dna waLLaw and

erutpircSScripture
eht fo stpircsunaMManuscripts of the
noitamrofeR hcezCCzech Reformation
ht61–ht41 eht foof the 14th–16th
seirutneCCenturies

Renáta Modráková and Zdeněk Uhlíř

 dn
eru
eht fo stp
noitamro
ht61–

Published on the occasion of the Czech Republic’s Presidency

of the Council of the European Union
 waLLaw and
pircSScripture
rcsunaMManuscripts of the
eR hcezCCzech Reformation
t41 eht foof the 14th–16th
eirutneCCenturies

Renáta Modráková and Zdeněk Uhlíř

National Library of the Czech Republic

KATALOGIZACE V KNIZE – NÁRODNÍ KNIHOVNA ČR

First Edition
© Národní knihovna ČR, 2009. All rights reserved.

ISBN 978-80-7050-568-7 (English Version)

ISBN 978-80-7050-567-0 (Czech Version)
stnetnoC fo elbaTTable of Contents

Prologue 7

1. The Prelude of the 14th Century: Pre-Reformation 9

2. Hussitism 27
3. Utraquism: A National Church from Dithering 43
4. The Contact of the World Reformation 59
5. The Bohemian and the World Reformation 67

Epilogue 81

4~5
 Prologue
It is no accident that the collection of manuscripts of the Czech Reformation, which is a significant,
one could even say defining, component of the holdings of the National Library of the Czech Republic,
has been inscribed in UNESCO’s Memory of the World register of written cultural heritage. After
all, the several hundred manuscripts contained in this collection are of importance not only for
Czechs but also on a European and world scale. They clearly and distinctly represent a permeation
of the component Czech and general world history and are documentation of the epoch when Czech
society was open or at least resisted its closing. Czech openness to the world between the 14th and
16th centuries was often controversial and discordant but brought mutual enrichment.
The aim of the publication coming out on the occasion of the exhibition of the Czech Reformation
manuscripts is to show their manifold aspects. In five, basically chronological chapters, it follows the
Czech religious movement of the 14th and early 15th centuries and its pre-Reformation elements,
the Hussitism of the first half of the 15th century as the first – Czech Reformation (in contrast to
the other – world Reformation), the Utraquism of the second half of the 15th century and of the
16th century as an a-theological Czech national Church, the contact of the world Reformation in
the first half of the 16th century, and finally the specific case of the Unity of Brethren from the
end of the 15th to the beginning of the 17th centuries. It would, of course, be possible to structure
and compose the commentary differently; it would naturally be possible to proceed from another
ideological conception, but – seeing that history is multifaceted – it is already a task for other authors
on another occasion.
We did not intend to reproduce the specific circumstances of the origin and interaction of
the individual exhibits in the past; we rather attempted to express some fundamental historical
perspectives with which the period of the Czech Reformation can be approached and which are
more or less represented by the manuscripts shown at the exhibition.

6~7
Kolda of Koldice, De mansionibus celestibus
NL CR XIV.A.17, fol. 18r
1. arhedeřPThe Prelude of
:ítelots .41the 14th Century:
ecamrofererPPre-Reformation

The 14th century is the period in which we can find the roots of the so-called Czech religious
movement, i.e. both simple reformism and the subsequent Reformation. The social, economic and
cultural processes whose manifest expression the Czech religious movement was are frequently
considered to be the motive force of Czech history from the 14th to the 17th centuries, sometimes
even until the 18th century. T. G. Masaryk went so far as to claim (although it was never generally
accepted, in fact it evoked rather disapproving polemics, which erupted in the so-called dispute over
the sense of Czech history) that the question of religion is the main problem in the interpretation of
Czech history. Today, it is certainly not fitting to revive these old disputes and take into consideration,
for example, the reaction of Josef Pekař that the sense of Czech history is the national idea, or even
refer to the unequivocal and somewhat rigid Marxist concepts when interpreting history generally
and Czech history in particular, into which the discussions and polemics paradoxically led. After
all, we know following Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel that we cannot mistake res gestae on the one
hand with historia rerum gestarum on the other; we also know following Jan Patočka that history
imparts sense to the nonsensical; and we know following Paul Veyne that the past-history is objective
(it might be more suitable to say real) but produces ever new questions as time goes by (with the
old ones losing its attraction for us), such that it is better rather to resign on a single, unequivocal
explanation of the Czech religious movement and its outcomes, repercussions and consequences
until our time.
Resignation on complete certainty and clarity, however, in no case means that we should not attempt
any interpretation, because in that we would also resign on any possibility of understanding past
events, therein reducing also our ability to understand current events. Nonetheless, comprehension
is not the same thing as a positive and faithful reproduction of the past in its actual and factual forms
but is understanding the past in its possibilities and thus – naturally – in its impossibilities. The past
hence becomes an expansion of the present in the sense that it is also an expansion of its possibilities.
History, although it may not appear so at first glance, is the evocation and placement of pragmatic
questions, as they are defined by William James, and in that way also a stimulus for activities in the
present, albeit certainly not directly but only in a mediated way.
Archaeologists and historians of material culture say that the 14th century is closer to today’s
time, i.e. the early 21st century, than to the previous period of the 12th century. This claim may
seem entirely preposterous, because we will most likely think of developed techniques, technical

8~9
Milicius de Cremsir, Abortivus
NL CR VIII.B.26, fol. 1r
infrastructure, technologies and specific technical equipment, e.g. information and communication
technologies or space transport means and other accomplishments. It is true that in terms of these
purely material connections the foregoing claim seems quite odd if not dubious. However, it all
starts to look different as soon as we realise that human life does not lie only, or even mainly, in the
utilisation of technological equipment and the usage of technological products but in choosing from
a range of possibilities that open before a person. Here, we must be clearly aware that being possible
actually means the same as being thinkable. And the thinking of a Czech in the 14th century, the so-
called possible awareness of the period, is in reality definitely closer to ours today than the possible
awareness in the 12th century was: this is quite plainly proved by both the intellectual content and
the method of its processing.
In short, it can be said that at the end of the 12th century and in the course of the 13th century
both the political regime (which was reflected in the transition of the administrative organisation of
the Czech state from castle to district administration) and the economic system (which grew from the
thorough completion of rural colonisation for agriculture and the development of towns for crafts and
trade as well as for professions based on operation with symbols) changed. This significantly altered
the social structure (resulting in a substantial increase in the density of rural settlement, which also
entailed a culmination of the agrarian wave, and the professional as well as social differentiation
of the urban populace, constituting the very beginning of the industrial wave). In the end, it also
led to an important cultural transformation, whose main outcome was Christianity’s complete
penetration of the entire society. This radical and fundamental social regeneration was completed by
the first half of the 14th century at the latest. Czech society was completely different from its former
developmental form and assumed such a form and such a content that have in their most important
features survived to this day. Only the emergence of the information wave in the second half of the
20th century signifying the promotion of globalisation and intermediary cultural postmodernity has
begun to push us again markedly away from the earlier periods.
The complex cultural pattern that spanned all of the partial segments of social reality was
precisely Christianity, which can be characterised as an all-pervasive and all-encompassing faith.
We must not understand such faith as sanctimonious bigotry, primitive superstition and ignorant
credulity, but as an axiological, i.e. value and axiomatic, thus a priori rational, structure manifesting
itself in the behavioural patterns, life forms, institutions and organisations. This is something that
already Late Antique and High Mediaeval Christian theologians realised when they divided faith
by distinguishing between the subjective act of faith (fides qua creditur of Augustine of Hippo or
fides implicita of Thomas Aquinas) and the actual object of faith (fides quae creditur of Augustine of
Hippo or fides explicita of Thomas Aquinas). They were thus making a distinction between faith as
an internal ability and impetus (John Duns Scotus in this sense spoke also of the will) and faith as an
outer creed, whose typical form was (mainly) Canon law and the liturgy. Thus as soon as Christianity
covered all geographical areas and all social classes and as soon as it was applied in all spheres of the
life of society, the basic problem became faith in its objective character: it was necessary to apply a
uniform creed manifested in a unified liturgy and organised according to unified moral and legal
norms.
It is indisputable that every society needs and requires harmoniousness, i.e. a certain level of
standardisation and levelling for its smooth operation. Nonetheless, the question is how to find the
right level or, in other words, whether there exists and can exist one single proper level which would
be suitable for all societies and their developmental forms, or whether these levels differ depending
on the particular situation and certain developmental form of every society. One specific question is

10 ~ 11
whether a certain role may be played also by the speed of the standardisation and levelling process,
in short the dynamics of acculturation. It has been shown that each of these questions is not only
important but even indispensable.
In the first half of the 14th century, the Czech lands first encountered what is usually called
Papal fiscalism to its full extent. These were not only regular payments to the Papal Curia in Avignon
but also payments which went there from the Czech lands for an exceptional reason or as a result
of legal disputes on the filling of Church benefices. Earlier historians usually considered it to be
blatant milking of the Czech lands by foreign institutions. Today, however, we see that this evaluation
might be too xenophobic and populist and arises from unconsidered plebeianism of the modern
Czech nation rather than a deeper assessment of historical facts and processes, because this so-called
Papal fiscalism on the one hand maintained the Europe-wide order, international interconnectedness
and the basic rules connected with it (which had undisputed significance in the periods of the so-
called Black Death and later in the time of incipient Turkish threat) and on the other completed
the adaptation of the Czech environment to the real emancipation of the Church from the state. It
might still be quite hard for us today to understand, because we are influenced by the Old Austrian
absolutist alliance of the Throne and the Altar, which nevertheless in truth meant the subjugation
of the Church to the State, which did not change even under the First Republic and continued even
during the totalitarian Communist period, then further reinforced by the importation of the Russian
(tsarist) autocratic traditions. In spite of that, if we are now endeavouring for an open society, it must
be clearer to us that the emancipation of various institutions as well as the entire society from the
state is an undoubtedly positive factor. Yet people who do not consider dynamic social differentiation
to be a value understand the emancipation of diverse elements of society from the state to be rather
negative. And it is possible to find such people today, like it was even in the 14th century.
The harmonisation in the area of Church administration arising from internal Czech sources
subsequently occurred in the middle of the 14th century, when the first Archbishop of Prague Ernest
of Pardubice declared statutes for the Archdiocese of Prague in 1349 and when in the beginning of
the 1350s the Prague consistory systematically began to keep official books, which soon began to have
the character of common registration material, known to us from the advanced bureaucratic offices
of the Modern Period. It was a definitive confirmation that the whole of Czech society was Christian.
However, we must not think that it was Christianity of a high level, which would be characterised
by a general effort for sainthood. Mediaeval Christianity was quite different from this ideal; it could
even seem that the ideal was hardly perceptible in it. Mediaeval Christianity was oriented on cult,
the formal maintenance of the rituals, with a significant predominance of the elements of folk
devotion, which either were not far from superstition or historically reflected deeper pagan roots.
Such Christianity was far from the ideal ascribed to the Apostles or generally to the Church of the
apostolic and patristic periods. The slogan ecclesia semper reformanda (the Church always needs
reforming) holds true in principle, being however doubly true for the enthusiasm of a society newly
completely imbued with Christianity. Along with the complete formalisation of Christianity in the
Czech lands, reform movement emerged.
A further internal source of the Czech religious and reform movement was the emergence of
individualism and personalism developing from the 1310s in the treatises of the Dominican lector
Kolda of  Koldice, written in 1312–1314 for the Abbess of St George’s Benedictine Monastery at
Prague Castle Kunigunde († 1321), a daughter of King Přemysl Otakar II (Ottokar II of Bohemia, the
Iron and Gold King), especially two of Kolda’s tractates, namely De strenuo milite (On the Invincible
Knight) and De mansionibus celestibus (On the Heavenly Mansions). It is usually mentioned that Kolda
represents a debased version of the metaphysics of light, which was developed in the 12th century by
the Chartres School, because it proceeds from the treatise by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite De
caelesti hierarchia (On the Celestial Hierarchy). This, however, is a more or less questionable claim,
because while Kolda built on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, it was not on the translation prepared
by John Scotus Eriugena but on the commentary by Hugh of St Victor, which he combined with
passages from the treatises by Gregory the Great. He thus achieved a special connection between a
collective and individual perspective, which is based on his defining individual Angelic Choirs about
which he writes always by one profiling attribute. They thus symbolise the structure of the human
soul as well as a group of people and in their total sum represent Kunigunde herself. Kolda’s tractate
hence is not metaphysical or ontological but mystical or moral-theological. It is not a debased version
of more advanced Western models but a relatively original contribution to the question of how to
segregate an individual from a group while preserving the collective. However, since this work by
Kolda is intellectually sophisticated, not only did it not reach the common awareness, but this kind
of solution rather aroused vigilance in the common awareness.
Hence, from the 1360s in the Czech lands but especially in Bohemia and mainly in Prague,
criticism appeared of the social forms of society into which Christianity had not long before fully
and definitively penetrated. At first, it was a social criticism of the amount of emphyteutic fees
(exacciones), with which the otherwise unknown Kuneš of Jilemnice had come in his sermons. This
was a criticism of avarice and profligacy arising from the tradition, which the former registrar and
notary public of the Royal Office and later passionate preacher Milicius de Cremsir developed in his
collections of sermons Abortivus (Abortion) and Gracie dei (The Graces of God). And it was also a
thundering denouncement of the comfortable urban lifestyle, with which the Austrian Augustinian
Konrad Waldhauser had come. Whereas Milicius was a true enthusiast who died with a reputation
of sainthood, because he was not only a very active sermoniser (he sometimes preached even five
times a day) but also a practically active person (he built a house called Jerusalem, which was a refuge
for reformed former prostitutes), Waldhauser was rather only what we would call a celebrity today;
his Postilla studencium sancte universitatis Pragensis (A Postil of the Students of Prague University)
was translated into Czech but served only as a work to be read rather than having a practical social
impact.
At least since the time of Palacký, Milicius and Waldhauser have been spoken of as forerunners
of Hus or the Hussite movement (Vorläufer des Hussitentums). Nonetheless, we must today ask if
it is justified at all. Milicius, as shown by the latest research, was definitely a good Catholic (even if
somewhat controversial), who developed classical Scholastic preaching, as it had been standardised
in its exemplary form by the Dominican Provincial Peregrin of Opole in the Czech lands and in
Central Europe in the first third of the 14th century. Furthermore, Milicius definitely did not advocate
the preaching of the word of God as is claimed. In the prothemes of his sermons, he thoroughly
discussed the sermons of the preachers, which was entirely in the intentions of the Dominican
tradition and completely in agreement with the Catholic theory of homiletics as the theology of the
Annunciation. Milicius became a precursor of Hussitism entirely unawares, namely because he was
referred to by Matthias of Janov in his work Regulae veteris et novi testamenti (The Rules of the Old
and New Testaments) as his forerunner and model to avoid suspicion of heresy. And seeing that
Matthias of Janov became the decisive authority for Czech Hussites in the mid-1410s, thus replacing
John Wycliffe, Milicius was placed on a pedestal somehow by accident and objectively illegitimately.
Hence, Milicius was completely indisputably a very important representative of the Czech religious
movement but in his branch of Catholic reformism, not in that which directly and immediately led

