Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:06:44.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Czech Nobility's Use of the Right of Patronage on Behalf of the Hussite Reform Movement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

John M. Klassen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Throughout European history the aristocracy has been involved in reform movements which undermined either ecclesiastical or monarchical power structures. Thus the nobles of southern France in the twelfth century granted protection to the Cathars, and in fourteenth-century England lords and knights offered aid to the Lollards. The support of German princes and knights for Lutheranism is well known, as is the instrumental role played by the French aristocracy in initiating the constitutional reforms which gave birth to that nation's eighteenth-century revolution. The fifteenth-century Hussite reform movement in Bohemia similarly received aid from the noble class. Here, when the Hussites were under attack in 1417 from the authorities, especially the archbishop, sympathetic lords protected Hussite priests on their domains.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 341 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1974

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. See Vaclav, Novotny, M. Jan Htis, zivot a uceni, 2 vols. (Prague, 1919-21), 1: 142- 50Google Scholar; Tomek, V. V., Dejepis mesta Prahy, 12 vols, in 11 (Prague, 1855-1901), 3: 447–49 Google Scholar. Jan, Sedlak, M. Jan Hus (Prague, 1915), pp. 103–7 Google Scholar, stressed the cooperation between Hus and the archbishop in the early years.

2. Bartos, F. M., Cechy v dobe Husove (Prague, 1947), pp. 291–314 Google Scholar and 352-53. Cf. Howard, Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967), pp. 66–67, 80Google Scholar.

3. I use the term “land” as defined by Otto Brunner, , Land und Herrschaft, 6th ed. (Darmstadt, 1970), pp. 181–94 Google Scholar. That is, it refers to an association of lords (Grundherren) who owned land and formed a political structure called a land community (Landesgemeinde) having a uniform law and custom defined by the land court.

4. The letters were collected by Vaclav, Novotny, Hus v Kostnici a ceskd slechta (Prague, 1915)Google Scholar.

5. In counting the gentry families I used the material collected by August Sedlacek, , Hrady, zamky a tvrze krdlovstvi ceskeho, IS vols. (Prague, 1880-1927; 2nd ed., 1931-36)Google Scholar. Usually I counted one family per fortress or estate unless Sedlacek specifically stated that several owned it. The question is made complex by the fact that we find several persons named after a given fortress at about the same time, but we do not know whether they were of one family. The baronial families were compiled partly by Frantisek Kavka, “Strana Zikmundova v husitske revoluci” (dissertation at Charles University, Prague, 1947). The remainder are found in Novotny's Kostnici, p. 45.

6. On patronage ownership see my dissertation, “Noble Patronage and Politics in the Hussite Revolution” (University of Washington, Seattle, 1973), chap. 5. See also my forthcoming article in Archive for Reformation History, to be published in 1975. For the number of castles see Kavka, “Strana,” pp. 17-18. 7. See Kaminsky, HHR, pp. 144—45, for a translation of a substantial part of the pact, and Frantisek, Palacky, ed., Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus (Prague, 1869), pp. 590— 93Google Scholar, for the original text.

8. See Feine, H. E., Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte, 2 vols. (Weimar, 1955), 1: 234 Google Scholar and passim; H. F., Schmid, “Die rechtlichen Grundlagen der Pfarrorganisation auf westslavischem Boden,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, 15 (1926): 154 Google Scholar; Rostislav Novy, “K socialnimu postaveni farskeho kleru v Cechach v dobe pfedhusitske, “ Sbornik historicky, 9 (1962): 164-65. See also the dissertation cited above in note 6.

9. Palacky, , Documenta, p. 618 Google Scholar; Kaminsky, HHR, p. 155.

10. Jaroslav, Goll, ed., Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, 7 vols. (Prague, 1873-1932), 5: 338Google Scholar; cf. Kaminsky, HHR, p. 155. For the university chronicler's reference see Frantisek, Palacky, Dejiny narodu ceskeho, 5 vols. (Prague, 1939, reprint of the 1871 edition; first publ. 1848-67), 3: 184Google Scholar.

11. Palacky, , Dejiny, 3: 184Google Scholar; Bartos, F. M., Husitskd revoluce, 2 vols. (Prague, 1965- 67), 1: 20–21 Google Scholar; and Kaminsky, HHR, pp. 146-48.

12. The attack on the monastery in Opatovice at the beginning of November 1415 may have appeared to the Council as an act of the Hussite nobility. But this event was unrelated to Hussite politics, since both Hussites and Catholics participated in it. See Josef Kalousek, “Zasti ve vychodnich Cechach,” Casopis Musea krdlovstvi ceskeho, 77 (1903): 275-79. For patronage ownership in Prague see Tomek, , Dejepis, 3: 144Google Scholar.

13. Josef, Emler and Frantisek, Tingl, eds., Libri Confirmationum ad beneficia ecclesiastica Pragensem per archidioecesim (1354-1436), 10 vols, in 8 (Prague, 1865-89)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as LC).

