Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:16:55.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Neglected Eucharistic Controversy: The Afterlife of John Wyclif's Eucharistic Thought in Bohemia in the Early Fifteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2015

Marcela K. Perett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The renewed interest in John Wyclif (d. 1384) has brought this late medieval figure back into the spotlight of historians, giving rise to numerous studies evaluating his thought and its implications in the context of late fourteenth century England. However, it is not possible fully to appreciate Wyclif's importance in late medieval European culture without understanding the legacy of his ideas on the continent. According to the accepted narrative, John Wyclif's thought was mediated to the continent through the scholarly contacts between the universities in Oxford and in Prague, and re-emerged in the Latin writings of Jan Hus. This article argues that John Wyclif's thought, especially his critique of the church's doctrine of transubstantiation, found a larger audience among the rural clerics and laity in Bohemia, whom it reached through Peter Payne, who simplified and disseminated the works of the Oxford master. Wyclif's critique of transubstantiation sparked a nationwide debate about the nature of the Eucharist, generating numerous treatises, both in Latin and in the vernacular, on the subject of Christ's presence in the sacrament of the mass. This debate anticipated, a full century earlier, the famous debate between Luther and Zwingli and the Eucharistic debates of the sixteenth century Reformation more generally. The proliferation of vernacular Eucharistic tractates in Bohemia shows that Wyclif's critique of transubstantiation could be answered in a number of different ways that included both real presence (however defined) and figurative theologies—a fact, which, in turn, explains the doctrinal diversity among the Lollards in England.

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 84 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 64 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For recent collections or monographs on Wyclif, see, Levy, Ian Christopher, ed. A Companion to John Wyclif: Late Medieval Theologian (Boston: Brill, 2006)Google Scholar; Hudson, Anne and Wilks, Michael, eds. From Ockham to Wyclif (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987)Google Scholar; Levy, Ian Christopher, “A contextualized Wyclif: Magister Sacrae Paginae” in Wycliffite Controversies, eds. Bose, Mishtooni and Hornbeck, J. Patrick II (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lahey, Stephen, Philosophy and Politics in the thought of John Wyclif (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lahey, John Wyclif (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). See also Kelly, Henry Ansgar, “Trial Procedures against Wyclif and Wycliffites in England and at the Council of Constance,” Huntington Library Quaterly 61, no. 1 (1998): 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Walsh, Katherine, “Wyclif's Legacy in Central Europe,” in From Ockham to Wyclif, eds. Hudson, and Wilks, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), 397–417Google Scholar.

2 Wandel, Lee Palmer, The Eucharist in the Reformation: Incarnation and Liturgy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, 82.

3 Wandel, The Eucharist, 22, claims that after Lateran IV, “[u]ntil the 16th century, there would not be another ‘Eucharistic controversy’ on the question of Christ's presence in the Eucharist even as individual theologians would grapple with the conundra of real presence.” See also Browe, Peter, Die Eucharistischen Wunder des Mittelalters (Breslau: Verlag Müller & Seiffert, 1938)Google Scholar, 192ff.

4 In 1409, Hus was accused of having preached Wyclif's error (doctrine of remanence) as early as 1399. He denied the charge and his writings support him. From his discussion of the Eucharist in the fourth book of his Commentary on the Sentences to his final treatise on the subject, De cena domini, written in 1415 from his jail in Constance, Hus held to the orthodox position of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine. He was opposed by some of his colleagues (such as Stephen Páleč and Stanislav of Znojmo, leaders of the Wycliffite faction at the University until 1408), who only later recanted. Leff, Gordon, “Wyclif and Hus: A Doctrinal Comparison,” John Rylands Library 50, no. 2 (1967–1968): 387–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Loserth, , Huss und Wiclif (Prague and Leipzig, 1884)Google Scholar, trans. Evans, M.J. as Wyclif and Hus (London, 1884)Google Scholar; 2nd ed., (Munich and Berlin, 1925).