12 ~ 13
Konrad Waldhauser, Postilla studencium sancte Pragensis universitatis
NL CR XX.A.14, fol. 1r

Kuneš of Třebovle, De devolucionibus non recipiendis

NL CR VI.C.21, fol. 2r
14 ~ 15
John of Brakel, Determinacio questionis de canonica eleccione Urbani VI.
NL CR XIV.D.19, fol. 45r
to Hussitism. On the other hand, Waldhauser was undoubtedly a great rhetorician, namely much
more than a sincere preacher. Although his preaching was abundantly passed on in literature, it
was precisely in this form too conventional to have a more distinct effect outside of intellectual and
university circles. Historians, considering themselves mostly as intellectuals, tend to overestimate
this type of influence.
The individualism which appeared along with the emergence of urban society within the
increasing professional and social differentiation and which was prepared in the ideological sphere
by the tractates of lector Kolda gradually spread to all of society between the 1350s and 1380s. It
strongly manifested itself in the gradual limitation of the institution of escheat (devolucio) until it
was completely cancelled. Escheat would occur among free citizens when they died without heirs:
in this case, their property fell to the ruler. In the case of liege people, who were nearly exclusively
renters according to emphyteusis, escheat originally always happened at the death of the current
tenant regardless of whether he died with or without an heir. Yet the institution of escheat conceived
so strictly became a target of ever-increasing criticism, and efforts appeared to make it the same
with the serfs as it was with the freemen, or at least to approach it to it. Consequently in the 1350s,
for example, the burghers of the liege towns on the Rožmberk (Rosenberg) estates obtained similar
rights to those of burghers of royal towns, i.e. escheat came into question only if the testator left no
heir. Further, Archbishop John of  Jenstein established the same for the archbishop’s estates at the
beginning of the 1380s, arguing that to exercise escheat if there are heirs is an unchristian and thus
immoral custom.
Instead of the feudal oppression, somewhat inappropriately referred to by some left-wing
historians, here we see a particularly social approach on the part of both the secular and church
authorities. Considering that this significantly weakens the coercion coming from authority, such
an approach is simultaneously liberal. It was precisely this liberalisation of individual initiative that
led to the great economic development of the Czech lands in the 14th century. However, taking into
account the dissimilarity of people, individual initiative entails social and cultural differentiation
as its consequence. Therefore, some historians (in the classic form, Bedřich Mendl already some
time ago) could speak of pauperisation and re-feudalisation. In reality, it was something that we
know very well from today, i.e. a massive arrangement of consumer loans without an assured ability
to repay them. The debtors then usually lost the ownership of property with which they secured
the loan and remained on it only as renters, which was referred to as being under the obligation
of perpetual payment. There was nothing feudal or emphyteutic in that any more, but it was quite
common liberal-capitalist rent under a different label. These perpetual payments gradually began to
function as mere symbols until they became the subject of regular transactions between annuitants.
This triggered at least quasi-capitalistic relations, although not in general, but only to a limited extent
under the bell jar of the incorporation of the town.
With the large increase in the number of people under the obligation of perpetual payment, a
crisis situation arose in a certain way. It did not, however, emerge from oppression coming from
authority whether we understand it on the economic or political level, but from the desire of the
poor to live well, i.e. from the attempt of the low-income groups to live beyond their means. In the
situation of the space for individual initiative made available as a result of the significant limitation
of escheat, a number of people were not able to comprehend the simple fact that individual initiative
is inseparably tied to risk; they, on the other hand, wanted the new possibilities and old certainties,
without realising that it was impossible to have both at the same time. This first triggered social
tension and then even hatred of the so-called rich, i.e. actually more successful nouveau riche, the

16 ~ 17
homines novi, the contemporary ‘winners’. It can be said that precisely this is an, although not very
encouraging, anthropological constant.
The process was taking place simultaneously also in the intellectual and spiritual spheres. In 1348,
a university was founded in Prague, the oldest in Central Europe. At first, its activity was not very
pronounced, because it took place either in the flats of the professors or in the cloisters of the Orders
that had their general studies in Prague (the Dominicans, Friars Minor Conventual, Cistercians and
Augustinian Hermits). Not until 1366, when the first regular college was established, did the activity
of the university liven. After 1378, when the so-called Great Schism of Western Christianity began,
a number of professors from Paris, the residence of the very most important university of that time,
moved i.a. to Prague and Prague University thus for some time became one of the most important
universities of Europe. However, neither was Prague University itself ready for it, nor was the Prague
and Czech milieu able to absorb this deluge of stimuli. What came was rather acculturation shock.
The trains of thought that were transferred to the Prague environment often exceeded its capacity (be
it purely intellectual capacity or in terms of social and cultural imagination). Tension gradually rose
especially at the Faculty of Arts and Faculty of Theology from the end of the 14th century.
This was compounded by the fact that the treatises of John Wycliffe arrived in Prague from
Oxford in the 1390s. Wycliffe is the father figure of the English Reformation; the movement of the
Lollards, which was active especially in the last quarter of the 14th and first quarter of the 15th
centuries, was connected with him to a certain extent. The Czech milieu especially appreciated
Wycliffe’s rigorousness, not so much his sophistication. Being a thorough advocate of the English
national church, he systematically defied the Pope’s power in his tractate De potestate pape (On the
Power of the Pope) and definitely preferred the secular power of the English King in the tractate De
civili dominio (On Civil Dominion). He claimed that priests were to be completely subordinate to
the King (he mainly had the English King in mind though) and endeavoured to institute this, by
which he became suspected of heresy and was removed from Oxford University, where he lectured.
In opposition to the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, he expressed the concept of remanence,
but that did not speak to the Czech milieu (perhaps with the exception of Hus’ teacher Stanislaus of
Znojmo), who brought a compromise concept of consubstantiation but did not find a successor in
that). To put it briefly, John Wycliffe spoke to Prague with his ecclesiastical and political rather than
theological thinking.
Two things are characteristic. By his emphasis on the principles of the Scripture (despite his
arguing in a very sophisticated and at times even Sophistic way by using Patristic and Scholastic
sources), John Wycliffe is very close to Matthias of Janov and his extensive treatise Regulae veteris
et novi testamenti. They have their rigorousness in common but differ in the circumstantiality of
their argumentation, which can be found with Wycliffe but which Matthias of Janov lacks. Since
Matthias of Janov was accused of heresy and only avoided the process through his own death, it
was Wycliffe who unequivocally found his place in the Czech milieu at the turn of the 15th century.
Nevertheless, around the mid-1410s when in connection with Hus’ process the dissident movement
grew into open resistance and spread even beyond the university to all the social classes, Wycliffe was,
precisely for his less sophistication and hence simpler and clearer ideal, eclipsed by Matthias of Janov.
Czech Wycliffism fulfilled its role and after the calix, which had its own domestic sources, became
established, it entirely decamped.

Henry of Langenstein, Tractatus de scismate (Epistola concilii pacis)

NL CR XIV.C.16, fol. 208r
18 ~ 19
John Falkenberg, Tractatus de renunciacione papatus
NL CR X.D.10, fol. 104r

Adalbertus Ranconis de Ericinio, Epistola de crebra communione

ad plebanum sancti Martini in vico carnificium
NL CR I.G.27, fol. 1r
20 ~ 21
 The second thing is connected to the subordination of the clergy to royal power. It was partially
adopted under Wenceslas IV, King of Bohemia, Holy Roman Emperor but only until the storms
concerning the papal letters of indulgence in 1412, when he discovered that it was only pouring oil
on the fire. In its time, it was virtually not implemented, but today we can see that this concept of
Wycliffe’s was an archetype of the totalitarian state and closed society, in short an attempt at total
control.
In 1408 and 1409, when the Council of Pisa was being prepared and conducted, two opposing,
competing streams significantly developed, i.e. Papalism (with an emphasis on monarchical Papal
power) and Consiliarism (with a stress on the collective power of a General Council under the
influence of the emerging Parliamentarism). Czech adherents to the reform movement, however,
did not become involved in these polemics, because they saw the attempt at church reform more
radically. Although they did not yet have a definite idea of what the church, state and society were
specifically to be like, it was clear to them that it was not like they appeared at the time. John Huss
expressed it entirely clearly in his appeal to Christ the Judge.
Parallel to this line, there was a strong movement of Catholic reformism and a devotio moderna
movement in the Czech lands in the 14th and early 15th centuries. The latter did not appeal so
much to the public and political spheres but focused mainly on the private sphere. The Czech devotio
moderna primarily addressed individual and personal piety and focused on spiritual leadership. An
example here can be the relationship of Provost of Roudnice Petrus Clarificator and Archbishop of
Prague John of Jenstein. Unlike the Dutch devotio moderna, whose main feature was the creation of
quasi-clerical communities of the laity under the leadership of the clergy, in the Czech milieu it was
the activity of the Augustinian Canons in Roudnice and Třeboň, or more specifically the Roudnice
Reform radiating from there. This movement had only an intra-church importance rather than
spreading its influence to all of society.
It was different with Catholic reformism, whose representatives included both diocesan and
order religious. Most of the main figures of this movement were university teachers who showed
their conviction outwardly by selecting practical topics from life for their lectures and treatises.
Matthew of Krakow, in spite of his being a professor at the Faculty of Theology, wrote a treatise De
contractibus (On Economic Contracts), in which he dealt with the relations between craftsmen and
traders, namely on the borders of moral theology, law and economics. On the basis of a quote from
the evangelist Luke, he proceeds from the fact that it is first of all necessary to be faithful in that
which is least, i.e. in secular life, and only then is it possible to attempt to be faithful in much, i.e. in
relation to God. Similarly, the Dominican Henry Bitterfeld of Breg (Henricus Bitterfeld de Briga)
in his treatise De vita contemplativa et activa (On the Contemplative and Active Life) instead of the
traditional rigid division of the contemplative and active life he lays out a concept of a mixed life
(vita mixta), which allows also the people aspiring for secular goals to aim for God. The Catholic
reformists were representatives of the lay middle classes and expressed the attempts of the lay middle
classes for emancipation in terms of both the Church and secular authorities. The radical reformers
and modern historians who relied on the radical reformers’ view of the world usually looked down on
the Catholic reformists; nevertheless, the Catholic reformists were the ones who had actual historical
importance in the long term.

Maurice called Scuffle, Defensio pape Gregorii XII.

NL CR XII.F.30, fol. 51v
22 ~ 23
 However, the radical reform movements and the Catholic reformism had one topic in common,
namely respect for the Eucharist (the sacrament of Holy Communion) and advocacy of frequent
taking of Communion by the lay people. Milicius de Cremsir, Adalbertus Ranconis de Ericinio,
Henry Bitterfeld de Breg or Matthias of Janov, as well as even Matthew of Krakow agreed on this.
Receiving Communion from the calix, which hardened the aversion to the Catholic Church in the
Czech reform movement for good, is hence a consequence of the thinking and activity also of less
radical components of the Czech religious movement. It is thus no wonder that even Czech Catholics
who appeared at the Council of Constance as Hus’ accusers and opponents were considered as some
kind of enfants terribles and were not enthusiastically welcomed when they had to become exiles as
a result of their actions.
The prelude of the Czech Reformation in the 14th century is very colourful and many a time it
would deserve more research interest and a better expository evaluation..

Matthias of Janov, Regule veteris et novi testamenti

NL CR III.A.10, fol. 104r 
24 ~ 25
John Hus, De ecclesia
NL CR V.E.16, fol. Vv
2. msitissuHHussitism

Hussitism arose from the Czech religious (or more specifically reform) movement at the end of the first
decade of the 15th century. Thus – in 1408 and 1409 – the proverbial irresistible force met the immovable
object. The Czech masters, who had until then been benevolently tolerated by the Roman Church, were
summarily called to account for their ideas which they had up to that time freely spread not only at the
Prague University but also among the laypeople in Prague and elsewhere. Herein lay the main problem:
they less and less expressed their ideas at the university so-called disputative (i.e. disputatively, which
could be understood in such a way that within theological and after all even artistic disputations they
were delivered as mere ‘opinions of a theologian’ and not as clear apodictic propositions) and ever
more spread among the laity so-called assertive (i.e. assertively, which had to be understood by the
hierarchical authorities as not mere ‘opinions of a theologian’ but as apodictic propositions, because
they were delivered with respect to the laity by the authority entrusted with spiritual power, so it was
or at the very last could be an abuse of that power, and thus the justified suspicion of heresy arose).
We have already seen how important clear rules formulating who can, may and must do what and
on the other hand who cannot, must not and does not have to do what are in a socially and culturally
differentiating society. The question of who wants or does not want to do what, because they consider
it as important for a reason which is fundamental for them is irrelevant in this aspect, or may even be
dangerous as a result of its subjective tinge. In short, the mediaeval Catholic Church was of the opinion
that it was possible to say many things but that it was certainly not possible to say them to anyone or
to spread them among everyone. There its tolerance ended, because it saw the destruction of faith and
religion and consequently also of the Church, society and state in it.
For that reason, it called the Czech masters to Rome to account. And what normally occurs in
such cases happened: a dispute erupted among the Czech masters and the situation at the Prague
University came to a head with the departure of the masters of university nations other than Czech, i.e.
Bavarian, Saxon and Polish, and the establishment of a new university in Leipzig. The secession was the
immediate reaction to the Decree of Kutná Hora (Kuttenberg), by which King Wenceslas IV intervened
in the organisation of the university by allotting the Czech university nation three votes in voting and
decision making, while limiting the other university nations to one joint vote (whereas prior to that
each university nation had one vote). The Decree of Kutná Hora was an expression of the royal support
for the Czech masters, who were in the overwhelming majority pro-reform and reformation-minded,
against the masters of the other university nations, i.e. essentially against the German masters, who
remained strictly in the orthodox positions of the Catholic Church and thus were distinctly anti-reform
in orientation. It does not at all mean that they were reactionary as seen by a certain branch of Modern
Czech and other historiography, nonetheless it is still indisputable that this type of Reformism, which
dominantly spread among the Czech masters, was not only alien to them but utterly indigestible.

