Origins of The Hussite Uprising The Chronicle of Laurence of Březová (1414 - 1421)

OR IGIN S O F T H E H U S S IT E UP RI S I NG
The Hussite Chronicle is the most important single narrative source for the events of
the early Hussite movement. The author is Laurence of Březová (c.1370–c.1437),
a member of the Czech lower nobility and a supporter of the Hussite creed. The
movement arose as an initiative for religious and social reform in fifteenth-cen-
tury Bohemia and was energized by the burning of the priest Jan Hus in 1415.
Church and empire attempted to suppress the movement and raised five crusades
against the dissenters. The chronicle offers to history and scholarship a nuanced
understanding of what can be regarded as an essential component for a proper
understanding of late medieval religion. It is also a considered account of aspects
of the later crusades. This is the first English-language translation of the chronicle.
Thomas A. Fudge is Professor of Medieval History at the University of New

England, Australia. His current research is broadly focused on medieval heresy in
the later Middle Ages, and the history and religion of fifteenth-century Hussites.
RO U T L E D G E ME D IE VA L TRANSLATI ONS
In the same series:
Guta Law and Guta Saga edited by Christine I. Peel
The Danish Medieval Laws edited by Ditlev Tamm and Helle Vogt
Selections from Ṣubḥ al-A’shā by al-Qalqashandi, Clerk of the Mamluk Court

edited by Tarek Galal Abedlhamid and Heba El-Toudy
The Liber legis Scaniae edited by Ditlev Tamm

OR I G I N S O F T H E
H U S S I T E U P RISIN G
The Chronicle of Laurence of Březová
(1414–1421)
Thomas A. Fudge
First published 2020
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2020 Thomas A. Fudge
The right of Thomas A. Fudge to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Vavřinec, z Březové, approximately 1365-approximately 1438,
author. | Fudge, Thomas A., translator, writer of introduction.
Title: Origins of the Hussite uprising : the chronicle of Laurence of
Březová (1414-1421) / Thomas A. Fudge.
Other titles: Chronicon. English
Description: Abingdon, Oxon : Routledge, 2020. | Series: Routledge Medieval
Translations | Includes bibliographical references and index. | In English;
translated
from Latin and Old Czech.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019048098 (print) | LCCN 2019048099 (ebook) | ISBN
9780367438111 (hbk) | ISBN 9781003005964 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Hussites–Early works to 1800. | Bohemia (Czech
Republic)–History–Hussite Wars, 1419-1436. | Hussites–Czech
Republic–Bohemia–History. | Bohemia (Czech Republic)–Church history.
Classification: LCC DB2105 .V38 2020 (print) | LCC DB2105 (ebook) | DDC
943.7/0224–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019048098
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019048099
ISBN: 978-0-367-43811-1 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-003-00596-4 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman

by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK
In Memory of Bob Scribner
CONTENTS
List of figures and maps viii

Prefaceix
Acknowledgmentsxii
List of abbreviations xiv
Introduction: text and context of the Hussite Chronicle 1