6 For a thoughtful contextualization of Loserth's work and an incisive critique of his argument, see Betts, R.R., “English and Čech Influences on the Hussite Movement,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th ser., 21 (1939): 71–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Sedlák, Jan, Studie a Texty k Náboženským Dějinám Českým, vols. 1–2 (Prague: Nákl. Matice Cyrilometodějské, 1914, 1915)Google Scholar.

8 Novotný, Václav, Mistr Jan Hus: Život a Dílo, 2 vols. (Prague: Laichter, 1919–21)Google Scholar, and also Bartoš, F.M., “Hus a Viklef” in Husitství a Cizina (Prague: Čin, 1931)Google Scholar. See also Kaminsky, Howard, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967)Google Scholar, 36fn109.

9 S. Harrison Thomson, “Pre-Hussite Heresy in Bohemia,” English Historical Review 48 (January 1933): 24–42, and, more recently, Thomson, S. Harrison, “Learning at the Court of Charles IV,” Speculum 25, no. 1 (1950): 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 See, for example, Macek, Josef, Die Hussitenbewegung in Böhmen (Prague: Orbis, 1965)Google Scholar; Seibt, František, Bohemica. Probleme und Literatur seit 1945, HZ Sonderheft 4 (München: W. Kienast, 1970), 73–99Google Scholar. More recent works acknowledge the similarity of thought between Hus and Wyclif while affirming important differences, for example Hus's rejection of Wyclif's view of the Eucharist. See, for example, Leff, “Wyclif and Hus,” 387–410; Wilks, M. J., “Reformatio Regni: Wyclif and Hus as leaders of religious protest movements,” in Wyclif: Political Ideas and Practice (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2000), 63–84Google Scholar.

11 Leff, “Wyclif and Hus, 389.

12 Six of the Latin tractates have been edited in Sedlák, Josef, Traktáty Eucharistické: Texty (Brno: Otisk z Hlídky, 1918)Google Scholar, but the vernacular ones remain unedited.

13 Oakley, Francis, The Western Church in the Later Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985)Google Scholar, 195.

14 Hudson thinks that Jerome brought with him De Eucharistia and De Apostasia or two shorter tractates, Hudson, Anne, “From Oxford to Prague: The Writings of John Wyclif and his followers in Bohemia,” Slavonic and East European Review 75, No. 4 (1997), 642–57Google Scholar, 646. See also Dussen, Michael Van, From England to Bohemia: Heresy and Communication in the Later Middle Ages (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 69–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Šmahel, František, “Wyclif's Fortunes in Hussite Bohemia,” in The Charles University in the Middle Ages, ed. Šmahel, František (Leiden: Brill, 2007)Google Scholar, 472. Elsewhere, Šmahel speculates that Jerome made another trip to England, see Šmahel, František, “Leben und Werk des Magisters Hieronymus von Prag,” Historica 13 (1966): 81–111Google Scholar, 89.

15 Herold put the entire discourse about Wyclif into context at the Prague university, looking at debates and tractates written about Wyclif's De Ideis by Czech masters. He found that they all wrote about De Ideis, and their tractates show that the influence of Wyclif was not unique. Herold, Vilém, Pražská Univerzita a Wyclif (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1985)Google Scholar, 267. See also Herold, Vilém, “Zum Prager Philosophischen Wyclifismus,” in Häresie und Vorzeitige Reformation im Spätmittelalter, ed. Šmahel, František and Müller-Luckner, Elisabeth (München: Oldenbourg, 1998), 133–146Google Scholar. For a detailed, chronological account of Wyclif's reception at the Prague university, see Šmahel, Die Hussitische Revolution II, 788–831; and Šmahel, , “Husitská univerzita” in Stručné dějiny university Karlovy (Prague, 1964), 44–76Google Scholar. See also Kaminsky, A Hussite Revolution, 23–35; and Walsh, Katherine, “Vom Wegestreit zur Häresie: Zur Auseinandersetzung um die Lehre John Wyclifs in Wien und Prag an der Wende zum 15. Jahrhundert,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 94 (1986), 25–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a list of manuscripts of Wyclif's philosophical works that are of Czech provenance, see Šmahel, , Verzeichnis der Quellen zum Prager Universalienstreit 1348–1500 (Wroclaw, 1980), 10–17Google Scholar, and Thomson, Williell, The Latin Writings of John Wyclyf: An Annotated Catalog (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1983)Google Scholar.