26 ~ 27
John Hus, Contra octo doctores (Replica contra scriptum octo doctorum theologie Pragensium)
NL CR V.G.9, fol. 53v

John Hus, De sanguine Cristi glorificato

NL CR VIII.F.2, fol. 1r 
28 ~ 29
 However, there was nothing surprising in that: dissension in the approach towards the reform
movement between the Czech masters on the one hand and the masters of the other university nations
on the other had been going on for a longer time already. It was rather a reflection of the fact that
the foreign theologians came from more advanced milieux where Christian acculturation was not as
recent and intense as it was in the Czech lands and thus had not experienced an acculturation shock
like that experienced by the Czech theologians, and were more careful concerning new or seemingly
new ideas and more circumspect in relation to the neophytes’ enthusiasm. What was therefore more
substantial was the rupture between the Czech masters, which occurred at that time regarding the
reform movement, because until then they had formed an uncommonly uniform group. If we do not
want to use strong or biased words, some of them now, following the example of Hus, increased their
ferocity and radicalism while others, after the example of Stephen of Páleč, weighed their words more. If
we do not want to speak too lightly of courage on the one hand and cowardice on the other, we should
say that what was important here was Hus’ appeal to Christ as the supreme judge. Despite everyone
being in agreement that the Head of the Church was truly Christ, the issue in this specific case was
in what way He should decide on Hus’ appeal or on appeals in general and primarily in what way he
should reveal his decision. Not even Hus said that, so in the end the suspicion was confirmed that he did
not recognise the legitimacy of ordinary courts and the definitive nature of their valid decisions. Even
though Hus wanted to be considered as a Catholic, he had called it into question by his appeal, because
he had actually cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Church organisation, thus in reflection on the whole
Church on its way toward perfection (ecclesia peregrinans), or in the phraseology of the day the Church
Militant (ecclesia militans) and recognised in fact only the Church Triumphant (ecclesia triumphans).
The Czech masters, who considered themselves to be rather priests and did not claim the position of
prophets, could not accept this. What was concerned was reliably not only normal human fear but
apprehension of being caught in the snares of what we would call being ideological today.
It is apparent that Hus’ radical path was accelerated from that moment on. His stimuli were not
dogmatic-theological considerations but events that he had witnessed and experienced. Although at
first, for example, he recognised the existence of purgatory and his stance on indulgences was neutral,
which arose from the fact that he had never dealt with the theological issue systematically and simply
accepted what was then considered to be normal, in 1412, i.e. in the year of the Great Controversy over
indulgences and manifestly political dispute on indulgences, he suddenly changed his position, began
to reject purgatory and not only started to take a negative stance on indulgences but actively appear
against them. Similarly, also his support of congregational singing in Czech, the emphasis on songs,
i.e. paraliturgical or non-liturgical forms, his Czech writings, as well as his introduction of diacritic
orthography as against digraphic orthography in his treatise De ortographia (On Orthography)
proceeded from practical life circumstances. And, finally, practical life experiences became the basis
for his conception of truth, which he envisaged subjectively like conscience (or it can be said on its
basis). Truth thus had subjective cogency for the one who exposed (or only presumed to expose)
and address some of its facets, but it did not necessarily have the same cogency for the one who was
to accept it, i.e. it lacked a sufficiently perspicuous objective character. In short, without systematic
theological work by way of objectification of revelation and faith, it is difficult to persuade those who
do not already share this conviction latently.
Roughly at the same time, Stephen of  Páleč tried to demonstrate exactly that in his treatise De
equivocacione nominis ecclesia (On Equivocation in Using the Word Church). He attempted to define
the concepts which are denotations of the word ‘church’ clearly and using examples demonstrated what
confusion follows if these concepts are arbitrarily interchanged. Moreover, it is impossible to determine
now whether it was innocent ignorance or intentional sophistry. In Hus’ case, both can be justifiably
considered although neither of them can be reliably verified and proved. If we read through his
treatises, it is clear that Hus did not pay much attention to refined argumentation, because he was rather
concerned with influencing the listeners according to his own intentions. On the other hand, we can see
how dextrously he was able to change tack at the process in Constance. Not even today do the accused
have to testify against themselves (and neither today do we say that they are lying), nevertheless it can be
seen in it that Hus knew the ropes in utilising not sophisticated but Sophistic arguments. Considering
that at the then exalted time we are talking to a certain extent if not predominantly about a rhetorical and
homiletic battle, intentional sophistry on all sides cannot be ruled out at all. If we maintain our distance
as is appropriate in examination and perception of the past, it will not surprise us; if, however, we agree
with one of the fundamental sides rather than the other in the dispute, it may not surprise us so much
either, but it will definitely outrage us; all of human history, however, is full of scandals.
Notwithstanding that, still in 1414–1415, or 1416, i.e. when John Hus and subsequently Jerome
of Prague were investigated, convicted and burnt at the stake in Constance, Czech reformers (now
it is undoubtedly already necessary to use this word) were able to continue the deeper tradition of
the Czech religious movement in which no distinction was made between Catholic reformists on the
one hand and reformers on the other. All of the branches of the Czech religious movement shared
respect for the Eucharist, in which the Catholic cult of the body of Christ and the reformist, reform
as well as reformational emphasis on frequent taking of Communion (if not daily, then at least once
a week) were well joined. This was seen not as an emancipation of the laity from the spiritual power
but rather as an equalisation of the laity and priests. The priests take the Host at every Mass, hence
in the Prague conditions at the time actually daily. Such ideas (whose author or at least significant
disseminator was Matthias of Janov) were in circulation as general priesthood (by which the laity
are equal to canonically ordained priests) and living saints (i.e. actually living devout Christians,
who must be honoured more than the holy dead, i.e. the Church-approved saints, venerated in the
liturgy). At the time of Hus’ process in Constance, the lay receiving Communion from the calix arose
from that, which was introduced publically by Jacobellus of Mies (although he did not have to be the
author of this idea, because it seems based on one of the letters he wrote to Hus in Constance that it
could have already been the topic of earlier discussions in a narrower circle).
In introducing the lay calix, it is, however, extremely important to mention in what way it
happened. The original intuition that was its source is certainly impalpable for fundamental reasons;
what is important is its reproduction in Jacobellus’ argumentation for the lay calix: his justification
is in no way theological, he uses exclusively historical arguments, because he ascertains that it was
the 4th Lateran Council (1215) that first introduced the reception of Communion under one species
by the laity; earlier even the laity had received Communion under both species. The polemics to
whom the words which Christ uttered during the Last Supper and which have been used in the
liturgy were addressed, namely whether only to the Apostles (and consequently only bishops and the
priests derived from them), or all of the followers (and consequently all the laity) were not yet very
frequent at that time. The Catholic Church even admitted that it was only a human custom, which
can undergo change if it proves to be necessary. On the other hand, it can only be changed provided
that this change does not trigger dissension among the people; if it should cause unrest, it is suitable
and proper not to change the existing custom of the laity receiving the Host under one species. On
the other hand, Jacobellus and the other Czech reformers proceeded from a much more rigorous
concept, namely that it is necessary to observe what we read in the Gospels and what was observed
by the Early Church Fathers, who did not yet value human inventions (adinvenciones humane) as

30 ~ 31
much as the contemporary Church values them. Although the introduction of the lay calix thus
built on the vital piety in the earlier periods, the idea of a certain form of the Church which not
only transcended the vital piety but swept beyond experience, without being based – as we would
say today – transcendently or transcendentally, was mixed into this simple piety. Oddly enough, the
thorn of objectivity hence sharpened, thus forming the base for potential or future bigotry.
This was proved a little later in the second half of the 1410s and in the early 1420s, when almost
convulsive reverence of the Lord’s body, the so-called second component of the Eucharist, erupted
in connection with the establishment of the lay calix. Other than processions with the monstrance,
which continued, discussions and polemics began on Communion being received by even the smallest
children. It has been an established custom in the Catholic Church that the smallest children do not
receive the Host, because they are not sufficiently developed into an independent person (which on
the other hand also means that they are not sufficiently socialised), and only in later childhood do they
participate in their so-called First Holy Communion. Some of the rising Hussites wanted to eliminate
this Catholic custom, because they saw limiting formalism in it. However, Communion of the youngest
children was not achieved in the long term, because in the end the general opinion prevailed that
this idea was too extreme to be possible to be achieved without a problem and to work smoothly.
The attempts for children’s reception of Communion may be a merely ephemeral episode, but they
show the still substantially mediaeval character of Hussitism, which we sometimes – considering the
social endeavours that are interpreted by some historians as revolutionary movements and even seen
as revolution by others – do not want to accept, because it shows that the Czech reformers in their
enthusiasm failed to notice the difference between childhood and adulthood.
It is an open question of how much the Eucharist processions bearing the monstrance accompanied
by the frenetic enthusiasm were genetically connected with pilgrimages to the mountains and with
the chiliastic craze roughly in 1419–1422. The connection may be merely external; nevertheless, it is
clear that at the beginning of the Hussite movement short-circuit thought, action and behaviour were
significantly instituted, which were linked with the refusal of Catholic formalism without a thorough
theological consideration of the actual principals. Jacobellus of Mies, the leading Hussite figure after
Hus, even strictly refused to speak on theological questions outside of the theologically educated public,
i.e. essentially outside of university circles, because it could definitely not be said of the average priests
then that they would be especially trained in theology and that any intellectual training at all would be
common among them. This refusal to convey supporting content outside the most closed circles of the
elite, however, proved to be counter-productive: people in the socio-cultural sense were only left with
forms which rather more than less differed from the Catholic at that time, and so they explained them
in some way to themselves when they had not obtained a convincing and authoritative explanation
from somewhere else, primarily from the elites, from whom they had expected it. Short-circuit thought,
action and behaviour at the beginning of the Hussite movement thus is not at all surprising.
The form of short-circuit thought, action and behaviour is clearly manifested in the plundering
of the Carthusian monastery in Smíchov by the people of Prague in 1419. The people knocked and
pulled down the statues of the saints from the altar, amputated their arms and legs, cut off their
ears and poked out their eyes: in short, as they had not long before exaggeratedly venerated them,
now they deeply hated them; we can surmise that they began to see daemons in them. However, the
short-circuiting by far did not stop there. The people, who were not getting even basic theological
explanation of the new principals other than impressive but superficial symbols, began to question
even these new forms and symbols, which they had not even had a chance to experience properly;

Jacobellus of Mies, Salvator noster

NL CR I.E.29, fol. 31r 
32 ~ 33
Jacobellus of Mies, Posicio de percepcione corporis et sanguinis sub duplici specie omnibus Cristi
fidelibus ministranda
NL CR VIII.E.7, fol. 85r
at least some of the radical streams did so, because they noticed that the veneration of the Eucharist
and the enthusiasm for receiving and establishing the lay calix lacked an ideological basis and hence
were empty. And so they spurned the veneration of the Eucharist with its processions bearing the
monstrance, because they realised that they meant nothing and that in addition their form was a
form of the refused objectified Catholic piety. This was also the reason that not until then had these
radical streams adopted remanence, thus earning their being accused of so-called Beghardism. And
as if they had remembered the problematic dissident brothers and sisters of the Brethren of the Free
Spirit, they seem to have propagated a type of quasi-pantheism. Therefore, on the basis of Jesus’
multivocal declaration from the Gospel of Luke that the Kingdom of God is either among people,
i.e. within society, in the relations among people, or within people, i.e. in each individual, they came
to the conclusion that God is in every person, in all people and in all of creation. It is possible to
have various opinions, but the problem arises when a person identifies with the object of his or her
considerations, i.e. when, like in this case, he or she begins to consider himself or herself to be a god.
Today it may appear laughable, but at that time such a perception was even for the great majority of
the nonconformists and dissidents unequivocal sacrilege, blasphemy.
The veneration of the Eucharist was objectified, however, even in a more sophisticated form than
was this sensory. The discussions on the Eucharist became permanent and in fact the most important
subject of harsh polemics as well as the main theme of the discussions of Hussite synods especially in
the 1420s but also at the beginning of the 1430s. These discussions and polemics were rather political
conflicts than the ventilation of theological problems. The statements of the various component streams
and parties were more or less twisted and served rather to besmirch the opponents and denounce them
as heretics than as a means of a serious search for solutions. The disgust of the radicals and strongly
negative affects, which the objectification of the Eucharist evoked in them, could have arisen also from
this never-ending mummery of vanity, especially when the main parties in the disputes – the masters of
Prague University and the Taborite priests – accused each other of inappropriate pride.
The years between Hus’ burning (1415) and the First Defenestration of Prague (1419) were to
a great extent dominated by discussions on the justification for war and on the need for peace. It
must have been in the air already before when we realise that John Hus prepared a Sermon on Peace
(Sermo de pace) for Constance, although he could not deliver it. However, the same as peace in the
conception then meant more than an absence of war between two sovereign states, war also meant
something else than a mere continuation of international politics by other means. Peace was also a
legitimate social order, which by legal means ensured order and public safety. On the other hand,
war was a violent solution to not only international conflicts but also to intrastate social conflicts.
It may be quite characteristic that the need to answer these questions arose in the years when it was
still relatively calm, because not everyone was moderate, hoping for a peaceful resolution of disputed
questions, in the tranquil rectification of vices and eradication of inequities through their demise as
a result of learning about a better possibility. There were also some who were fiercer. They did not
presuppose yet the definitive corruption of human nature by the original and hereditary sin (this
is not mere silly superstitiousness: the same thing has been mentioned even relatively recently by
Karl Jaspers, who however labelled it differently, namely as metaphysical guilt), it was not brought
until Martin Luther and became common in the second, world Reformation (see Luther’s polemic
with Erasmus of Rotterdam on a person’s free will). Nevertheless, they definitely did not want to wait
for the lengthy, calm development of mankind. Already then there must have existed at least latent
chiliasm, which anticipated the approaching end of the world. Impatience thus seemed justified: to
wait for a lengthy improvement seemed reprehensible punishment in the right sense of the word.