The chronicle of Laurence of Březová49
Bibliography257
Index271
vii
FIGURES AND M APS
Figures
1 Hussite Chronicle: Prague, National Library MS I D 10, fol. 265r15
2 Laurence of Březová chronicle: a stemma 18
3 Hussite Chronicle: Prague, National Library MS XI D 8, fol. 99v20
4 Hussite Chronicle: Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal
Danish Library, MS Thott 688 2°, p. 20 22
Maps
1 Bohemia and Moravia during the Hussite movement 1415–1437 48
2 Constance during the council 54
3 Prague at the end of the Middle Ages 70
viii
PREFACE
I spent much of 1991 and 1992 in the Czech Republic undertaking research in
various libraries and archives with excursions here and there across Europe. In
the summer of 1991, I stayed in Brno with a family whose name I have now
forgotten. One evening over drinks and nibbles under Moravian skies and in the
company of a few other friends from the area, the conversation naturally turned
to the topic of my research program and their curiosity about a foreigner’s interest
in aspects of their national history. I can now recall only bits and pieces of that
exchange punctuated by a repeated query: do you really find Hussites interesting?
The next day the lady of the house presented me with a brand new copy of the
1979 Czech edition of the Hussite Chronicle including a pristine dust jacket. The
Hussite Chronicle is de rigueur for all those interested in the early history of the
Hussite adventure. Its narrative presents a firm riposte to the crushing weight of
neglect too often borne by Hussite history. The volume is still on my crowded
bookshelves. For several weeks after accepting the Brno gift, and whilst riding
trains between one archive and another between Prague and Rome, Basel and
Kraków, I whiled away the time looking at the pages. The compelling images and
riveting depictions of a rich historical narrative were virtually unknown by most
medievalists. I did not suspect all those years ago that three decades later I would
bring an edition of this important work to an Anglophone audience.
After the onerous task of producing nearly 400 pages of Hussite texts in transla-
tion two decades ago and being painfully aware of my deficiencies in attempting to
transform medieval texts into modern English, I determined sensibly never again
to engage in such a monumental task, one that took me well outside the scope of
my intellectual abilities. I was not a skilled translator then and my abilities have
not improved over the past 20 years and may even have deteriorated. Despite the
clear limitations of the 2002 volume, I have been surprised as well as heartened
to learn how widespread the use of that collection has been and pleased to think
it has helped a new generation of students gain some acquaintance with Hus-
sites. Some of those who found that collection interesting and stimulating have
gone on to make their own contributions to scholarship. Still, over the years there
has continued to be much lamentation in the Anglophone world among medie-
valists and teachers of medieval history, especially among those who recognize
ix
P reface
the significance of the Hussite history, concerning the dearth of primary source
materials accessible to undergraduates. The purists in our discipline argue that
students ought to gain facility in medieval Latin (or Czech) in order to access
medieval texts directly. I agree in principle. I routinely direct first-year undergrad-
uates to our Latinists and encourage them to achieve at the very least a modicum
of ability in reading Latin. Some do. Many do not. Ideals aside and the academic
de rigueur of times past, the truth of the matter is this: most students nowadays
do not study classical languages beyond a superficial level and this is a trend in
higher education across the sector, especially outside of Europe. Part of the reason
I have had only a handful of PhD students over the years is because I do not admit
to higher-degree research, candidates who do not possess adequate competence in
the relevant languages for doctoral work. A mere generation ago, doctoral students
were routinely handed documents in medieval Latin and expected to be able to
deal with them. Leading professors conducted seminars dealing exclusively with
the primary sources in the original languages and hardly anyone batted an eye.
One of the specialists I knew during my own doctoral studies at Cambridge used
to appear unannounced at continental archives to check up on his students and
often interrogated them about the manuscripts and their research progress and did
not conduct his examination in English either! Today, higher education has expe-
rienced a sea change on the matter of language competence and recently I heard
a well-published scholar advising students that when all else failed to simply con-
sult Google Translate. One of my students (though I cannot take credit) excelled
in Latin and became so proficient that when the Latin lecturer attempted to trick
her she was able to identify the ploy, expose the deliberate pedagogical error, and
demonstrate her acumen and command of the language. Unfortunately, this is now
the exception, hardly the rule. This reality weighed on my mind.
Despite my staunch resistance to taking on another major translation project, I
slowly yielded to the desire to expand the fairly narrow selection of sources from
the Hussite period for the student who cannot handle the Latin or the Czech. Many
years ago I became persuaded that the chronicle prepared by Laurence of Březová
was almost certainly the most important single narrative source for the events of
the early Hussite movement. In consequence, I undertook draft translations of
various parts of the chronicle and made these available to my medieval students
without any intention of dealing with the entire text and certainly not with bring-
ing these efforts to print. The enthusiasm with which some of my students seized
the chronicle naturally stimulated me to make available more bits and pieces. Over
the years this accounted for three-quarters of the text. By that stage with no reli-
able assurance that another more qualified or capable scholar was interested in
undertaking a full translation I decided to grasp the nettle. Giving Laurence of
Březová an Anglophone voice has not been to encourage students to avoid gaining
facility in Latin and other relevant European languages for the study of medieval
history but quite the opposite. It is my hope that broader exposure to Hussite his-
tory through the medium of this chronicle will alert students to the vast and rich
world of medieval history with the admonition that the medieval past (Hussite or
x
P reface
otherwise) is best accessed by means of Latin (or whatever language is pertinent).