16 Šmahel, “Wyclif's Fortunes,” 472 and 482; Lambert, Malcolm, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movement from Bogomil to Hus (Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2002)Google Scholar, 318.

17 Kaminsky, Howard, “The University of Prague in the Hussite Revolution: the Role of the Masters,” in Universities in Politics: Case Studies from the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, ed. Baldwin, John and Goldthwaite, Richard (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), 79–106Google Scholar, 82; Howard Kaminsky, A Hussite Revolution, 239.

18 Van Dussen, From England to Bohemia, 70–75; William R. Cook, “Peter Payne: Theologian and Diplomat of the Hussite Revolution” (PhD dissertation, Cornell University, 1971), main biographical details summarized in Copeland, Rita, Pedagogy, Intellectuals, and Dissent in the Later Middle Ages: Lollardy and Ideas of Learning (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Polišenský, J.V., ed., Addresses and Essays in Commemoration of the Life and Works of the English Hussite Peter-Payne-Engliš 1456–1956 (Prague: Charles University, 1957)Google Scholar; Bartoš, F.M., M. Petr Payne Diplomat Husitské Revoluce (Prague: Kalich, 1956)Google Scholar. See also Betts, R. R., “Peter Payne in England,” Essays in Czech History (London: Athlone Press, 1969), 236–246Google Scholar, 238. On Payne's Oxford career, see also Emden, A.B., An Oxford Hall in Medieval Times (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927)Google Scholar, and more recently Holeton, David R., “Wyclif's Bohemian Fate: A Reflection on the Contextualization of Wyclif in Bohemia,” Communio Viatorum 32 (1989): 209–222Google Scholar.

19 Bartoš, M. Petr Payne, 22.

20 Bartoš, M. Petr Payne, 31.

21 For a complete list of Payne's works, see Bartoš, F.M., Literární Činnost M. Jana Rokycana, M. Jana Příbrama, M. Petra Payne (Prague, 1928)Google Scholar.

22 On medieval mass, see the following seminal works: John Bossy, “The Mass as a Social Institution, 1200–1700,” Past and Present 100 (August 1983): 29–61; Lubac, Henri de, Corpus mysticum: L'Eucharistie et l'eglise au moyen âge (Paris: Aubier, 1949)Google Scholar; Macy, Gary, “The ‘Dogma of Transubstantiation’ in the Middle Ages,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 45, no. 1 (1994): 11–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCue, James F., “The Doctrine of Transubstantiation from Berengar through Trent,” Harvard Theological Review 61, no. 3 (1968): 385–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rubin, Miri, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

23 For information on the commune at Tabor, see Kaminsky, Howard, “The Religion of Hussite Tabor,” in The Czechoslovak Contribution to World Culture, ed. Rechcígl, M. (The Hague: Mouton, 1964), 210–223Google Scholar; Kaminsky, , “Hussite Radicalism and the Origins of Tabor, 1415–1418,” Medievalia et Humanistica 10 (1956): 102–30Google Scholar; Šmahel, František, Die Hussitische Revolution, vol. II (Hannover: Hahn, 2002, 1007–1366Google Scholar; Šmahel, et al. , Dějiny Tábora: do Roku 1421 (České Budějovice, 1988)Google Scholar; and Šmahel, et al. , Dějiny Tábora: 1422–1452 (České Budějovice, 1990)Google Scholar.