34 ~ 35
Jacobellus of Mies, Utrum infantibus baptisatis divinissima eucaristia sub specie pani set vini
debeat ministrari
NL CR VIII.F.2, fol. 149r
Majority opinion then, however, still insisted on war having to fulfil very strict parameters in order
to be possible to consider as allowed, or justified. When we take this opinion into account, what
followed nearly continuously for the next few decades is ironic.
An example of the tension which prevailed among the calm and violent solutions to the problems are
the Four Articles of Prague, i.e. free preaching of the word of God and the lay calix (positive demands)
on the one hand and prosecution of overt sins and obstruction of the secular rule of the Church
(negative demands) on the other. The positive demands did not directly assume the use of violence
(although it was also unleashed in connection with them), whereas the negative ones undoubtedly
build on violence. The article on the inadmissibility of secular rule for the Church, which actually
meant depriving the Church of its mainly landed property, was taken advantage of by the secular elites,
which relieved the Church of its yoke of secular property in a rapid secularisation. It was a short process
with both pro-Catholic and pro-Reform aristocrats participating in it, which in its consequence led to
its not causing a sensation among the other classes of the population as a whole, and thus the desired
peace remained passably preserved. The prosecution of overt sins, on the other hand, dominated the
other social classes for some time, with the lower classes being likely to have been prosecuted more. It
was possible to project into that the almost natural distaste of the lower positioned and subordinate to
the higher placed and superiors: here, they could hold them to account for their lifestyle, which was
and remained inaccessible for themselves. Sometimes it had a somewhat comic touch, like when the
members of the Taborite army, which had gathered in Prague to help against the Crusaders around
the date of the Battle at Vítkov Hill, cut the manicured fashionable moustaches of the affluent Prague
burghers. Other times, it was not so funny and there were certainly situations when it became grim.
Someone might have seen it as when you make an omelette, you have to break eggs; considering the
following war years, however, the idea intrudes that evil often looks banal at first glance.
It was later the theme of the Council at Basel, where the Hussite masters departed to defend the
ideas of the Four Articles of Prague. It was actually precisely on the occasion of the discussion of the
agenda of the Article of Prague on the prosecution of overt sins that Gilles Charlier rebuked them
for not distinguishing between a sin and a crime. Both categories overlap in that every crime is a sin,
but it does apply conversely, which means that not every sin is a crime. Both a sin and a crime are
evil, wrong, immoral etc. behaviour; nevertheless, they are significantly different from one another: a
sin is before God, whereas a crime is before the people. And so, whereas people are not only entitled
but directly are to and have to punish crime, the prosecution of sins and punishment for them is
reserved only and exclusively to God. To the Radical reformers, this might have seemed like buck
passing and Laxism but involved a check to human error, haste, prejudice and malice. The argument
of Gilles Charlier was serious, because it suited the so-called Agreement of Cheb. The Agreement of
Cheb was an accord of the Council delegates and the Czech representatives that only and exclusively
argumentation from the Scripture and from the Early Church Fathers concurring with the Scripture
and its spirit (which to a certain extent correlates with the rules of the Old and New Testaments, or
the Holy Scripture as it is spoken of by Matthias of Janov) would be valid as arguments during the
discussions of the Czech reform issues in Basel. Rather only on a tangent can we notice in this context
that the proclamation of a Crusade against the Hussites was a Papal issue, whereas the Council of
Basel (and afterwards also the Council of Ferrara-Florence) manifested itself more moderately. Is it
only a bonmot when we say that the concilium pacis (peace council) was one of the main notions of
Henry of Langenstein already at the end of the 1370s and the beginning of the 1380s?
With the Hussite movement and Hussite Wars, the Czech religious movement unmistakably
introduced itself to Europe. Extensive polemical literature exists not only among the Czech opponents

36 ~ 37
Stephen of Páleč, Utrum de necessitate salutis sit hominem confiteri solis presbiteris omnia sua
peccata tam mortalia quam venialia
NL CR VIII.F.2, fol. 149r
Andrew of Brod, Utrum summa dei sapiencia
NL CR XIII.F.16, fol. 74r 
of Hussitism (the most significant including first
of all Stephen of  Páleč, Maurice called Scuffle,
Andrew of  Brod, Stephen of  Dolany, as well as
a number of others) but also among foreigners
(including the especially interesting Thomas
Ebendorfer von Haselbach, as we will see later).
In the context of the Czech religious movement
of the 14th century as a Pre-Reformation and
Hussitism as the First Reformation, however,
another fact, which is much more important
and which is likely not to have been sufficiently
assessed yet, also appears. Although the Czech
lands, the historically most advanced nation of
the so-called New Europe (as Jerzy Kłoczowski
calls those areas of the European continent where
the power of the Roman Empire did not reach) in
the Middle Ages, had joined only not long before
the nations of so-called Old Europe (as the same
Jerzy Kłoczowski calls those areas where the
power of the Roman Empire once extended) as
equal partners, they were able to intervene very
significantly in the European history of the beginning Late Middle Ages: in the second half of the 14th
and first half of the 15th centuries, there were three centres in Europe from which innovative stimuli
came for religious life and – considering the significance of religion in the Middle Ages – also for all
of society. The first were central and northern Italy; the second was the Lower Rhineland and old Low
Countries (i.e. not the Netherlands); and the third were precisely the Czech lands. No matter how we
regard the period of the Hussites and the Hussite Wars (because we cannot deny that the opinions of the
historians fundamentally differ here – and considering John Hus as the prototype of the modern liberal,
i.e. in the sense of a Whig, as František Palacký wanted, only evokes the ironic characteristic of Hus as a
clericalist, with which as a reaction Jan Sedlák came), we cannot but see that precisely they have shown
the significance which the Czech lands reached at the end of the Middle Ages.
The external historical explication and description are necessarily dominated by the events which
represent the actions visible on the surface. Therefore, in the course of several Hussite decades, such
streams that were leading towards radicalism and the middle stream on which the main burden of the
conflict with the extremists lay were quite naturally more visible. The stream that is called once the
Hussite right wing, another time the Hussite conservatives, thus disappears from sight to a consider-
able degree. It would undoubtedly deserve a much deeper study than it has received so far, because it
was precisely this conservative stream that – albeit within the catholic, i.e. in the mediaeval conception
within the general, not the strictly Roman Church – attempted to build something in the fashion of the
Czech National Church inspired by the French Church or possibly even more by the Church of Eng-
land. Although some of these Hussite conservatives at the end of their lives returned to the bosom of
the Catholic, i.e. Roman Church, the firmest of them (John of Příbram and Procopius of Pilsen to name
a few) did persevere. It seemed that they were entirely pushed outside of the main middle stream and to
the margins, but the Czech National Church, for which they had strived, grew after all, albeit somewhat
differently than they had imagined it, i.e. outside the general, catholic and Roman Church.

38 ~ 39
Stephen of Dolany, Antihus
NL CR IV.G.13, fol. 97r

Stephen of Páleč, Replicacio contra Quiddamistas

NL CR XI.E.3, fol. 124v 
40 ~ 41
Procopius of Pilsen, Defensio tractatus de ideis Iohannis Wyclif
NL CR X.E.24, fol. 135v
 3. :msiuqartUUtraquism:
lanoitaN AA National
hcruhCChurch
gnirehtiD morfrom
f Dithering

The period of the Hussite Wars ended with the Battle at Lipany in 1434. Nevertheless, some unrest
of greater or smaller extent continued to exist in society, and the situation was pacified only after the
death of George of Poděbrady and the ascension of Ladislaus Jagiellon (later Vladislaus II of Bohemia
and Hungary) to the throne in 1471. Yet it was only a superficial appeasement, because on the one
hand internal dissensions, which were manifested in the Prague storms of 1483 and which were with
definitive validity extinguished by the so-called Peace of Kuttenberg (Kutná Hora) of 1485, were still
smouldering and on the other Czech King Ladislaus Jagiellon ruled only Bohemia between 1471
and 1490, because the rest of the Czech lands fell de facto to Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary,
as a result of his conflicts with George of Poděbrady. The Battle at Lipany thus brought the end of
the worst battles and material depredation, but society was being pacified for another few decades.
Understandably, this had certain socio-cultural consequences.
If we wish to deal precisely with the socio-cultural sphere rather than the political, the interval
between 1434 (the Battle at Lipany) and 1471 (the death of George of Poděbrady) was the period of
the birth of Utraquism and the establishment of the Utraquist Church. The word Utraquism is derived
from the compound lexeme sub utraque specie (under both species), or communio sub utraque specie
(Communion under both species). The word species is understood as the body of Christ as well as
His blood, which form components of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Utraquism hence refers to the
fact that the laity takes Communion of not only the body of Christ (as it has been in the Catholic
Church since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215) but also the blood of Christ, which was expressed
by the symbol of the calix. The labels Utraquists and Calixtines are thus synonymous. The symbolic
or metonymic label is not in this case anything uncommon; quite the opposite, it is typical for various
Christian churches and denominations.
The Hussites – not despite but precisely because of their attempts to accomplish a reformation –
endeavoured (perhaps except for some entirely marginal extremist heretical groups) to be Catholics,
namely exactly those real, good and proper, not only Catholics in name. They understood the word
Catholic as a synonym of the word Christian. The Hussites suspected the adherents of the Roman

42 ~ 43
Church, the adherents of both the Pope and the Council, of being Catholic and Christian in name only.
As it usually is, those did not doubt their being Christian and Catholic but had certain doubts in the
case of the Hussites. As various opinions and counterclaims in the same things opposed one another
here, a formal decision and recognition in the matter of the calix, in the matter of Utraquism, was
necessary. This recognition was discussed at the Council of Basel, and its result were the Compactata
of Basel. Although the discussions concerned all four Articles of Prague (free preaching of the word
of God, the lay calix, the obstruction of the secular rule of the Church and the prosecution of overt
sins), the Council Fathers were willing to recognise only the lay calix. Although they had certain
objections (the issue for which insurrections and war arise should not be a rule) even about this, they
recognised it, because they considered it as a matter of free human decision and not as a binding
Divine commandment. Who was essentially satisfied with that were conservative Hussites, who did
not want more significant changes and mainly attempted to create or establish a Czech National
Church, in which they succeeded in this way and which was even rendered by a clear and expressive
symbol. The moderate middle stream did not welcome it so enthusiastically, but settled for it as at
least recognition of the partial Czech path of Reformation when the general reformation of the entire
Catholic Church had proved to be impossible to implement. The Basel recognition hence did not
accommodate the wishes of most of the participants but showed itself to be a compromise on which
they could agree. Nothing more and nothing less.
The Compactata of Basil were then proclaimed in the Czech lands in Jihlava in 1436. This date
can thus be considered as the formal beginning of Utraquism and the establishment of the Czech
National Church, which has been a component of the Catholic and Roman Church but at the same
time is distinguished by a specific feature, which distinguishes it from that Church. In the early
Christian periods, it was not a problem; at that time, the dictum of Prosper of Aquitaine lex orandi
– lex credendi (loosely translatable as ‘the law of prayer is the law of belief ’) really applied. Since
the Czech Hussites and Utraquists proceeded from the Agreement of Cheb, i.e. the agreement with
the delegates of the Council of Basel concluded in Cheb in 1432 that only Biblical texts and the
statements of the Early Church Fathers in agreement with them would be recognised as arguments
in the discussions of the Council, it seemed almost too obvious to them: it cannot remain unnoticed
that the Council delegates accepted the so-called Agreement of Cheb only with extreme self-denial;
after all, the Agreement of Cheb quite contradicted the Catholic emphasis on tradition. In the
end, however, they chose the lesser evil when they correctly surmised that the acceptance of the
Agreement of Cheb by them would simultaneously mean the end of the battles on the part of the
Czech malcontents. The Utraquists thus allowed themselves to be lulled into a false sense of security,
but the Roman side was not sleeping and was merely waiting for a suitable opportunity. That came
after the ascension of George of Poděbrady to the royal throne and after his initiation of attempts
for absolute equality of those receiving Communion under one species (the Catholics) and those
receiving it under both (the Utraquists). Through this neutrality of the state, he made it manifest that
he understood the Catholics and the Utraquists as two different creeds, confessions, that he did not
consider the Utraquists as only a pardoned exception for one country and for certain circumstances.
Yet, the Basel recognition of the calix definitely did not mean recognition of a different confession.
Accordingly, Pope Pious II did not hesitate and cancelled the Compactata in 1462. King George
of Poděbrady, on the other hand, resolved in 1464 that no one who had not sworn on the Compactata

John of Příbram, Tractatus contra factionem extremam Thaboriensium

(contra septuaginta sex articulorum Picardorum)
NL CR III.G.17, fol. 65r 
44 ~ 45
John of Rokycany, List proti jednotě bratrské (A Letter against the Unity of Brethren)
NL CR XVII.F.2, fol. 34v

John of Rokycany, Postila nedělní a sváteční

NL CR XVII.D.40, fol. 1r 
46 ~ 47
could be a university professor or public official. In that way, the Utraquist Church unwillingly but
clearly separated from the Roman, Catholic Church and remained so until 1609, when it again joined
it, although already under completely different conditions and circumstances.
In the case of Czech Utraquism, the Czech-American historian Zdeněk David speaks of ‘finding
the middle way’ and interprets it as an attempt of the Utraquist Church to find itself between the
Roman Church and the Churches that had arisen from the Reformation of the 16th century. He thus
revises the concept of Ferdinand Hrejsa on Neo-Utraquism, which is supposed to have emerged
under the influence of the Lutheran Reformation and to differ from Old Utraquism, i.e. that part
of the Czech Utraquists who did not allow themselves to be influenced by the Lutheran and other
Reformations of the 16th century. Hrejsa’s intent was evidently to prove a unity of evangelicals in the
Czech lands in the 16th century – he was an advocate of the Bohemian Confession and follower of
John Amos Comenius, who proclaimed that there are various unities but only one Church of Christ.
Hrejsa evidently proceeded from the current needs of the Evangelical Churches at the end of the
Austro-Hungarian period and hence easily and happily yielded to the illusion which the Czech Estates
attempted to create in Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor. David, on the other hand, follows the
Utraquist Church primarily already in the period of its establishment as the Czech National Church
in the 16th century and thus without further question he allows the fact to fade that its emergence
in this form was unwanted and that the people at its birth had had other intentions; not to mention
the line coming from František Palacký and T. G. Masaryk, which stressed, or rather overstressed, for
the whole Czech First Reformation the Unity of Brethren (Unitas Fratrum in Latin), in comparison
with which the Utraquists reputedly appeared slack and incoherent. In addition to all that confusion,
there are also certain features here which bring the Utraquists closer to the English environment,
namely both to the Lollards of the second half of the 14th century and first half of the 15th century
and to the Church of England from the first half of the 16th century. It may seem strange, but despite
the extensive research on the Czech First Reformation, there are still – especially in terms of the
Utraquist Church – many uncertain issues, namely even the basic ones.
Much can be explained by the very beginnings of the Utraquist Church, the circumstances of its
emergence and the profiles of the people who participated in this process. They are predominantly
four figures, to whom later generations referred: Milicius de Cremsir, Matthias of Janov, John Hus
and Jacobellus of Mies. Milicius functioned rather only as an icon, because he was a good Catholic
and his connection with the later development is accidental (Matthias of Janov shielded himself with
Milicius during his work) or superficial (he was ascribed the treatises of various later authors, like
John of Příbram, which might be but does not have to be significant). Matthias of Janov, an authority
who replaced the earlier dominant John Wycliffe around 1415, was too Scholastic to survive but at the
same time simple enough (he could actually do with two words: Holy Scripture) for this simplicity to
become a paradigm for future generations, so that he stopped being quoted consciously and was not
deliberately extricated from obliteration until by Vlastimil Kybal at the very beginning of the 20th
century. John Hus became the ‘Martyr of Constance’ (which was later joined by ‘President Liberator’
in some circles in the Modern Period), a mere mark of difference, but hardly anything more. Who we
are thus left with is Jacobellus of Mies, who was the only true theologian among them. It was he who
in reality stood at the beginning of further tradition.
It is, of course, a great simplification, but there are mainly three things that are at least interesting
and remarkable, if not significant and important, in connection with Jacobellus’ person and activity.