Here one becomes immersed in the wit, humor, passion, ideas, and ethos of the
times, which are not always or reliably reflected in translation. That advice applies
equally to this volume.
This is the first English translation of Laurence’s chronicle. Intermittent work
began as long ago as 2001 but was interrupted repeatedly over the years and was
completed only in 2019. The translation is based upon Jaroslav Goll’s critical
Latin edition but for the Czech parts of the text I preferred the modern transla-
tion prepared by František Heřmanský in 1954 and revised by Marie Bláhová in
1979. The sole departure has been to incorporate a second fifteenth-century Czech
account of the execution of Jan Krása, which Goll had included in his edition. This
addition was used by Heřmanský and Bláhová only in a footnote.
The introduction to the chronicle attempts to deal with the text as well as the his-
torical context. I tried to balance narrative and analysis on why the years between
1414 and 1421 were so important for the larger history of religion and religious
practice in the Bohemian province with a codicological analysis of the manuscript
tradition while at the same time not delving too deeply into a technical analysis
of the manuscript stemmae or attempting a full codicological description of all
manuscripts including the identification of hands, provenance notes, marginalia,
glosses, watermarks, and so on. Lastly, the great limitation of draft translations
I provided students over the years was the absence of explanatory notes dealing
with the special difficulties present in the text. The 400 notes attached to the trans-
lated text address many of these and point toward additional research.
In conjunction with Matthew Spinka’s editions of materials relating to Jan Hus
(1965 and 1972), Howard Kaminsky’s translations of some of the works of Petr
Chelčický and Nicholas of Dresden (1964/1965), Frederick G. Heymann’s treat-
ment of documents connected to Jan Žižka (1955), and my collection of materials
on the crusade against the Hussites (2002), the appearance of this volume and the
accessibility of the Hussite Chronicle now allow students and interested scholars
lacking facility in medieval Latin and Czech reasonable access to a substantial
array of primary sources from the first decade of the Hussite Revolution.
Cistercian Abbey
Lafayette, Oregon
Feast of St. Wenceslas, 2019
xi
ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS
A 12-month sabbatical from my duties at the University of New England allowed

me sufficient time to complete this project, undertake essential international travel,
and provide opportunity for necessary consultation, editing, and completion of the
notes. The interlibrary loan staff at the Dixson Library at UNE were kept busy
acquiring a myriad of materials from around the world, especially Czech-language
editions and studies pertinent to this project. I am grateful for the assistance of
Lubomír Mlčoch in the early days and in these latter days have been the recipient
of sound advice, confirmation, and correction on the Latin from Henry Bauer and
on the Czech from Antonín Váhala. My faculty colleague Clemens Koehn clari-
fied an obscure German text while my other colleagues François Soyer and Tristan
Taylor provided help on various matters; the latter on a bevy of Latin queries
from the abundance of his linguistic expertise. I am further indebted to Veronika
Procházková, head of the Department of Manuscripts and Early Printed Books at
the National Library of the Czech Republic in Prague, for permission to study the
relevant manuscripts (A) and (B) in situ, and to Petra Hofbauerová at the same
repository for facilitating the reproduction and permission of images from those
manuscripts. The helpful staff at the Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish Library
in Copenhagen were very prompt in arranging for me to have access to (K) and
for granting permission to reproduce a sample page in this book. Jürgen Klöckler,
head of the Constance City Archives (Stadtarchiv Konstanz) granted permission to
use and adapt the map of the city as it was during the time Jan Hus and Jerome of
Prague were tried, convicted of heresy, and executed. Additionally, Ota Pavlíček,
Petra Mutlová, Tom Izbicki, Craig Atwood, Paul W. Knoll, and Helena Krmíčková
were helpful on various queries, particularly the latter in getting to me a copy of