24 Aers, David, Sanctifying Signs: Making Christian Tradition in Late Medieval England (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 2–3Google Scholar. For more information about Netter, see Bergstrom-Alenn, Johan and Copsey, Richard, ed. Thomas Netter of Walden: Carmelite, Diplomat and Theologian (Faversham: St. Albert's Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

25 Aers, Sanctifying Signs, 4.

26 For a list of books that got burned (a fraction of all Wyclif's books in Prague), see Flajšhans, Václav, “Spálení Knih Viklefových r. 1410,” Český časopis historický 42 (1936): 77–88Google Scholar. See also Van Dussen, From England to Bohemia, 63.

27 For a discussion of ways in which polemical songs were used by leaders of the Hussite movement, see Perett, Marcela K., “Vernacular Songs as ‘Oral Pamphlets:’ The Hussites and their Propaganda Campaign,” Viator 42, no. 2 (2011): 371–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Van Dussen, From England to Bohemia, 63–85. Van Dussen argues that “the popularization of Wyclif in Prague went hand-in-hand with continued Bohemian communication with English Lollards” (65). This is possible, though to me it seems more like a result of a thought-out, targeted campaign.

28 “Sbyněk biskup abeceda/ spálil kniehy, a nevěda, co je v nich napsáno.” Daňhelka, , ed., Husitské písně (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1952), 131–132Google Scholar; see also Zdeněk Nejedlý, Počátky Husitského Zpěvu, 419–20.

29 Šimek, and Kaňák, , Staré Letopisy České z Rukopisu Křížovnického (Prague: Státní nakl. Krásné lit., hudby a umění, 1959)Google Scholar, 42: “O to byla veliká bauřka a ruoznice. Někteří pravili, že jest mnoho jiných kněh spáleno nežli Viglefových, a proto se lidé búřili v ty časy, a najviece královi dvořané, na kanovníky a na kněží, a s nimi obecně všickni lidé v Praze, neb jedni drželi s kanovníky, a druzí s mistrem Husí, takže mezi sebú písně hančivé skládali jedni o druhých. A od té chvíle veliká nechut mezi lidmi vzrostla.” Cited in Van Dussen, From England to Bohemia, 172–173.

30 Šmahel, “Wyclif's Fortunes,” 478–481.

31 Hudson, “From Oxford to Prague,” 646. See also Hudson, , “The Survival of Wyclif's Works in England and Bohemia,” in Studies in the Transmission of Wyclif's Writings, ed. Hudson, Anne (Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate, 2008)Google Scholar, 7.

32 Spinka, Matthew, “Paul Kravař and the Lollard-Hussite Relations,” Church History 25, no. 1 (1956): 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Betts, “Peter Payne,” 242–43.

34 Based on Emden, An Oxford Hall.

35 Bartoš, M. Petr Payne, 19.

36 Ibid., 17–18.

37 Wainwright, Geoffrey and Tucker, Karen Westerfield, eds. The Oxford history of Christian Worship (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 313–25Google Scholar; Vooght, Paul De, Jacobellus de Stribro: Premier Théologien du Hussitisme (Louvain, 1972)Google Scholar; David, Zdeněk V., Finding the Middle Way: The Utraquists' Liberal Challenge to Rome and Luther (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Holeton, David, “The Bohemian Eucharistic Movement in its European context,” Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 1 (1996): 32–47Google Scholar; Krmíčková, Helena, “The 15th Century Origins of Lay Communion Sub Utraque in Bohemia,” Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 2 (1997): 57–65Google Scholar.

38 Šmahel is of the opinion that Payne did not start working on the registers until sometime in 1426, a view that strikes me as untenable. Šmahel, “Wyclif's Fortunes,” 486–489. In contrast, Cook argues that Payne was involved in the development of Taborite theology from the early 1420s, which also supports my hypothesis that Payne brought them with him from England. Cook, “John Wyclif,” 338. On indexes of Wyclif's works in general, see Hudson, Anne, “Contributions to a History of Wycliffite Writings,” in Lollards and their Books, ed. Hudson, Anne (London: Hambledon Press, 1985)Google ScholarPubMed. Indexes, covering all the major theological writings of Wyclif and two philosophical tracts survive in Bohemian manuscripts, with some of them attributed to Peter Payne.