Wenceslas of Dráchov et al., Sermones de sanctis bohemice interpolati

NL CR IV.F.24, fol. 1v 
48 ~ 49
Wenceslas of Dráchov (?), Sermones dominicales per circulum anni
NL CR IV.F.6, fol. 7v
Firstly, Prague University ceased to function at the height of his activity, although it still existed as
an institution. In today’s words, we can say that the normal scientific operation was disrupted. If
the activity in these areas continued at all, it was linked with politics or directly subjugated to it.
Unshielded by a functioning university, theology (if it had existed as such at all) hence was much more
politicised than before. This did not create a good basis for the future and did not arouse confidence.
Secondly, Jacobellus under these circumstances attempted to avoid ventilating theological content in
front of the laity, which had to be replaced by simpler symbols, especially the calix. As a distinctive
symbol, the calix was outstanding but insufficient, because it could not encapsulate all of the changes
brought by the hectic and turbulent time. Much remained unfinished or unspoken, which was not a
suitable inspiration for later theological thought either. Finally, as if Jacobellus had been aware of the
deficit arising from the first two issues, his sermons are like by a red thread interwoven with aversion
to social differentiation. It is certainly a criticism of the situation, of which Petr Chelčický later
made good use of in his anti-ideal of the town (which was highlighted by František Šmahel) and for
which Jacobellus hence set the foundations. Might it, however, be also mere populist demagoguery,
which is to obfuscate the lack of more serious content? Altogether, is it possible that these features,
which are connected with the most important theologian of the Hussite generation, happen to lead
paradoxically directly to the discredit of theology?
We cannot find the factual basis for this question. It is, however, a component of the interpretation
leading to the explanation of the future character of the Utraquist Church, which emerged and was
established a number of years after Jacobellus’ death in 1429 and united the middle stream of the
Hussites with their conservative wing, which, with its representatives including John of Příbram and
Procopius of Pilsen, was intellectually more sophisticated, although much weaker at the same time.
The Compactata of Basel suited that wing’s aims, with the wing having no other aspirations. What
is interesting are some of the philosophical treatises of Procopius of Pilsen, which present him as an
inspired soul. Such people and the atmosphere which dominated among them made it possible for
Prague University, as soon as it renewed its regular functions, to adapt Versorism immediately in the
1440s and 1450s, which was then a modern (albeit considerably simplified) interpretation of Thomas
Aquinas, so that it is possible to speak of the first form of standard Thomism. On the other hand, the
passionate polemicist John of Příbram refused the philosophically and theologically sophisticated
Wycliffe for a somewhat surprising reason, namely that he was not Czech. A certain aspect of distrust
in the general theological resolution of problems can be seen in that again. Overall, the activity of
the Hussite conservatives resulted in an eclipse of theology, which also led to the attempts to renew
Prague University in the full original extent of four faculties (of Arts, Theology, Law, Medicine) not
manifesting themselves and Czech society for a long time being satisfied with a university of a single
faculty (of Arts) and essentially agreeing that this faculty was no longer a cosmopolitan institution
like in the pre-Hussite period but a limited land university intended for the education and edification
of officials, the emerging class of bureaucrats.
Its population still included some Catholics, namely quite important, like the New Town scribe
(i.e. director of the office of the city council) and the exceptional university teacher Procopius the
Scribe. Even though the New Town of Prague was the heart of the Hussite movement, Procopius the
Scribe was, in spite of being Catholic, completely loyal to it, even fighting devotedly and strenuously
in its interest as a legal-historical expert. In addition, he taught ars dictandi, i.e. a course in the
composition of (predominantly city) documents, at the university. It is precisely therein that the
transition of the university to a land institution preparing officials can be seen. However – which
is quite remarkable, because he was not a spiritual leader – he also taught ars moriendi (the art of

50 ~ 51
dying), i.e. he lectured on the moral-theological or practical-theological issues of thanatology. In
addition to all that, he was, as we would say today, an investor. That is to say he bought and sold
property on the one hand and so-called perpetual payments, i.e. rents, on the other. Therefore, when
he as a Catholic had to leave his offices, he did not feel any harm, because he was not dependent on
the incomes from his official posts but could live as a rentier.
Procopius the Scribe, who came from an old family of Vyšehrad reeves, thus could without
difficulties become one of the homines novi, the new people of the Hussite Revolution, whom we
could also pejoratively call nouveau riche. It is precisely to them that Jacobellus’ attacks on the great
differences in society are likely to have referred. Such people were mainly among the Hussites and
Utraquists. When later in the 16th century the Czech lands were spoken of as a kingdom of dual
people, it can definitely be transferred also to the middle of the 15th century. There was dual people
here (the Catholics on the one hand and the Hussites and later Utraquists on the other), but that did
not mean that people met with prejudice in normal life. Relief was brought by the end of the battles,
whose point already faded in the new generation. However, another contributing factor must have
been the discredit of theology, leading to a quietening of the theological polemics, which had poured
oil on the fire before. From a single source, i.e. the party of the Hussite conservatives, the Czech
Utraquist Church thus arose as an a-theological Church, which is precisely what brought it closer to
the later Church of England or even the Quakers.
The second source of the Utraquist Church can be found in the centre of the middle Hussite
stream. Its profiling figures were John of Rokycany and Rokycany’s alter ego Wenceslas of Dráchov.
Both of them consciously adopted the legacy of Jacobellus of Mies while making it, however, (at least
theologically) somewhat superficial. It was precisely they who were more or less the representatives
of the Hussite homines novi (for which they were very sharply rebuked later by the groups from
which the Unity of Brethren formed). Particularly Wenceslas of Dráchov was so to say one hand with
the nouveau riche trading in property and rents. Therefore, he defended their interests, which was
simply laissez faire in some kind of rudimentary form. Only one thing was necessary for that – peace,
in this aspect in the form of quiet for work. However, as the representatives of a large and eventually
the largest Hussite party, they simply had to conduct their policy as an art of the possible, which
entailed that if possible they were to eschew any controversial and at all clear proclamations. It is, of
course, a little harsh, but as if the preaching of John of Rokycany as well as of Wenceslas of Dráchov
had been like flogging a dead horse. John of Rokycany, for example, would say that it was better to sit
at home than participate in a peregrination, etc. Wenceslas of Dráchov, on the other hand, constantly
or like a street organ ad nauseam repeated that Christ was the only intermediary between people and
God, but otherwise his sermons are almost barren in a theological sense. Whatever the reasons for
this were, the Czech National Utraquist Church emerged also from the middle Hussite stream as an
a-theological church.
Confessional historiography, be it Catholic or Evangelical, has mostly had only words of
condemnation and contempt for the a-theological Utraquist Church. Its a-theological nature led
the Utraquist Church to  such social conservativeness that allowed it to step out of the mediaeval
dominance of religion over the whole society. The Catholic Church in the Czech lands could do
this only on the basis of the stimulus that came precisely from the Utraquists, whereas critics of the
Utraquists who also declared themselves as heirs of Hussitism were not able to do this at all, which is
particularly striking in the long and hard fights between the Minor and Major Parties within the Unity

Procopius the Scribe, Rhetorica in quinque tractatus divisa

NL CR I.F.16, fol. 1r 
52 ~ 53
Graduale latino-bohemicum
NL CR VI.B.24, fol. 1r
of Brethren. It is also reflected in how the Brethren’s theology conserved mediaeval Scholasticism in
fact until the beginning of the 17th century (which is something entirely different from the Spanish
so-called Second Scholasticism, which led to the Baroque).
Through its a-theological nature, the Utraquist Church permitted its members to focus more on
practical life matters and allowed them much more to deal with the worldly questions of economy. In
this, it even inherited a great deal from the pre-Hussite Catholic reformism with its liking for treatises
de contractibus (on economic contracts). However, the problem was that with the continuing non-
existence of royal powers (or very weak royal powers in the period of the Jagellion kings) there was
no balance between the individual classes of Bohemian and Moravian society and that the aristocracy
harmfully dominated. In 1479, the aristocracy achieved the serfdom of the rural population. This was
quite different from one hundred years before when, on the other hand, no one had even a slightest
idea of serfdom and liege–subject relations were eased and economic bonds relaxed. The aristocracy
of course proceeded from its own interests when their manors were generally in need of renters,
and hence at least those that existed were made serfs. However, that led to a lack of stimuli for the
development of urban enterprise, so that the towns found themselves under the bell jar, which they
themselves gradually removed by accepting guild corporatism as against rudimentary laissez faire.
Similar features can be found in the English environment, where they were however much
stronger, because before the Wars of the Roses it had functioning royal power guaranteeing social
stability and public order; yet royal power after the publication of the Magna charta libertatum (the
Magna Carta or Great Charter of Freedoms) in 1215 was limited, such that it could not develop into
such a form as requested by Wycliffe. Moreover, a balance existed in England at that time between the
elements of society, so that the features there were not only prospective like in the Czech lands but
actually developed later according to their perspectives. A comparison with the English environment
is not at all on a tangent as the Church of England like the Utraquist Church was governed by the
principle of ‘finding the middle way’. Nevertheless, it unfortunately arises from the current tradition
of Czech historiography that this more optimistic evaluation of the Czech National Utraquist Church
is still in need of being properly elaborated.
The Utraquist Bohemia was thus dominated by a practical a-theological piety. It was manifested
especially in the massive development of Czech church devotional songs conducted by the literati
brotherhoods most likely in all of the town parish churches. The towns comprehended the parish
churches as their representation and considered also both the literati brotherhoods themselves
and the sheet-music books from which they sang as the representation. Some of these manuscripts
especially from the 16th century are significant works of art. The repertoire preserved in them is very
diverse and complex in its heterogeneity. They contain traditional mediaeval compositions, whose
original Latin text has been replaced by a Czech text (with the later compositions, also the opposite
process appears rarely), as well as new compositions, namely both by domestic and foreign authors.
Moreover, the masses for some of the graduals were composed by the most important domestic
composers of the time, for example by Jiří Rychnovský in the 16th century. The tradition of the
literati brotherhoods was so strong that it survived the Thirty Years’ War as well as the period of the
subsequent Counter-Reformation, so that many brotherhoods lasted until the 18th century. At the
beginning of the Modern Period, similar brotherhoods of singers at parish churches appear even in
the Austrian lands or Bavaria. It is possible that the influence of the Czech Utraquist Reformation at
least contributed to that (although they are Catholic areas). Since the late mediaeval and early modern
period, Czech hymnology has been a significant phenomenon, to which the practical a-theological
character of the Utraquist Church contributed a great deal.

54 ~ 55
 Among the Utraquists at the turn of the 16th century, however, there also appears a remarkable
author who deserves some attention, namely John called Bechyňka. His main work Praga mystica
(Mystic Prague) is a kind of guide around the churches, which he sees as passageways to another,
transcendental world. Bechyňka offers a theology of mystic experience, but as if this theology of
his had not actually been a theology, because it did not require a thoroughly one-sided focus on the
contemplative life, as the mediaeval monastic tradition promoted, but even a person who otherwise
dealt with worldly affairs could be guided to mystical experiences. Bechyňka thus distantly builds
on the conception of a vita mixta (mixed life) of the Dominican and Catholic reformist at the end
of the 14th century Henry Bitterfeld of Breg, but his theology at the same time resembles ‘mysticism
for housewives’, later introduced by the Catholic Saint Francis de Sales. The expression ‘mysticism
for housewives’ is in no case pejorative here, because after all Bechyňka himself is the author of the
treatise Rybové o rozkoši šplechtavé (Disgusting Delights for Ms Rybová), which is an expression of his
spiritual leadership. In this, Bechyňka continues the efforts of the Czech devotio moderna movement,
for example of the famous Provost of Roudnice Petrus Clarificator. The person and work of John
called Bechyňka definitively removed the label of being withered and decayed from the Utraquist
Church.
It is also interesting that Czech libraries have in their holdings a number of manuscripts of
the authors of the so-called Viennese School, a literary movement which tried to join Thomism
with Nominalism and the mystic version of devotio moderna. The Viennese School is considered to
be inspired by Henry of Langenstein, and its profiling authors include e.g. Thomas Ebendorfer von
Haselbach, Nikolaus Prunzlein von Dinkelsbühl, Johannes Geuß or Stephan Landskrona, and that in
spite of the fact that Austrian authors at that time were usually anti-Hussite and anti-Utraquist and
Thomas Ebendorfer both wrote anti-Hussite tractates and was involved as a diplomat in the anti-
Hussite side. It can, however, be seen that despite the political and confessional differences, the Czech
Utraquists were tuned to the same chord as the Viennese school, so precisely that proximity became
dominant. A sign of some kind of tolerance can be seen in the interest of the Utraquists in the works
of the Viennese School much more than in the forced compromises in the political arena, because it
was usually only making a virtue out of necessity there.
A great deal remains unknown about Utraquism and the Utraquist Church, but the preserved
testimonies which have been examined thus far prove that it definitely cannot be considered as
decayed and backsliding.