her work on the chronicle, which I found stimulating and significant. Stephen
Lahey, chair of the Department of Classics and Religious Studies at the University
of Nebraska (Lincoln), was especially interested in this project and devoted dis-
cretionary resources in support. At Routledge, Lydia de Cruz and Michael Green-
wood were enthusiastic about seeing the Hussite Chronicle in English and found
a place for it in the Routledge Medieval Translations series. Stewart Beale was
ever helpful on numerous enquiries. Anonymous readers for the press provided
thoughtful evaluations leading to constructive revisions. I am further grateful to
xii
A cknowledgments
Kelly Derrick who did an outstanding job as copy-editor and also to Ellie Jarvis
as project manager and production editor for professionally and efficiently seeing
the text through to publication. The long-suffering but effervescent Trish Wright
provided all manner of help (maps, bibliography, index, and the stemma diagram)
and occasionally reminded me why I have devoted 35 years of my career in pursuit
of shadowy figures blurred by the mists of time and distance and why Hussites and
heretics are still important. Her cheerful dedication has brightened the darker cor-
ners of UNE for more than 42 years. The one who dares to teach must never cease
to learn and I continue to learn from my students; some of whom have used draft
extracts from this translation occasionally with gusto. The present work makes
use of the sources of the Research Infrastructure for Diachronic Czech Studies
(RIDICS, http://vokabular.ujc.cas.cz).
This book is dedicated to the memory of the untimely deceased Robert W. Scrib-
ner (1941–1998). Bob was my Cambridge University Doktorvater who signifi-
cantly influenced my own development as an historian. His imagination, original
thought, and groundbreaking scholarship changed the way we view the religious
history of late medieval Europe. He was a proper scholar who refused to be forced
into traditional methods or conclusions and his commitment to the craft of the
historian energized a generation. Ever the outsider, his departure deprived us of a
formidable intellect, stimulating curiosity, and robust dialogue. His absence is a
deep regret.
xiii
ABBREVIATI ONS
A Prague, NK MS I D 10
Æ Ur text of the Hussite Chronicle (lost)
A2 Copy of (A) made by Franz Martin Pelcl in 1775
B Prague, NK MS XI D 8
CCL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina
Cz Prague, NK MS XIX A 50
E Wolfenbüttel, Biblioteca Augusta (Herzog August
Library), MS Extrav. 154
FRB Fontes rerum bohemicarum
K Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish
Library, MS Thott 688 2°
KNM Prague, National Museum Library
L Nelahozeves Castle, Lobkowicz Library, MS N363
(olim)
NK Prague, National Library
ÖNB Vienna, Austrian National Library
P Vienna, ÖNB, Codex Palatinus, N 7650
PG Patrologia Graeca
PL Patrologia Latina
Prague Castle Archive Prague Cathedral Chapter Library
W Wrocław, City Library MS R 199 (olim)
xiv
INTRODUCTI ON
Text and context of the Hussite Chronicle
The religious revolution that arose in Bohemia at the end of the Middle Ages was
inclusive and unprecedented. The reforms that emanated from the Hussite commu-
nities in Prague and Tábor had social, political, and cultural implications. These
had no medieval parallels. The Hussite uprising evolved into an upheaval that
encouraged and sometimes forced transformation, causing ripple effects across
the multiple worlds of late medieval Europe. One may go so far as to claim that
such revolutions precipitated a paradigm shift that changed the shape and nature
of the medieval world. It was not just about Jan Hus or even the communion of
all the baptized, though naturally each are essential to Hussite identity and both
transcended the fault lines that ultimately divided Hussites into irreconcilable
communities of religious faith and practice. While Prague sought to remain within
the orbit of Latin Christendom, those affiliated with Tábor rejected the Roman
Church, embraced alternative doctrines, and engaged in near total revolution.
While Prague struggled to maintain her footing in the contemporary religious,
social, and political order, the radicals at Tábor and her satellites seceded from
those same orders in a bold attempt to create a new historical situation. The chron-
icle of Laurence of Březová articulates those momentous transitions.
Background and context