39 The attribution to Payne occurs in Prague University Library, X.E.11, which consists entirely of Wyclif's indexes, attributed to Payne by name. Other manuscripts containing registers of Wyclif's work are: Prague Cathedral Library, C. 118; Vienna National Library, MSS 3933 and 4514; Vienna National Library, MSS 4536.

40 This register is printed in Wyclif, John, De Mandatis and De Statu Innocencie, eds. Loserth, Johann and Matthews, F.D. (London, 1922), 537–67Google Scholar. Cook, “John Wyclif,” 339fn25.

41 See also Betts, “Peter Payne,” 245.

42 Cook, “John Wyclif,” 340; and, by implication, Šmahel, “Wyclif's Fortunes,” 486–89.

43 “que Wiclef obscure posuit, iste explanavit et que ille refusis verborum sentenciis protulit, iste breviatis proposicionum compendiis sumavit.” Articuli heretici . . . M. Petri Dicti Anglici, Prague Cathedral Library MS D. 49, f. 170a, quoted in Sedlák, Traktáty Eucharistické: Texts, 15.

44 Sedlák, Jan, “O Táborských Traktátech Eucharistických,” Hlídka 30 (1913): 200–201Google Scholar.

45 On the debates that preceded Lateran IV, see Pelikan, Jaroslav, A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 184–204Google Scholar.

46 Macy, Gary, “The Theological Fate of Berengar's Oath of 1059: Interpreting Blunder Become Tradition,” in Treasures from the Storeroom: Medieval Religion and the Eucharist (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 20–35Google Scholar.

47 Wandel, The Eucharist, 22.

48 This analysis of Wyclif's contribution is based on the following recent works on Wyclif: Stephen Lahey, John Wyclif (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), ch. 3; Lahey, , “Late Medieval Eucharistic Theology” in A Companion to the Eucharist in the Middle Ages, ed. Levy, Ian Christopher (Brill, 2011), 499–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hornbeck, J. Patrick II, What is a Lollard?: Dissent and Belief in Late Medieval England (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 70–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar, where he summarizes Wyclif's Confessio. For an English summary of Wyclif's De Eucharistia, see Aers, Sanctifying Signs, 53–65. For a Latin edition, see De Eucharistia: De eucharistia tractatus maior, ed. Loserth, J. (London: Wyclif Society, 1892)Google Scholar.

49 Explaining the way in which the transformation takes place occupied the best minds of the high and late medieval period. For a detailed discussion, see Macy, Gary, “Theology of the Eucharist in the High Middle Ages,” in A Companion to John Wyclif: Late Medieval Theologian, ed. Levy, Ian Christopher (Boston: Brill, 2006), 366–398Google Scholar. For a discussion of Wyclif's view of the Eucharist, see Stephen Penn, “Wyclif and the Sacraments” in A Companion to John Wyclif, 249–272; Ian Christopher Levy analyzes the history of the medieval debate about the Eucharist in his John Wyclif: Scriptural Logic, Real Presence and the Parameters of Orthodoxy (Milwaukee, Wis.: Marquette University Press, 2003), 123–215Google Scholar.

50 Lahey, John Wyclif, 107.

51 For a discussion of the history of Eucharistic teaching in late Middle Ages, see Buescher, Gabriel N., The Eucharistic Teaching of William Ockham (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of American Press, 1950)Google Scholar; Burr, David, “Scottus and Transubstantiation,” Medieval Studies 34 (1972): 336–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Adams, Marilyn McCord, “Aristotle and the Sacrament of the Altar: A Crisis in Medieval Aristotelianism,” in Aristotle and his Medieval Interpreters, ed. Bosley, Richard and Tweedale, Martin (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1991), 195–249Google Scholar.