Graduale latino-bohemicum notis musicis quinque vocibus adaptatis instructum et in usum

litteratorum ecclesiae s. Michaelis Opatoviensis (tenor)
NL CR XI.B.1a, fol. 9r 
56 ~ 57
The entry of Václav Budovec of Budov (The Memorial Album of Isaak Aschpan von Haag)
NL CR XXIII.F.17, fol. 13r
fo tc4.atnoC eThThe Contact of the
mrofeR dlroWWorld Reformation

I am further aware that as diverse as people’s heads are, as diversely will my work will be judged and
interpreted: by these in this way, by those in another, some will like it while others will not. And thus all the
evaluations will be quite strange, because as many heads, as many ideas and as many judges. The wittier
and more learned will criticise lengthy and superfluous talk, whereas the simpler will consider some things
especially unfamiliar to them as written too briefly and not clearly enough. Others will say: why is he carrying
coal to Newcastle, because others have written on it in Latin, German as well as in Czech, like some Patriarch
of Jerusalem….? Still others will not like anything, especially those who are of such an elevated and very
ostentatious spirit that that they consider as best and praise only themselves and whatever they think and do
while vituperating, disparaging and miscellaneously disfiguring the work and endeavours of all the others.
Voldřich Prefát z Vlkanova [Ulrich Prefat von Wilkanau]: Cesta z Prahy do Benátek a odtud potom
po moři až do Palestyny, to jest … léta Páně MDXXXXVI [The Journey from Prague to Venice and from
There across the Sea to Palestine, i.e. to the Once Jewish Land, the Holy Land, to the City of Jerusalem to
the Lord’s Tomb, which with the Help of God the Almighty was Successfully undertaken by Ulrich Prefat
von Wilkanau in the Year of our Lord MDXXXXVI]. Karel Hrdina (ed.), Praha : Vesmír, 1947. p. 9
The fifteenth century was full of breakthrough elements of both world and Czech history, with
numerous phenomena developing at that time and surprisingly a whole range of them being also
preserved for a long time. What the 15th century certainly brought was the emergence of new
‘Churches’ in the post-Hussite Czech lands (and in its way also in the other Crown Lands). Czech
society was forced already in the 15th century to come to terms with the beginnings of ‘dual faith’. A
significant role was played also by the radical activities of the Reformation streams, which continually
went through the entire 15th century and which in its way uniformly (if this word can be used at all)
stood against both the Catholic fraction and the moderate Utraquist fraction. The key moment was
the creation of the independently acting ‘church’ of the Unity of Brethren, which already very soon
after its establishment began to seek close collaborators also in other lands.
Contacts with the world public are evident on more fronts than only in relation to the Bohemian
Brethren. For that matter, in connection with the Unity of Brethren, it is not possible to speak of the situation
until the first half of the 16th century anyway. Already the leading personalities of the Hussites themselves
tried to address the surrounding countries, which is proved by famous Hussite manifestos. It was not the
only goal of the glorious rides of the Hussites to become acquainted with the surrounding lands, but their
primary purpose was to seek out new contacts and possible kindred groups of brothers and sisters. Silent
trench raids in their own way took place also on the positions of the spiritual leaders of the individual
Hussite factions. Last but not least, it is not possible to consider the isolation of the Czech lands, which is
very often mentioned in connection with the Hussite Czech lands and the approach of the surrounding

58 ~ 59
countries, as an absolute concept. The works of the important Hussite spiritual representatives were in
various ways reaching beyond the borders of the Czech lands, where they were subsequently treated.
A significant role in the distribution of the treatises of the conservative as well as radical spiritual
reformers within the Czech lands and then mainly outside of them was indisputably played by the
phenomenon of book printing. Despite the initial experimentation and groping in the second half of
the 15th century, the full implementation and rapid development of an entire range of conservative
as well as radical ideas was enabled by the search for suitable and fast book-printing processes and
primarily the possibility of relatively quick and large sale of texts in printed form. With respect
to the development of mainly radical ideas, it can be stated that book printing participated to a
significant extent in the deepening of the original contacts of the Czech spiritual leaders with the
spiritual representatives of other European countries. On the other hand, it mediated the entry of
new, breakthrough works to the Czech lands and helped Czech intellectuals keep pace with events in
other European countries. This situation was typical predominantly for the subsequent 16th century,
but it is necessary to take it into consideration already in the preceding period.
The fifteenth century, and in the next case mainly its second half, brought a number of interesting
moments. Contacts with the word public did not take place only on the purely intellectual level,
many times they concerned also groups of similarly thinking (or it is also possible to say ‘suffering’)
contemporaries. It is for example proved that a group of a few hundred Waldensians ran away from
the German lands to Moravia (the area of Lanškroun, Fulnek and northeast Moravia), where they
became acquainted with the Czech milieu and subsequently brought back a number of its interesting
ideas and stimuli after being driven out of Moravia to their new place of activity, which became the
broad area of Moldavia under the protection of Prince Stephan.
In looking for new contacts, not even the early representatives of the Unity of Brethren were
idle. It is known that Brother Thomas of Přelouč in seeking new ‘colleagues’ turned to a group of
Paulicians in Hungary. Other Bohemian Brethren were on the lookout in the broad areas of eastern
Poland, Galicia, the Russian lands, and even addressed members of the Armenian groups in Lviv
and Moldavia. Nevertheless, this search brought numerous disappointments rather than the coveted
contacts. An interesting attempt to establish contacts was undertaken by four members of the Unity
(namely the later bishop Luke of Prague (Lukáš Pražský), nobleman Maurice Kokovec, a Litomyšl
tailor and trader Martin the Coatmaker, German priest Kaspar von Brandenburg) at the end of the
century in question (15th?) in the form of journeys to Constantinople (Kaspar), Russia (Maurice
Kokovec), Asia Minor and Greece (Luke), Palestine and Egypt (Martin the Coatmaker). It was
especially Brother Luke of Prague who was disappointed. On the other hand, Martin the Coatmaker
left interesting testimony from his journeys in the Near East in print from 1539. Brother Luke
considered his journey to Italy and Rome as much more successful, during which he managed to
become closer mainly to the leading Waldensian personalities.
In the first half of the 16th century, significant Czech spiritual representatives attempted to re-establish
contacts especially with Western Europe. In 1520, Nicholas Claudianus, thinker, physician and printer
of the Brethren, was sent to the famous scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam in Antwerp. The detachment
of Erasmus from the Brethren’s ideas was given primarily by his fear of the menacing and progressing
Radical Reformation in Europe. Mainly translations of the works of Brother Luke, namely his Apologia
sacrae scripturae, issued in print in Nuremberg in 1511, were soon spreading all over Europe. Not only
did this short treatise, printed in a few copies, become an object of interest of Emperor Maximilian I, but
it was also worked with by the spiritual father of the German Reformation, Martin Luther.

A primitive depiction of Martin Luther (The Memorial Album of Jakub Popovický of Popovice
in the print Flores Hesperidum)
NL CR 23.G.57, fol. fV 
60 ~ 61
 The activity of the Unity of Brethren evoked not only positive reactions on the part of the
foremost European scholars. Its ideas were opposed by the German Humanist Jacob Ziegler in his
tractate on the Waldensians. They were noticed also by German scholar Hieronymus Dungersheim
von Ochsenfurt.
Our attention in focused on the events of the 16th century. This period represents without a
doubt an interesting developmental stage of Czech and mainly world history. The entire century
creates the impression as if it had been carried on developmental waves similar to those that carried
the transoceanic ships on their voyages of discovery to new continents. Some of the professional
opinions claim with significant audacity that this was the century when world as well as Czech society
began to awaken. Other experts maintain that it began to discover itself. Still others propagate the
opinion that it quickly forgot all that it had learnt in the previous periods. None of these ideas takes
into account all of the levels of events then. Only a kind of unified labelling of this period as the
Modern Period, the period of Humanism (and Mannerism) entered the textbooks.
The Europe-wide process of the second wave of the Reformation influenced to a significant degree
European and by extension also world history. The Reformation here did not emerge suddenly; it had
deep roots in European cultural and theological history. Its archetypes can be found already with the
earliest Christians and the first Christian sects; they appear with the generally known Albigenians or
Cathars, the Brethren of the Free Spirit as well as the Waldensians. In its way, Hussitism is considered to
be the first significant wave of this world Reformation. It was, however only the Reformation stream of
the first half of the 16th century, which struck with unprecedented strength all of the ‘cultural’ European
countries and each of their inhabitants, that comprehensively inscribed itself into world history.
The spiritual leader of the European Reformation, Martin Luther, was not from the beginning of
his activity entirely positive towards the Hussite ‘heretics’. Not until scholarly disputation (in Leipzig
on 5th July 1519) with Johann Maier von Eck did he have the documents on John Hus translated
and begin to reassess his stance on the Czech Reformation. In a certain way, a connection between
Luther and Czech Hussitism was even found – he was included among the disciples of the Hussites
at the Diet of Worms (in 1521). His position on them, however, remained cautious and he expressed
interest rather in conservative Utraquism.
The number of followers of Martin Luther in the Czech lands grew only very slowly, predominantly
among the German population. Primarily the printing press and the activity of the Lutheran preachers
played an important role. The first ‘contaminated’ places were northern and northwestern Bohemia
(mainly the town of Loket but also Děčín, Česká Kamenice, Jáchymov and others).
Luther became more deeply acquainted with the Czech Reformation in 1520–1525. Primarily
the negative reactions of the overt opponents led to his interest in the situation and the state of
the Reformation in the Czech lands and to a deepening of mutual contacts. In summer 1521, the
close collaborator of Luther’s Thomas Müntzer came to Prague, accompanied by his colleague
Mark Stübner. Both were welcomed by the Radical Utraquists from the circle of persons associated
especially around the city councillor Doctor Burian Sobek of Kornice. The ‘skirmishes’ of Luther’s
supporters and opponents started in Prague. According to the written records, Thomas Müntzer
would preach in German and his friends interpret into Czech. Nonetheless, Müntzer’s preaching
incited displeasure on the part of the aristocracy and conservative leadership. Just before his secret
dash from Prague, Müntzer managed to complete his famous Prague Manifesto.
In the next phase, closer ties primarily with the Unity of Brethren and its spiritual leaders were
established, even though Martin Luther himself in this stage had already more or less relinquished
active contacts. An echo of his earlier activities was still his text of Mission from 1522, in which he
supported the fight of the Czechs against Rome. However, not even the moderate Utraquists entirely
agreed with Luther’s ideas and rather took a slightly opposing stance.
In the Czech lands, Lutheran priests asserted themselves gradually but significantly. Their activity
was facilitated both by a certain, careful sympathy of the central Hungarian court and the secret favour
of some Silesian lords. The Lutheran priests slowly began to appear in the Czech lands also in the
areas of the Bohemian and Moravian Catholic nobles (Father Paul Sperat in Jihlava, Father Wolfgang
Heiligmat in Olomouc). Whereas primarily the aristocrats agreeing with the Unity showed goodwill in
Moravia, greater permeation with the stimuli of the Czech Radical Reformation occurred in Prague.
The persecution of so-called Lutherans in Prague culminated primarily in 1524–1525 (see e.g. evidence
in the Lesser Town Gradual of 1582, in which also Martin Luther is depicted along with John Hus).
The later and also more distinctive contacts with the German Reformation were maintained by
mainly the younger generation of Bohemian Brethren, which purposefully became acquainted with
Luther’s teachings (for example Jan Roh (Johann Horn), Ulrichus Velenus – and his treatise Výklad
slavného doktora Martina Luthera o Antikristu (An Explanation of the Famous Doctor Martin Luther
on the Antichrist). On the official level, they were sustained primarily by the Brethren Bishop Luke
of Prague, whose certain stimuli were reflected also in Luther’s polemical treatises (predominantly
thanks to Luke’s treatise Odpověď Bratřie na spis Martina Luthera (Response of the Brethren to the
Treatise by Martin Luther). Of the later generation of the Bohemian Brethren, it is necessary to
remember predominantly John Augusta, who personally visited Martin Luther in 1535. Chiefly at
the time of the repressive measures on the part of the king, the Bohemian Brethren turned ever more
to Wittenberg (see the translation and printed book of the Apologia as well as the Confession of the
Unity of the Bohemian Brethren of 1535). At this time, also the Polish Reformationists manifested
interest in the Unity of Brethren. An important moment of this period was the beginning of the
contacts of the Bohemian Unity of Brethren with the Strasbourg reformer Martin Butzer. On the
other hand, the somewhat younger Czech Brother Jan Blahoslav addressed rather the second wing
of the Reformation, i.e. mainly Philipp Melanchthon and also Jean Calvin. Under this impression,
contacts were strengthened primarily with the Hungarian Calvinists.
In the period in question, also Zwingli’s teachings began to appear in the Czech lands. Zwingli
himself expressed interest predominantly in the teachings of Hus, although unlike Luther he had only
a weak idea of the actual religious situation in the Czech lands. Incompatible ideas appeared between
the successors of Zwingli and the representatives of the Czech Reformation, which prevented these
two streams from merging.
A further opportunity for contacts with abroad were the journeys to neighbouring countries by
young as well as older aristocrats of various religious streams, be they for the purpose of education
(e.g. young Bohemian Brethren noblemen), becoming acquainted with other places (by all the
religious camps), or as a certain type of entertainment. On these journeys, the gentlemen commonly
kept travel diaries serving in numerous cases as the basis for books of travels, a popular literary
genre at that time. These books of travels in an attractive way not only captured cultural practices,
monuments and the descriptions of various countries starting with those of Europe and ending with
distant Asian countries but also reflected cultural sentiments, the educational horizon and interests
of their writers as well as their social position.
Similar interesting testimonies of the contacts of a, let us say, social nature are brought by memorial
albums (the so-called alba amicorum). We encounter them with almost all of the important people
of the centuries in question. Friends as well as acquaintances would write in them and along with their
signatures they would leave both short and long entries or plain and simple pictures. In individual

62 ~ 63
The entry of Tycho de Brahe, Jr. (The Memorial Album of Heinrich Biesenroth)
NL CR VII.G.28, fol. 117v

The diary of the journeys of Matthias Chrysostom Günther

NL CR XXIII.G.1, fol. 25r 
memorial albums and their entries, the period is mirrored in all of its beauty and ugliness in a charming
and unpretentious way. High-spirited entries from the first half of the 16th century reflect the relaxed
spirit of pre-Rudolphine society and many times have preserved testimony on the popular types of
entertainment. The entries from the second half of the 16th century slowly but surely begin to have
the negative emotions which weighed upon Rudolphine society slipped in. Based on them, it is also
possible to notice the religious and nationality composition of both aristocratic communities among
other things. And finally the entries from the 17th century speak to a full extent on the hopes as well as
despairs and not uncommonly contain entries by exiles including their unfulfilled wishes and desires.
The 16th and 17th centuries are usually not always entirely justly confronted as two completely
separate periods. The truth remains that what the 16th century started, namely mainly in the relation
to the process of Reformation and differentiation of society according to the individual religious
streams, the 17th century fully completed. It put the finishing touches to the significant milestones
of the Modern History. After all, the consequences of the Reformation can be felt in its own way even
today. The Reformation process changed perhaps every component of life then, discarded a number of
ideas and replaced them by new ones. Indisputably, it brought new official Churches, modified political
systems, new systems of thought and approaches to life. Its main advocates, however, worked with the
experience of the previous Christian personalities and their ideas. This connection with the earlier
development and on the other hand the sometimes almost stubborn attempts to get rid of it at all costs
was one of the building blocks of that century. Not until the ‘big bang’ of the Thirty Years’ War was a
decision brought – only the way in which it was reached was not exactly the most suitable.
The Reformation remains in itself what creates distinctive world history. Its consequences
are perceptible not only on the European continent but to an unprecedented degree form also the
contemporary history of North America and in its own way also Australia. Its effect is mirrored also
in the journeys during which anticipated but further unknown Asian and African countries were
discovered. The Reformation also brought an unprecedented bloom of various sciences – as if a coveted
freedom had come in these areas. Nevertheless, its arrival was gradual; the real blossoming was long
in coming.
The Reformation, however, left a whole range of disarrays behind. An overall scepticism,
uncertainty and hesitance balanced by unhealthy manifestations of aggression, be they in the form of
scientific attacks or sabre rattling, dominated for all of the 16th century and culminated also during
the subsequent events of the 17th century.