14. Bohumil, Ryba, ed., Magistri Iohannis Hus. Quodlibet (Prague, 1948), pp. 219Google Scholar-

20. See Sedlak, , M. Jan Hus, pp. 193–94Google Scholar. Of those present, four were known enemies of the reformers: Nicholas Cacabus, Gregory of Prague, Procop of Kladruby, and John of Beroun. Twenty-six were known Hussites. The stance of the rest is unknown. See also F. M., Bartos, “Musejni sbornik s Husovym kvodlibetem,” Casopis Ndrodniho milsea, 112 (1938): 188–97Google Scholar.

15. Bocek of Podebrady in Jesenik, LC, 6: 207; Peter Janovice of Chlumec in Janovice, LC, 7: 100; John of Vlasim in Kondratice, 7: 131; and two squires, Leonard of Luky and Peter Malovec of Pacov, 6: 215 and 7: 12.

16. Peter Malovec presented M. Jacob, whom I take to be M. Jacob of Sobeslav, a friend of Hus's. See Novotny, , M. Jan Hus, 1: 453Google Scholar.

17. LC, 6: 226; cf. Sedlacek, , Hrady, 5: 207Google Scholar.

18. LC, 6: 26.

19. Four of these were masters: 1402 (Sedlcany), 1407 (Mlazov), 1407 (Nezvestice), and 1408 (Sviny). See LC, 6: 75, 225 (cf. p. 160), 220, and 247. The seventh, Andrew, the priest in Chotovice, was in the law faculty. See Montimenta historica universitatis Carolo-Ferdinandeae Pragensis, 2, no. 1 (1834): 41.

20. Peter's patron in 1413 was a squire John of Stfimelice, LC, 7: 100. Cf. Kaminsky, HHR, p. 281, n. 60. In addition there were other forms of patronage, as when John of Jesenice in 1409 got the right to collect an annual revenue on one of Lord John of Chlum's estates. See JiH, Kejr, Husitsky pravnik M. Jan z Jesenice (Prague, 1965), pp. 94–95 Google Scholar.

21. See above, note 7.

22. LC, 7: 214. The three exchanges, confirmed after March 2, 1417, when the baron and the archbishop parted ways, occurred in northeastern Bohemia, on Cenek's own domains. This may account for the fact that these confirmations appear in the episcopal records even though Cenek's placements in the Rozmberk churches do not. It was in the south that Cenek followed an active policy on behalf of the Hussites. For the exchanges see LC, 7: 232, 227, 25S—Vapno, Skalice, and Koles.

23. Ibid., p. 225.

24. Ibid., pp. 207, 209, 199.

25. On July 6, 1416, John of Hradek's priest exchanged with the one in Smecno (ibid., p. 205). On January 7, 1416, the priest of Divis and Zavis of Pertoltice exchanged with the one in Bykaii (p. 186). Perhaps Kozmice was a similar case. On August 7 the priest of Wenceslas of Kozmice exchanged with the one in Rataje (p. 207). For the squire of Kozmice see August Sedlacek, “CTvahy o osobach v stiznych listech 1. 1415 psanych, “ Cesky casopis historicky, 23 (1917): 315.

26. LC, 7: 202-3.

27. Ibid., p. 211; cf. Sedlacek, , Hrady, 7: 177Google Scholar.

28. The highest percentage was in 1407, when it reached 25 percent. See Klassen, “Noble Patronage and Politics,” p. 69.

29. LC, 7: 205, 201-2.

30. Ibid., pp. 186, 191, 192, 196, 202, 203, 204.

31. Ibid., p. 206.

32. Ibid., p. 209, two times.

33. Ibid., p. 177; Martin of Lipnice, a town belonging to Cenek, was presented.

34. For Jesenice see Kejr, Husitsky prdvnik; for the settlement see Kaminsky, HHR, pp. 224-25.

35. Kaminsky, HHR, p. 227, esp. n. 21.

36. LC, 7: 220, 224; cf. Kaminsky, HHR, pp. 240-41, notes S3 and 54. For a full wording of the oath see LC, 7: 232: “Juravitque ibidem articulos Wicleff et non communicare sub utraque specie.” A study of the oath and to whose priests it was administered is singularly uninformative. Neither the identity of the patrons whose priests took the oath nor their geographical location suggests a pattern. The priests of abbots and other Catholic patrons took it, as did those whose patrons were Hussites. On the other hand priests of some Hussites, such as Bocek of Podebrady, did not take it. Some priests from all over the diocese took it; from the southeast, the home of Hussite nobles, as well as those from Catholic areas near Plzen in the west. It seems the archbishop administered it to a random sampling of priests. 37. Kaminsky, HHR, pp. 230-34.

38. Bartos, , Husitskd revoluce, 1: 35-36Google Scholar.

39. Kaminsky, HHR, pp. 230-40. Cf. Palacky, Dacumenta, pp. 633, 654-56Google Scholar.

40. Kaminsky, HHR, pp. 242-44, and Sedlacek, , Hrady, 12: 70-71Google Scholar.

41. Kaminsky, HHR, pp. 244-46.

42. LC, 6: 198, 7: 230. The confirmation states that Vlastek came to Kovarov as a result of an exchange and that the priest there, Peter, had resigned. Whether Peter as a Hussite had previously left his parish and then found a patron in Cenek is not known.

