, p. 147-154, 202-204. The two Carmelites of Speyer played only minor roles among the members of the court.
9Fuchs 2012.
10Studt 2004, p. 478-704; Debby 2001, p. 28.
11Repertorium Germanicum Online, RG V 05315, http://rg-online.dhi-roma.it/RG/5/5315 [retrieved on July 1, 2020].
12For basic information, see Casagrande 2000; Kalous 2010, p. 191.
13Herzig 2013, p. 80-82; Kreuz 2019, p. 32-33.
14Kalous 2010, p. 172-175, lists 78 legates and envoys sent to East-Central Europe from 1447-1528. On their involvement in resolving the Hussite problem, see Kalous 2017, p. 154-158, 190-195.
15Soukup 2015. My research has progressed since that article was submitted for print, and I am preparing further publications on the topic. Currently I am aware of three sermon collections for preaching the Hussite crusade, and know of ca. 20 active preachers.
16Studt 2001.
17Studt 2004, p. 531.
18On Dinkelsbühl’s appointment in 1421 and confirmation in 1427, see Traxler 2019, p. 310-321.
19Bailey 2003a, p. 58 and p. 172; Pjecha 2016, p. 191.
20For more details, see Soukup 2014.
21Heymann 1965, p. 437-585, esp. p. 460; Kalous 2010, p. 209-227; Jenks 2018, p. 167-205.
22Housley 2012, p. 136-159.
23Markgraf 1874, p. 228, n. 259.
24Palacký 1860, p. 474, no 405B.
25Düx 1847, p. 492-494; Markgraf 1874, p. 285; Laslowski 1929, p. 56-57.
26Beneš 1966, p. 753.
27Hlaváček 2011b, p. 101-103 and 146.
28Fink 1933, p. 235; a detailed analysis of this source is in Esch 2004.
29Heinrich Institoris embarked on crusade preaching (Kreuz 2019, p. 29-30), as did Thomas Harder from the Augustinian Canonry at Klosterneuburg (Portnykh 2014, p. 603-605).
30See Repertorium operum antihussiticorum, ed. by P. Soukup, http://www.antihus.eu [retrieved on July 1, 2020]. It should be added that the period up to the Basel disputations in 1433-1437 is relatively better known, whereas the latter two thirds of the fifteenth century remain more obscure.
31Petrášek 2018, p. 18-36.
32Bailey 2003a, p. 57-64; Pjecha 2018, p. 185-193.
33Marin 2007.
34Hofer 1964-1965, vol. 2, p. 69-137 and 259-286.
35On the transmission of these writings, see Soukup 2018.
36Hlaváček 2011b, p. 136 and 142-144.
37Both of Jacquier’s writings have been edited and analysed in Marin 2012.
38Nuremberg, Stadtbibliothek, MS Cent. I 78, fol. 71rb-72va.
39Marin 2012, p. 208-216.
40Hofer 1964-1965, vol. 1, p. 458-467 and vol. 2, p. 77-86. The treatise was edited by M. Procházka in Valouch 1858, p. 792-895.
41Valouch 1858, p. 797-800.
42Marin 2012, p. 196-218, cf. p. 42.
43Valouch 1858, p. 794.
44Valouch 1858, p. 801-803.
45Valouch 1858, p. 817.
46Valouch 1858, p. 820-828.
47Valouch 1858, p. 809.
48Valouch 1858, p. 818; cf. Halensis 1622, p. 406.
49Valouch 1858, p. 815 and 848.
50Valouch 1858, p. 851.
51Valouch 1858, p. 860; Cyprianus 1868, p. 652.
52Valouch 1858, p. 857 and 853; cf. X. 4, 14, 8: Friedberg 1879, col. 703.
53Frugoni 2010, p. 27.
54Valouch 1858, p. 854-855 and 862-863, quote p. 863.
55See the carefully phrased observations of Bailey 2015, p. 242-243 and 251-254; the above listing of authors is based on the survey ibid., p. 232-242.
56Hobbins 2009; for the range of topics see the table at p. 137-139.
57This study was prepared at the Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences and supported by a grant from the Czech Science Foundation (GA ČR) “From Performativity to Institutionalization: Handling Conflict in the Late Middle Ages” (19-28415X).
Auteur
-
Pavel Soukup
Centre for Medieval Studies, Institute of Philosophy CAS, Prague, soukup@flu.cas.cz
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Le Thermalisme en Toscane à la fin du Moyen Âge
Les bains siennois de la fin du XIIIe siècle au début du XVIe siècle
Didier Boisseuil
2002
Rome et la Révolution française
La théologie politique et la politique du Saint-Siège devant la Révolution française (1789-1799)
Gérard Pelletier
2004
Sainte-Marie-Majeure
Une basilique de Rome dans l’histoire de la ville et de son église (Ve-XIIIe siècle)
Victor Saxer
2001
Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle)
Charges, hommes, destins
Armand Jamme et Olivier Poncet (dir.)
2005
La politique au naturel
Comportement des hommes politiques et représentations publiques en France et en Italie du XIXe au XXIe siècle
Fabrice D’Almeida
2007
La Réforme en France et en Italie
Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes
Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel Menchi et Alain Tallon (dir.)
2007
Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge
Jacques Chiffoleau, Claude Gauvard et Andrea Zorzi (dir.)
2007
Souverain et pontife
Recherches prosopographiques sur la Curie Romaine à l’âge de la Restauration (1814-1846)
Philippe Bountry
2002