64 ~ 65
John of Rokycany, Postila nedělní a sváteční (A Sunday and Holy-Day Postil)
NL CR XVII.D.40, fol. 2r
n5.aimehoB eThThe Bohemian
dlroW eht dnaand the World
noitamrofeRReformation

One of the crucial moments of the process of the Czech Reformation was without any doubt the
emergence of the Unity of Brethren. In its subsequent behaviour towards the majority society,
the Unity itself shaped specific phases of this process in a certain way and also left its mark in the
extensive process of the European Reformation. Its role is indisputable for both processes, although
it is sometimes too underestimated or exaggerated.
The Unity of Brethren (Bohemian Brethren) in the Czech lands represented one of the important
centres of the Radical Reformation in the proper sense of the word. In its own right, it was not an
exceptional phenomenon in this regard in any way, since also the Antitrinitarians, all the Anabaptists
and some members of the radical Utraquists were considered to be radical reformers. At least at
their beginnings, the Bohemian Brethren held radical opinions provoking representatives of both the
Catholic and Utraquist religious factions of the Czech lands at the end of the 15th century and in the
early 16th century. What was thus characteristic for this form of the Radical Reformation (sometimes
also labelled as the People’s Reformation)? First of all, it was the refusal of the Eucharist and the Papal
succession from Jesus Christ to the current Roman Pope and on the other hand the arrogation of the
right to an individual interpretation of the Bible. It held true also in this case as it did for other radical
religious groupings that it was the Biblical message, represented by an unequivocal inclination to
the New Testament without the additional layers, that was considered as the only life guideline and
source of learning. By the way, the situation under which the Unity of Brethren emerged and took
its first few steps was so complicated that it is oftentimes difficult to distinguish the lines between
Radical Utraquism and the Radical Reformation.
In the Czech lands, the Unity of Brethren was organised in the relative calm of the 1450s and at
the beginning comprised only an inconspicuous minority which had a few thousand members at
most. Roughly six larger congregations have been proved in Bohemia (in Mladá Boleslav, Brandýs
nad Orlicí, Lanškroun, Lenešice, Litomyšl and Rychnov nad Kněžnou) for this initial period. In
Moravia, their activity has been observed in approximately thirty-eight places (mainly in Uherský
Brod, Přerov, Prostějov and Třebíč). In final numbers, the early Bohemian Brethren comprised less
than one percent of the population with a significant preponderance of the populations of villages
and liege towns and townships. By the way, Calixtine areas and towns were much more amenable
to the Brethren than most of the Catholic lords and towns. Reports on the Bohemian Brethren are
entirely lacking from typical Catholic towns, like e.g. Pilsen, České Budějovice or Cheb; on the other

66 ~ 67
hand, they appeared in the records of Calixtine towns like Slaný, Beroun, Čáslav, Domažlice or
Hradec Králové.
Members of the Unity were originally labelled as ‘Chelčický Brethren’ according to their spiritual
founder Petr Chelčický. For that matter, his work was drawn from for the entire period of the
operation and active function of the Unity of Brethren, although naturally in diverse forms and to
various extents. At first, the ideological principle in question edified the members of the Unity over
the sinning groups of the other people and formed around them a kind of aura of exclusivity. This
fact had already appeared earlier around other similarly ‘exclusive’ radical groups (last but not least
e.g. also around the group of the Taborites or ‘Mikulášenci’, followers of Mikuláš of Vlásenice in
the Pelhřimov /Pilgrams/ District /†1495/, also known as the Weeping Brethren, operating in the
Moravian area).
The subsequent expansion of the Unity of Brethren and for that matter also of the Radical
Reformation was made possible primarily by the lack of a radical solution to the problems of the
Calixtine Church, mainly in the area of ecclesiological ideas. The individual directions of the Radical
Reformation brought proposals for solutions wherever the Utraquists had been treading on water
or struggling without clearer results with foremost Catholic spiritual leaders. Such radical solutions
can naturally also be found in the initial ideology of the Unity of Brethren. This included hatred of
the priests of all levels and estates and especially aversion to those priests that sinned. One of the
important founders of the Unity, Brother Gregory (Řehoř), who was of the ideal ‘estate’ origin from
a tailor family, at the beginning insisted on a number of features typical for Radical reformers, such
as seclusion from the world, aversion to swearing oaths, refusal to participate in the mechanisms of
power and the activities of offices and courts, and on the other hand nonrecognition of the rights of
the authorities. Unlike a whole range of radical groups, the original Bohemian Brethren resigned on
rebellion of any type. At the beginning of the Unity, the lower social classes were in their own way
almost destructively heroised. For that matter, the Unity also for this reason asserted itself in the
villages and smaller towns.
The Brotherly Irenicism (i.e. the desire for peace) was founded on the Gospels free of their later
ideological additions. At first, this spoke primarily to serfs and small craftsmen, even though these
ideas soon became attractive also for other social groups. Frequently treated works from the early
times of the Unity included indisputably the works of Petr Chelčický (Sieť viery pravé /The Net of
True Faith/, his Postilla /Postil/ as well as the tractate O šelmě a obrazu jejím /On the Beast and
His Image/). Despite a certain disavowal from the Tábor Church, the texts of Nicholas (Mikuláš)
Biskupec, one of the important spiritual leaders of the Taborites, were abundantly treated.
During the second half of the 15th century, new names of the original fragmented groups of the
‘Chelčický Brethren’ slowly asserted themselves in practice. Instead of the original terms cierkev and
kostel (which can be translated as ‘Church’ and ‘church’), the expression sbor (congregation) began
to be used, confronted with the term of the Roman Church. The word jednota (unity) as a result had
a narrower meaning, because it referred to an independent congregation of persons chosen by God.
The name Unity of Brethren soon spread to all the congregations of the Brethren.
Although the Unity in the first years did not attempt to confront the Catholic and Calixtine
Churches radically, it was forced into this confrontation already by its basic ideas themselves. A
delicate question was for example the Brethren’s conception of the priesthood, which in essence
threatened the social position of the clergy. Already the ‘Chelčický Brethren’ had elected their first
priests following the Biblical models, even though they had disputed the priestly institution at the
very beginning. Not until later, under the influence of the ongoing formation of the Unity, was the
activity of the priests ‘rehabilitated’. That, however, did not change anything about the fact that
whereas in other places in Europe the priesthood was quite rehabilitated, the tendency manifested in
the Czech lands was the opposite.
Within its conception, the Unity of Brethren was distinctly universalist and emphasised, albeit
unwittingly, the Czech language. In the first stages, the radical requirement of Czech prayer, song and
exegesis of the Scriptures is obvious. In spite of that, it is necessary to bear in mind that the Unity did
not consider itself and did not want to be considered as a national Church. It maintained contacts
with various Waldensian groups beyond the Czech borders, with some of the Waldensians later even
becoming its members. The Bohemian Brethren already from their beginnings sought contacts to
other non-Catholic and non-Utraquist Churches and not uncommonly in that search looked outside
the Czech lands, as was already mentioned in the fourth chapter.
The search for these contacts was determined by a whole range of factors, of which a significant
role was played chiefly by a perceptible demonstration of exclusivity, thanks to which the Unity and
its adherents segregated from the unchosen. The outer manifestations of this elitism were obvious
at first sight. They included primarily a thorough refusal of the baptism of children (later changed)
and the requirement of a new baptism, a refusal to celebrate holy days (including the Marian saints
and Czech patron saints), cults of the Saints (including the cult of the Virgin Mary) and pilgrimages
to religious places. The only holy day for the Bohemian Brethren continued to be Sunday. This type
of refusal naturally became a notional thorn in the eye not only to Catholics but also to the wide
community of Utraquists, who thoroughly refused primarily the original position of the Unity on
the Eucharist, although it is true that the spiritual representatives of the Unity attempted to hold well
back precisely in this direction.
The social structure of the Unity changed with the growing number of the congregations of the
Bohemian Brethren. The number of the educated, rich burghers as well as noblemen rose. This period
of transformation in the Church was borne by significant personalities like e.g. Procopius Rufus of
Jindřichův Hradec, the former Taborite priest Jan Vilímek of Tábor, the layman Jan Klenovský, the
baccalaureate Lawrence of Krasonice, John the Black (Niger de Praga) and chiefly his brother Luke
of Prague.
Predominantly the figure of Luke of Prague shaped to a significant extent the period of
transformations inside the Unity. In connection with him, it is necessary to keep in mind mainly
his Scholastically-formulated teaching on God’s activity as the redeemer, which was in his opinion
the essential content and subject of faith. According to his ideas, principal things could not be
in the power of a person or in the power of the Church and sacraments. In reality, the credit for
acts of redemption yielded before the dearest gift of God, thus before faith. Luke approached the
requirements of escape from the outer world entirely anew – he himself thought that escape from the
world was futile and only marginal, because predominantly faith was to be at the centre of attempts
for redemption. He further pioneered the idea that God’s gift of faith was not limited and predestined
by exclusivity and barriers and that on the contrary it could elevate practically anyone. A significant
idea was primarily the distinction between three levels of things – essential things (God’s grace, the
deed of Jesus Christ, human faith, hope and love), subservient things (the Scripture, the sacraments,
Church) and incidental things (regulations and ceremonies). He considered the congregation of
all the chosen as the very principle of the Church and the main task of the subservient Church to
be bringing people into the essential Church. In his opinion, the subservient church was not an
institution of redemption and could not replace faith and its power, and thus no Church could claim
the right to being general and Catholic. The ideas of the ecumenicity of the Unity of Brethren (in

68 ~ 69
Nekrologium Jednoty bratrské (Necrology of the Unity of Brethren)
NL CR XVII.E.69, fol. 50r 
agreement with the ideas of for example the Waldensians or also Bernard of Clairvaux or Francesco
Petrarch) were clearly formulated in his works. He approached the problem of the Eucharist somewhat
constrainedly, because he thought that it stood next to acts which were connected to the spiritual being
of Jesus Christ. In this case, he got into a sharp polemic primarily with the Utraquist thinker Václav
Koranda the Younger. Despite a certain reluctant stance, a negative position to monstrances and the
calices was evident. In contradiction to the earlier claims of the Unity, he refused a new baptism.
He considered the baptism of children not only as possible but even as useful, thus making them a
part of the spiritual church of Jesus Christ. Such were Luke’s main ideas in a nutshell, formulated in
a whole range of his publications (e.g. Zprávy kněžské /Priestly Reports/, containing an enumeration
of priestly duties as well as practical theology, O spravedlnosti z viery /On Justice from Faith/, Spis o
obnovení církve svaté /A Treatise on the Renewal of the Holy Church/ and others). The ideas of this
thinker to a significant degree influenced the internal events in the Bohemian Brethren congregations
and were relatively soon spread and developed by other Czech as well as European scholars. He can
definitely be considered as one of the most important theologians of the Reformation Period.
Luke’s ideas led to a certain transformation of the Bohemian Brethren congregations. The
perception of the outer world was newly defined, namely exclusion from it, the problem of swearing
oaths and relation to authorities. Ideas of returning to the towns were carefully appearing. These and
other opinions were discussed by a whole range of Brethren congregations (in Brandýs nad Labem in
1490, in Rychnov nad Kněžnou in 1494), although they were accepted only at a very slow pace.
The growing number of Brethren of aristocratic origin was supported by the new conception of
power, which was theoretically justified by Brother Luke in his treatise O moci světa (On the Power
of the World, printed in 1523). According to his words, the spiritual and secular powers should be
differentiated, namely by their mission and function. In these parts, he polemicised primarily with the
central concept of power in Chelčický’s Sieť viery pravé (The Net of True Faith). Under the influence
of Luke’s ideas, the opinions that aristocrats could feely join the congregations, that it was possible
to swear oaths, participate in public affairs and that brethren could even become public figures (e.g.
councillors) were gradually applied. The Brethren from among the aristocrats only had to maintain a
moderate stance towards their subjects. On the other hand, the spiteful stance towards the priests was
considerably revived, and the ideas of stripping the Church of all the property returned.
These newly promoted ideas led to disputes inside the Unity itself. From the end of the 15th
century, two of its significant factions formed – the so-called Minor Party, the defender of the stricter
legacies of Brother Gregory, and the so-called Major Party, inclining towards the more liberal opinions
of Brother Luke, who became its bishop at that time. From that time on, we speak of the processes
of institutionalisation, reinforcement of the organisational structure (formed by the congregation of
the four leading bishops), establishment of the influence of the priests and departure of the laity from
the leading positions of the Unity. These changes went hand in hand with i.a. also the development of
book printing, which soon became a significant weapon of the Brethren congregations.
Brother Luke himself was among the important promoters of a certain form of education, mainly
the ability to read and write. He still rejected higher education and it is not possible to speak of a
Church of intelligence and culture. At this time, manifestations of iconoclasm can still be encountered.
It was generally true that the Unity was focused more on hearing that on sight. The testimony is
provided by the Czech songs sung, reflecting the Brethren’s piety and building on the Hussite legacy.
It is even assumed that Brother Luke was the author of several dozen (perhaps one hundred and fifty)
hymns (see the famous Brethren hymnals). Nevertheless, it is not possible in this context to see the
mentioned hymnals as songbooks: they were rather books of prayers and thanksgiving. General song

