Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:31:38.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paul Kravař and the Lollard-Hussite Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Matthew Spinka
Matthew Spinka
Affiliation:
Hartford Seminary Foundation
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is not generally known that during the late fourteenth and the early fifteenth centuries, England and Scotland were in fairly close cultural relations and religious contacts with Bohemia. But such was the case. The earliest such connection is traceable to the endowment established by Vojtěch Ranků of Ježov (Adalbertus Ranconis de Ericinio) for Czech students wishing to study at Oxford or Paris. Vojtěch was one of the most learned Czech Masters of the University of Paris, where in 1355 he had served as Rector. Later he had taught at Oxford. Furthermore, this initial tie between Bohemia and England was greatly strengthened when in 1382 King Richard II married Anne, the daughter of Emperor Charles IV and sister of the Czech King, Wenceslas IV. She was an unusually cultured young lady who read her Bible assiduously in three languages—Czech, German, and Italian. Many Czechs, among them Lord Peter of Wartenberg, accompanied her, and some of them even settled in England. Furthermore, a considerable number of Czech students matriculated at the English universities. Those who studied at Oxford became acquainted with the writings of John Wyclif, and upon their return home brought copies of them to Prague. At first, only the philosophical works of Wyclif were thus made available; but after 1400 his theological treatises were extant in Bohemia as well. Among those who introduced Wyclif's doctrines into Bohemia, the most important was Jerome of Prague. He returned from Oxford in 1401 and influenced Hus by his fervent Wyclifism. Hus transcribed many of Wyclif's works for his own use. Later, similar services were rendered by two Czech students, Nicholas Faulfiš and George of Kninice. They visited the Lollard centers, such as Kemerton near Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire and Braybrook in Northamptonshire. There they copied many of Wyclif's works which were apparently no longer available in Oxford, and upon their return to Bohemia brought them along. They also delivered a document from the University of Oxford testifying to Wyclif's orthodoxy—although this was probably a forgery.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 1956 , pp. 16 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1956

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 further account, see my book, John Hus and the Czech Reform(Chicago, 1941).Google Scholar

2. Odložilík, O., Wycliff and Bohemia (Prague, 1937), 14.Google Scholar

3. Novotný, Václav, M. Jana Husi Korrespondence a dokumenty (Prague, 1920), No. 22.Google Scholar

4. Ibid., No. 24.

5. Ibid., No. 21.

6. Loserth, Johann, “Über die Beziehungen zwischen den, englischen und böhmischen Wiklifisten,” in MIOG., XII, 268.Google Scholar

7. Bartoš, F. M., Literární činnost … M. Petra Payna (Prague, 1928), 90ff.Google Scholar

8. Scotichronicon, XV, 20Google Scholar. Cf. also Macewen, A. R., A History of the Church of Scotland (London, n.d.), I, 326ff.Google Scholar

9. Baxter, J. H., ed., Copiale prioratus Sanctiandree (Oxford University Press, 1930), 3, 382–83.Google Scholar

10. Ibid., 230–236, where the full text is given.

11. Prokeš, Jaroslav, M. Prokop z Plzně (Prague, 1927), footnote 33, p. 188.Google Scholar

12. Dějiny křestanství v Československu (Prague, 1947 -)Google Scholar; of the projected ten volumes, six have been published hitherto.

13. Bartoš, F. M., Husitství a cizina (Prague, 1931), 209–217Google Scholar; and Hrejsa, , op. cit., II, 266Google Scholar. Also Bartoš, , Bojovníci a mučedníci (Praha, 1939), 28–32.Google Scholar

14. Brunnfelsius, Otho, lonnes Huss, De anatomia Antichristi, etc. (Strassburg, 1524)Google Scholar. It was reprinted by Matthias Flaccius in 1558.

15. Vlastimil Kýbal, Matěje z Janova … Regulae veteris et novi testamenti (Innsbruck, 1911), III, Introduction.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., 1–249.

17. Brunnsfels, , op. cit., op. xxix. All references to this treatise are to this edition.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., xliiii.

19. Monumenta medii aevi Polonica (Cracow, 1894), XIV, 513–514Google Scholar. The letter is dated at Thorn, January 11, 1432, and contains the phrase, “quod ego a deeem annis jam elapsis …”

20. Ibid., 498–500.

21. Novotný, , op. cit., Nos. 25 and 43.Google Scholar

22. Palacký, Fr., Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus (Prague, 1869), 506.Google Scholar

23. Monumenta … Polonica, XIV, 513.Google Scholar

24. Ibid., 514.

25. Dlugosz, Joannis, Opera omnia (Cracow, 1877), XIII, 512.Google Scholar

26. For further details regarding Hussitism in Poland, cf. Kolbuszewski, Kazimir, “Ruchy husyekie w Polsce i wplyw ich na pismiennictwo,” in Reformacja w Polsce (Warsaw, 1921), I, 161ff.Google Scholar

27. Hejsa, , op. cit., II, 266Google Scholar. But he does not refer to any source.

28. Goodall, Walter, ed., Joannis de Fordun Seotichronicon (Edinburgh, 1759), II, chp. 20.Google Scholar

29. Bellenden, John, tr., Hector Boece, The History and Chronicles of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1821), II, 505–506.Google Scholar

30. Knox, John, History of the Reformation in Scotland (New York, 1950), I, 7.Google Scholar