52 Hornbeck, What is a Lollard?, 76.

53 Lahey, John Wyclif, 123.

54 In Wyclif's view, “the union between the bread and body finds its most appropriate parallel in the doctrine of the incarnation; just as two natures are there joined in a single person, so also through the words of institution are the substances of Christ's body and bread present in the consecrated host.” Hornbeck, What is a Lollard?, 75.

55 Little of Tabor's vernacular writing remains extant as much of that literature disappeared with the demise of Tabor. See, Molnár, Amedeo, “O Táborském Písemnictví,” Husitský Tábor 2 (1979): 17–31Google Scholar. What remains are Peter Payne's summaries of Wyclif's tractates, which, according to Cook, must have circulated widely. Cook, “John Wyclif,” 340.

56 “ . . . latině i česky po zemi lidu rozepsali a zvláště o tělu božiem tatkto jsú vydali, že v té svátosti po posvěcení chléb chlebem zuostává týmž jako před posvěcením.” Boubín, Jaroslav, ed., Jan z Příbramě, Život Kněží Táborských (Příbram: Státní okresní archiv et al, 2000)Google Scholar, 82. Also, see Bartoš, F.M., “Klatovská Synoda Táborských Kněží z 11. Listopadu 1424,” Jihočeský Sborník Historický 8 (1935): 4–10Google Scholar, which includes the text of the Latin and Czech reports that had circulated across the realm.

57 “A tiem jsú přemnohá srdce sprostná bludy a kacieřstvím naprznili a nakvasili.” Boubín, ed., Jan z Příbramě, Život, 79.

58 Ghosh, Kantik, “Bishop Reginald Pecock and the Idea of Lollardy,” in Text and Controversy from Wyclif to Bale: Essays in Honor of Anne Hudson, ed. Barr, Helen and Hutchinson, Ann (Brepols: Turnhout, 2005)Google Scholar, 264.

59 The problem is encapsulated in a recent study by Larsen, Andrew E., “Are all Lollards Lollards?” in Lollards and Their Influence in Late Medieval England, ed. Somerset, Fiona, Havens, Jill C. and Pitard, Derek (Woodbrige: Boydell, 2003)Google Scholar. Larsen rejects rigid conceptions of what constitutes Lollardy but concludes by defining it as a set of eleven doctrines. For a response, see the introduction to Hornbeck's What is a Lollard?, 1–14. Hornbeck draws on Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblance to account for the fact that some Lollards simply did not believe in real presence of Christ in the sacrament, as Wyclif had taught.

60 On the doctrinal disunity within Tabor's own ranks, see Kaminsky, A Hussite Revolution, 460–481. For discussion of different theological formulations, see Cook, “John Wyclif,” 341–342. For a brief summary, see Fudge, Thomas, “Hussite Theology and the Law of God,” in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, ed., Bagchi, David and Steinmetz, David C. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar, 24. When speaking about “conservation,” Fudge undoubtedly means “consecration.”

61 Wandel, The Eucharist, 261–262.

62 Frinta, Antonín, “Kněze Petra Kányše Vyznání Víry a Večere Páně z r. 1421,” Jihočeský sborník historický 1 (1928): 2–12Google Scholar. For a discussion, see Erhard Peschke, Die Theologie der Böhmischen Brüder in ihrer Frühzeit, vol. I: Das Abendmahl: Texte (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1940), 1, 96ff.

63 Hornbeck, What is a Lollard?, 74.

64 For example, Leff, Gordon, Heresy in the Later Middle Ages (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 692, 701Google Scholar.

65 Walsh, Katherine, “Wyclif's Legacy in Central Europe,” in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Hudson, Anne and Wilks, Michael (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987)Google Scholar, 403.

66 The followers were, in Latin, called Picardi (Pikarts), but their origin remains unclear. Holinka, Rudolf, “Počátky Táborského Pikartství” Bratislava 6 (1932): 187–195Google Scholar; Bartoš, F.M., “Konec Táborských Pikartů,” Jihočeský Sborník Historický 41 (1972): 41–44Google Scholar; Kaminsky, A Hussite Revolution, 353–360.