70 ~ 71
in itself was to represent a certain form of relaxation since any kind of game, entertainment, dance,
fair and markets was forbidden. Thanks to that ‘gloomy moralism’, the congregations of the Unity of
Brethren were seen by the majority society as gatherings of the grey, modest and too strict people.
They evoked the suspicion of the Calixtines as well as the interest of the Catholics.
The process of transformation within the Unity was shaped also by the ideas of other scholars
of the Brethren. A friend of the famous Humanist and translator Victorinus Cornelius, Lawrence
of Krasonice, polemicised predominantly with the Roman Church and gained a large number of
new members. He even appeared as the first speaker of the Unity in the disputation with Bishop
Gabriel Pover. General respect was acquired by the physician Niger de Praga. Nicholas Claudianus,
a physician and printer from whose workshop the earliest printed map of Bohemia in 1518 came,
soon brought himself to the wide public’s notice. By the way, in this case it was not a map as such but
rather a religious-educational brochure. Neither did the translations of Ulrich Velenius of Munich
remain aside. For that matter, it was precisely he who acquired the treatises by Desiderius Erasmus
Roterodamus (of Rotterdam) for the Czech lands (primarily his Enchiridion Militis Christiani /
Handbook of the Christian Soldier/ and criticism of Pope Julius II).
At the end of these significant breakthrough processes, the Unity was a reformed, strongly united,
although still markedly small Radical-Reformation Church. However, its place in the centre of the
Czech society of the 16th century was already entirely indisputable and irrefutable.
The persecution of the Unity of Brethren on the part of the Catholics as well as the Calixtines was
not long in coming. Nevertheless, it is necessary to mention that it remained a somewhat overrated
and exaggerated fact. The whole situation firmly slotted into the complex of the existential struggle of
the Czech Reformation: a match which was conditioned on the one hand by pressure from Rome, the
activation of the Catholic faction and the arrival of the Inquisition in Olomouc and on the other hand
by in its way the desperate attempts of the Utraquists for reconciliation with Rome in terms of the
confirmation of the Compactata and persistent attempt to renew the activity of the Archbishopric of
Prague. A negative role was played also by the king’s separation at the Court in Buda. The persecutions
evidently reached their peaks in the times of intensive negotiations with Rome.
It is possible to speak of the first real persecution in connection with the royal mandate of July
1503, and it is linked i.a. with the activity of the new Chancellor Albrecht Albrecht Liebstein of
Kolowrat and the Supreme Burgrave Henry of Hradec (both Catholic lords). The attacks were aimed
primarily against the supporters of the Unity, Lords William of Pernstein and John of Schelmberg. At
the beginning, this persecution was very toilsome and evoked unrest also among the Utraquists. On
its basis, the members of the Unity were to be de facto expelled from the towns as well as the villages
and their congregations limited. In this stage, the protective activities of many quiet supporters of
the Unity on the part of the aristocracy (for example, the very interesting privilegium of Johanka
Krajířová of Krajek) were mobilised.
The years 1503–1517, when the ideological battle against the Unity was actuated (e.g. by means of
the tractate by Johannes Campanius of Vodňany Proti bludným a potupeným artikulóm pikhartským
/Against the Errant and Defamed Beghard Articles/ or the work by the royal secretary Augustine
Käsenbrot, Dominican Jacob Lilienstein and Inquisitor Heinrich Kramer (Henricus Institoris), are
traditionally considered as a period of a threat to the actual essence of the Unity. The proceedings of
the royal court led by Albrecht Liebstein of Kolowrat were much more serious than the ideological
works. In the first place, the anti-Brethren mandates (primarily the St Jacob Mandate of 1508)
were renewed, even though their impact was rather weak. Mainly in Moravia, the newly closed

Paměti Jednoty bratrské z let 1530–1546 (Memoirs of the Unity of Brethren from
1530–1546; 1541)
NL CR XVII.C.3, fol. 197v 
72 ~ 73
congregations were reopened. These mandates did not take effect until 1609, although they had been
envisaged for the entire 16th century. It can be said in summation that the persecution of the Unity
was rather on the periphery of the current problems of the Czech lands and their administration.
On the other hand, the persecutions triggered the activation of the congregations of the Bohemian
Brethren. Their defence is evidenced e.g. by the Czech printed sheets intended for King Ladislaus
Jagiellon (from 1503, 1504), which are the first Confession of Faith of the Brethren. Many of these
defences were translated into Latin (for example Confessio Fratrum regi Vladislao ad Ungariam missa,
most likely from Luke’s workshop in 1507) and soon reached the surrounding German lands in
translation.
In the period in question, the influence of Martin Luther slowly but certainly penetrated into
the internal activities of the Unity. After the death of Brother Luke, the new, young generation of
Bohemian Brethren favoured the original ideas of Brother Gregory, even though it again reverted to
Luke’s basic ideas roughly twenty years later. These changes were declared with final validity at the
diet which took place in 1531 and were accompanied by increased Lutheran and Zwinglian influence.
The whole period was marked by a number of strong personalities (Jan Černý-Nigranus, George
called Israel, Matthias Červenka and others), even though the activity of John Augusta, who was both
the spiritual leader of the Unity and an important theological thinker, and the younger Jan Blahoslav
most entered the awareness.
Roughly at that time, the Bohemian Brethren’s relation to their aristocratic patrons strengthened.
An act of the new approach was the public, collective baptism of a group of noblemen in 1530.
Under the influence of the situation in the German lands after the Diet of Augsburg, the aristocratic
supporters of the Brethren (e.g. Conrad Krajíř of Krajek, Bohuš Kostka of Postupice, Friedrich von
Donin publically proclaimed the faith.
The Unity had to come to terms with the new situation after the accession of the Habsburgs to
the Czech throne in 1526. Soon after his coronation, Ferdinand II, Roman Emperor, initiated the first
steps against the Unity (imprisoning some priests). The Brethren’s reaction was one of the Confessions
(presented in 1535 and printed the next year), signed by twelve lords as well. Nonetheless, the Unity
did not achieve its goals. The whole situation came to a head especially after the Schmalkaldic War
(1547). In percentages, those stricken by the war included a great number of Brethren and their
adherents, and in general the whole situation was taken advantage of by Ferdinand as a suitable
moment for the suppression of the Unity in Bohemia. On the other hand, events in Moravia were
much more favourable for the congregations of the Bohemian Brethren. Primarily the recently
renewed St Jacob’s Mandate became a good weapon. The arrest of John Augusta and his younger
assistant Father Jakub Bílek also fall into this period. Under the influence of these events, the Brethren
ever more emphatically returned to their very original roots.
They constantly strengthened contacts with the world reformation society (Martin Luther, the
Polish reformers and newly also with Martin Butzer). On the other hand, the relations with the
Utraquists and their spiritual leaders (mainly with Father Václav Mitmánek) worsened. These mutual
disputes are reflected in the numerous harsh polemics (e.g. Augusta’s treatise Pře Jana Augusty a
kněžstva kališného /The Dispute of Jan Augusta and the Calixtine Priesthood/). The favour of the
Prussian lords in the times of increased repression was taken advantage of by many Bohemian
Brethren, for whom the more liberal Prussian lands offered a new home. Contact with these ‘exiles’
was, however, kept being actively maintained and was strengthened predominantly by the arrival of
exiles in the 17th century.

Písně duchovní evangelické (Evangelical Spiritual Songs, Ivančice Hymnal), 1564

NL CR 54.A.32, fol. IIr 
74 ~ 75
Jakub Bílek, Václav Budovec of Budov, Niger de Praga, The Dispatch to the Diet in Nuremberg of
the Estates of the Czech Kingdom, which was held on St Killian’s Day in 1467
NL CR XVII.E.73, fol. 5v
 During Augusta’s imprisonment, the younger generation of Brethren leaders (primarily Matthias
Červenka, Jan Černý-Nigranus and Jan Blahoslav) won recognition. Mainly Jan Blahoslav can be
boldly placed at the side of the significant bishops of the Brethren like Bishop Luke on the one hand
and Bishop John Amos Comenius on the other. Blahoslav was aware of closer affiliation primarily
with the stream of the Calvinist Reformation than with the Lutheran wing or the Utraquists. He
himself was very interested in the education of younger brethren (see his Grammatika česká /Czech
Grammar/) and overall advancement of the congregations (hymnals).
With the accession of Maximilian II to the Bohemian throne (1564), the Unity was forced
to reassess its current state and approach to the situation of the Church in the Czech lands. The
Bohemian Brethren naturally strove for full religious freedom (see the print of the new Confession of
Faith of 1573). Their position was worsened predominantly by the distrust of the Utraquist estates
and by the radicalising group of the young Catholic lords. According to the Confessio Bohemica of
1575, the Unity was to have free profession of faith guaranteed without obstacles. As a result of the
disunified approach, Maximilian was able to revive the text of the St Jacob Mandate and in essence
confront the Bohemian Brethren’s concepts. The written monument of primary importance for this
period was a new translation of the entire Holy Scripture (known as the Kralická bible /Kralice, or
Kralitz, Bible/), which arose from the circle of Blahoslav’s students.
The situation of the various confessions of the Czech lands became critical primarily with the
accession of Rudolph II to the royal throne in Prague in 1576. Rudolph ascended as a disciple of the
Jesuits and an obvious supporter of the radical Catholic faction. The Counter-Reformation attacks
were augured already before by the renewal of the Archbishopric of Prague in 1561 and the arrival of
the Jesuits in Bohemia in 1556. The Unity under the influence of these facts attempted predominantly
to maintain its own character and independent position of a small church refusing besides the other
Churches of the Czech lands even sectarianism. The aristocrats among the Bohemian Brethren
acquired great significance, mainly thanks to the figures of Václav Budovec of Budov in Bohemia
and Charles the Older of Žerotín in Moravia. A short-term calming was offered to the Unity and
mainly the Bohemian Brethren by Rudolph’s Letter of Majesty of 1609, which met the expectations
of the Evangelicals as well as the Bohemian Brethren and which primarily guaranteed the freedom
of religion. The resistance of the Catholic side was very strong and the opposition measures were
not long in coming. The radical Catholics primarily attempted to separate the Evangelicals from the
Unity and thus weaken the position of both.
The first half of the 17th century was marked by the early appearance of the future spiritual
leader of the Unity John Amos Comenius. His personality to the full extent expressed the hopes (to
return to the homeland), despair (the loss of the opportunity to return home, most strongly in Kšaft
umírající matky Jednoty bratrské /The Testament of the Dying Mother, the Unity of Brethren/) as
well as tragedy (death abroad) of the Church of the Bohemian Brethren in the 17th century and
its situation after the collapse of the Estates’ Uprising in the Czech lands mainly after 1621. We will
not stop longer at this world famous personality and only briefly mention his important works
(primarily Didactica /Didactics/, Ianua linguarum reserata /The Gate of Languages Unlocked/, Via
lucis /The Way of Light/, De rerum humanarum emendatione consultatio catholica /General Advice
on the Reform of Human Affairs/ etc.). Of the array of his ideas, primarily the ideals of Christian
Humanism cannot be left out, which speak to our modern society still today.
A whole range (roughly five to six thousand) of Bohemian Brethren were forced to go into exile,
primarily to the Polish and Prussian lands, further also to Scandinavian, German and Dutch areas
or were compelled to hide their faith. The short episode of their return to the Czech lands only

76 ~ 77
John Amos Comenius, Labyrint světa a lusthauz srdce, 1623 (The Labyrinth of the World and
the Paradise of the Heart), 1623
NL CR XVII.E.75, fol. 5r
The entry of John Amos Comenius of 11th April 1669 (The Memorial Album of Johannes
Eberhard Sweling von Bremen)
NL CR XIII.H.5, fol. 105r 
aggravated the feelings of despair, ruin and the loss of hope, which remained a sign of the exiles. The
hard approach of the state powers was applied also on the noblemen and adherents of the Bohemian
Brethren.
The legacy of the Unity of Brethren has remained in a certain way obvious until today. It is only
necessary to approach it without side emotions like scepticism, overestimation, excessive celebration
etc. The hidden activity of the Bohemia Brethren throughout the following periods and their much
later transformation into the Evangelical Church of the Czech Brethren (1918), Unity of Brethren and
Chelčický Unity of Brethren cannot be forgotten. Nor can the activity of the Bohemian Brethren in
exile in nearby as well as distant European countries and the subsequent transferred activities of the
Unity in the form of the American Baptist Church be left aside. All of these contemporary legacies of
the Bohemian Brethren are venerable results of the Reformation not only in the Czech lands.

78 ~ 79
Epilogue
The times which have left us the Czech Reformation manuscripts as traces were sometimes quite
dramatic and other times breathed in relative calm. While that dramatic character can from one
perspective appear as hectic chaos and calm as rigor mortis, from another perspective we can perceive
them as vivacious openness on the one hand and quiet introspection on the other. With what from
that a person rather agrees and what he or she prefers is a matter of the ideological world in which
he or she lives, i.e. history as an interpretation of the sense of the past and not as the past as elapsed
nothingness.

80 ~ 81
 PartnersPartneři
of the National
Partneři NárodníLibrary
Národní of the
knihovny
knihovny Czech
České
České Republic
republiky
republiky

MediaMediální
Partners partneři
Mediální of the National
partneři Národní
NárodníLibrary of theČeské
knihovny
knihovny Czechrepubliky
České Republic
republiky
na waLLaw and
utpircSScripture
stpircsunaMManuscripts of the
rofeR hcezCCzech Reformation
1–ht41 eht foof the 14th–16th
seirutneCCenturies

Renáta Modráková and Zdeněk Uhlíř

A publication issued on the occasion of the exhibition Bohemia

– Crossroads of Europe at the Klementinum Gallery

Cover Design, Graphic Layout and Typeset: Pavel Helísek Jr.

Translation: Kateřina Millerová, Sean Mark Miller
Editor: Jana Vašková
Photographs: Archives of the National Library

Print: T. A. Print s.r.o., Prague

Published by the National Library of the Czech Republic

First Edition
Prague 2009