43. LC, 7: 235.

44. See above, note 22.

45. In 1413 the patrons were the brothers Bohuslav, Busek, and Olbram of Suchdol, John of Tremec, Pfibek of Jedlany, Busek of Jedlany, Albert, Pfibik, John, and Bossti of Stojice. See LC, 7: 77. In 1415 they were “Bohuslav Bfekovec with his brothers and Albert of Stojice and of Techobuze with his brothers” (ibid., p. 146). According to Vaclav Schulz's index in LC, 7: 307, based on Palacky, Frantisek's Popis krdlovstvi ceskeho (Prague, 1948)Google Scholar, the Hradek (Hrdek) is Cerveny Hradek, that is, the estate of Herman, a member of the gentry pact discussed below. According to Sedlacek, , Hrady, 15: 249Google Scholar, it is Hradek Kozi Hrbet, and Bfekovec's sons were Taborites in 1430. Cf. Archiv Cesky, 3 (1843): 502. See LC, 7: 222, for Ales of Duba's patronage of John.

46. LC, 7: 224-25; Sedlacek, , Hrady, 5: 11Google Scholar.

47. LC, 7: 152, 235.

48. Ibid., pp. 102, 260. In 1418 when he went to Dobricany, he was called Bartos, the priest of Lomnice. In 1414 Bartholemew came to Brodec from Blizkov, and in 1411 when he went to Blizkov he was called Bartholemew of Lomnice (p. 32).

49. Ibid., pp. 179, 273 (Piracov). Medenec's last act as a patron was on February 18, 1417. For the fticany family in 1420 see Tomek, , Dejepis, 3: 119-20Google Scholar.

50. LC, 6: 261, 7: 253; cf. Sedlacek, , Hrady, 9: 156Google Scholar.

51. LC, 6: 47, 7: 242; cf. Sedlacek, , Hrady, 11: 262Google Scholar.

52. The document is published in Bartholemew Paprocki, O stavu rytirskem a rozmnozem jeho jak davno a odkud ktery rod a erb do tohoto kralovstvi pfisel, vol. 3 (Prague, 1602), p. 82. It is dated 1417. The expulsion of Anthony suggests that the pact was formed either in January or early February. It is translated in Klassen, “Noble Patronage and Politics,” appendix 3.

53. LC, 7: 176, 217; Sedlacek, Hrady, 15: 245. One of the brothers, Kunes, was in the service of both kings, Wenceslas and Sigismund.

54. LC, 6: 24, 260; 7: 21, 56.

55. Wenceslas, “ad presentationem famosi viri Conradi clientis de Wintemberg, “ went “ad ecclesiam parrochialem in B. ac ex provisione d. Conradi, Archiepiscopi Pragensis per liberam resignacionem Nicolai clerici ultimi rectoris vacantem in manibus nostris factam” (ibid., 7: 56, 236).

56. Ibid., pp. 43 (Zafec) and 79 (Zvonejov).

57. For the university's action see Jifi Kejf, “Deklarace prazske university z 10. bfezna 1417 o pHjimani pod oboji a jeji historicke pozadi,” Sbornik historicky, 8 (1961): 133-54. Cf. Kaminsky, HHR, p. 239 and passim.

58. Palacky, , Documenta, p. 697 Google Scholar. The work is undated, but Kaminsky, HHR, p. 247, n. 78, places it in the second half of 1417. The author evidently did not know of Procop and John of tJsti's (Anna's sons) presentation of a Romanist priest who was confirmed on November 19. (The date is October 19, but since the confirmation falls in the November progression of dates, it must be a mistake.) This was done in cooperation with the archbishop who had deprived the previous rector of his office for heresy. The author pointedly excluded only Ulrich of the tfsti clan from damnation. He noticed the confirmation of the orthodox priest of the lords of Borotin on October 23. The Borotins had also supported Hus earlier, but were praised in the Sermones for their change of heart. Since presentation was a publicly announced event, preceding confirmation by several weeks, the Sermones must have been written in October.

59. LC, 7: 131, 218. In 1417 Benedict was called “Benessio, olim capellano in Hradisst. “

60. For references to priests who regretted their abdication from the Catholic faith see Joseph, Schlenz, Das Kirchenpatronat in Bohmen (Prague, 1928), p. 131 Google Scholar.

61. Bartos, , Htisitska revoluce, 1: 56-59Google Scholar.

62. Josef, Macek, Tabor v husitskem revolucnim hnuti, 2 vols. (Prague, 1952-55), 1: 178Google Scholar.

63. Ferdinand, Seibt, Hussitica: Zur Struktur einer Revolution (Cologne, 1965), pp. 186–87 Google Scholar.

64. Kaminsky, HHR, pp. 240-53.