67 Wagner, Murray, Petr Chelčický: A Radical Separatist in Hussite Bohemia (Scottdale, Penn.: Herald Press, 1983)Google Scholar, 104.

68 Joannis de Zacz, “Tractatulus [De Eucharistia]” in Traktáty Eucharistické: Texty, 1–20; Wagner, Chelčický, 101. For discussion of Mikuláš's concept of real presence, see also Kaminsky, A Hussite Revolution, 462–464; and Sedlák, Traktáty Eucharistické: Texts, 5–19.

69 “ . . . sic contingit circa hoc sacramentum dupliciter errare: . . . ” Sedlák, Traktáty Eucharistické: Texts, 19.

70 Kolář, Petr, “Petr Chelčický's Defense of Sacramental Communion: Response to Mikuláš Biskupec of Tábor,” Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 6 (2007): 135Google Scholar.

71 “Sensus autem catholicus est, quod ille panis est corpus Christi sacramentaliter aut figurative i. e. id quod in natura sua manet panis materialis, licet iam sanctificatus, illud est corpus Christi secundum figuram et significacionem. Figurat enim, quod caro Christi et eius sanquis pro nobis in cruce pacienter oblata sunt.” Sedlák, Traktáty Eucharistické: Texts, 5.

72 “Primo ergo caveat fidelis hunc fortissimum antichristi laqueum, quo suos involvit dicendo: Sic tenet Romana ecclesia et tota universitas de hoc puncto, ergo securissimum est tibi quiescere in illo et periculosissimum est amplius scrutari.” Sedlák, Traktáty Eucharistické: Texts, 2.

73 “Fides enim christiana est tam firma et infringibilis, quod de quanto plus modeste teratur, de tanto eius rutilans et micans fulgor fidelibus clarescit . . . Nulla ergo alia christianus credit circa hoc venerabile sacramentum, nisi que scriptura sacra vel racio dans fidem ipsum informat.” Sedlák, Traktáty Eucharistické: Texts, 3.

74 Wagner, Chelčický, 100–101. For a thorough analysis, see Wilks, “Reformatio Regni,” 66–68.

75 Cook, “John Wyclif,” 340.

76 For analysis of the disputation, see Zilynská, Blanka, Husitské Synody v Čechách 1418–1440 (Prague: Charles University, 1985), 63–68Google Scholar.

77 Fudge, Thomas, “Václav the Anonymous and Jan Příbram: Textual Laments on the Fate of Religion in Bohemia (1424–1429),” Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 8 (2011): 117–119Google Scholar.

78 Mgri Joannis de Příbram, Tractatus de venerabili eukaristia contra Nicolaum falsum episcopum Taboritatum in Sedlák, Traktáty Eucharistické: Texts, 56–106. The seven theses enumerated on pages 84–87.

79 Sedlák, Traktáty Eucharistické: Texts, 39.

80 Boubín, Jaroslav, Petr Chelčický: Myslitel a Reformátor (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2005)Google Scholar, 86.

81 Wagner, Petr Chelčický, 103–4; the tractate does not survive in its original text. The Czech translation has been published by Sokol, Vojtěch, ed. “Traktát o zvelebení v pravdě svátosti těla a krve Pána našeho Jezukrista,” Jihočeský sborník historický 2 (1939): Supplement, 1–14Google Scholar.

82 Chelčický, Petr, Replika proti Mikuláši Biskupci Táborskému, Straka, Josef, ed. (Tábor, 1930), 17–80Google Scholar.

83 Boubín, Petr Chelčický, 22.

84 Wagner, Chelčický, 110.

85 Müller, Joseph, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, vol. I (Herrnhut: Verlag der Missionbuchhandlung, 1922–31), 209, 211Google Scholar.

86 Atwood, Craig, The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius (University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), 180, 230Google Scholar.

87 The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for valuable comments and suggestions that helped improve the final version of this article.