The Hussite uprising, which erupted dramatically and violently, formed a move-
ment that arose as an initiative for religious and social reform in fifteenth-century
Bohemia and was energized by the burning of the priest Jan Hus in 1415. Rebel-
lion erupted in Prague and in various parts of the Czech lands broadly inspired by
religion. These upheavals were eschatologically driven, millenarian, sometimes
anticlerical, occasionally anti-German, and consolidated with a nationalist con-
sciousness and identity. At its height, the Hussite heresy and the resulting religious
and social movement generated significant implications for the late medieval
world, especially within Bohemia. These included changes in law and renewed
religious practice that encompassed the cult of Jan Hus, the lay chalice, and the
role of women. Beyond this, the devastation of crusade, the consequences of her-
esy, and destructive iconoclasm decimated the Czech lands. Hussite religion was
1
T H E C H R O N I C L E O F L AU R E N C E O F B Ř E Z OV Á
not monolithic and its practitioners did not refer to themselves as Hussites but
preferred to be thought of as ‘supporters of Master Jan Hus and promoters of the
lay chalice.’1 These two components are fundamental. The chronicler mentions
Hus 39 times and in one-third of those references links Hus in one way or another
with the practice of Utraquism, despite the fact that Hus never celebrated the lay
chalice. The chronicle refers to communion in both kinds about 70 times and
employs the Hussite nomenclature 7 times.
Jan Hus does not play a central role in the Hussite Chronicle mainly because he
is already in prison at the point when the chronicler elects to take up his historical
explanation for the Hussite uprising. Still, there is no denying the significance
of Hus. His decade-long tenure as preacher at Bethlehem Chapel represents an
example of unusual religious communities in Prague.2 According to the founda-
tion charter of 1391 the chapel was established because preaching in the vernacu-
lar was not a priority in Prague churches. In consequence Bethlehem Chapel was
founded specifically to provide preaching in the common language. Hus loaned
his name to a movement and in the process became transformed into a symbol
existing at the center of a myth wherein he became St. Jan Hus.3 Fundamentally, he
emerges as a reformer at the center of a robust movement for religious renovation
but soon attracted opposition from some of his colleagues including university
masters, other priests in the city, and, most importantly, Zbyněk, the archbishop of
Prague. However, at least for a time he enjoyed the patronage of King Václav and
Queen Sophia; the latter being specially important as a patron of Hussite priests in
parishes under her control. Both royals, for different reasons, later retreated from
the reform movement after the death of Hus.
Presenting a background and context for understanding the Hussite Chronicle
is most useful by touching upon what was important or significant in light of
what occurred thereafter.4 These factors include major historical events such as
the papal schism (1378–1417) and the Council of Constance (1414–1418).5 More
specific considerations include the influence of John Wyclif as well as aspects
of a native Czech reform movement, a commitment to particular notions of reli-
gious renewal, an acceptance of metaphysical realism as a means of articulating
theology, and the centrality of the law of God as a theological principle.6 Escha-
tological awareness merged with chiliasm to produce the expectation of the end
of the present age and the establishment of the kingdom of God.7 The role of the
nobility in the spread and defense of Hussitism should not be minimized. On
2 September 1415, at least 452 barons signed a formal protest addressed to the
Council of Constance expressing disagreement over the execution of Jan Hus.8
Three days later a Hussite League was formed to defend the Hussite cause politi-
cally and, if necessary, militarily.9 The activities of the Czech nobility sprang from
devotion as well as opportunism and the two should not be confused. The Hussite
initiative was a bold move but even some of its prominent spokesmen conceded
that the Hussite age existed in an uncertain time. Indeed, some reformers rejected
the idea that a superior age would dawn in which righteousness would supplant
evil and joy would permanently eclipse pain and suffering. Those attributes could
2
not be guaranteed on earth but instead would occur only in heaven. That which
soon must come to pass remained uncertain.10
In the 1420s and 1430s, the Hussites published and circulated manifestos
throughout Europe summarizing their cause. By that time the appeal of Hussite
heresy had allowed Czech reform efforts to escape local constraints, national alle-
giances, and encompass Latin Christendom. The Hussite reform effort, denounced
as heresy, quickly resulted in crusade, wars of religion, and widespread violence.
The Hussite wars lasted 18 years (1419–1437).11 Five crusades with the back-
ing of the church and empire descended upon Bohemia attempting to subdue and
subject the heretics to the power of the church. Conformity by force became a
guiding principle. As heretics, the Hussites found themselves in a situation where
they chose to fight and defend their faith rather than submit passively to the will
of Christendom. The execution of Jan Hus had been received in Bohemia with
outrage and he became the central figure in the Hussite struggle.12 The back-
ground to revolution was largely religious. The Hussite heresy was a result of
attempts to reform the Latin Church in the Bohemian province. The central point
was the Mass. From the 1370s, frequent lay communion had been inaugurated by
the Moravian preacher Jan Milíč of Kroměříž (†1374). This was followed by the
introduction of Utraquism (communion in both kinds of bread and wine) by the
Prague priest Jakoubek of Stříbro in late 1414. This was further developed by
the practice of communing all the baptized including young children and infants
shortly thereafter. By June 1415, the Council of Constance ruled against these
eucharistic innovations. The Hussites resisted.13 By 1417 a dossier of authorities
for the practice of Utraquism was submitted to the Council of Constance indicating
the seriousness with which the Hussites regarded the practice and their determi-
nation to incorporate the lay chalice at the center of reformed religious practice.14
In an effort to try and control the dissenting and reforming Bohemian Church,
a formal crusade was preached against the Czechs (1420) in an effort to avoid
permanent schism and regain control of the Bohemian Church. The social impli-
cations were pronounced. The crusade came on the heels of the baronial pro-
test against the decisions at Constance and the plethora of signatures must have
shocked the church. A few months later, the Czech intellectual and colleague of
Hus, Jerome of Prague, was condemned and executed during the same Council
of Constance (30 May 1416). The suffragan bishop of Prague, Hermann Schwab
of Mindelheim, was kidnapped and in March 1417 forced to ordain Hussite priests.
Roman priests were expelled from parish churches in Bohemia and replaced with
Hussite clerics. Many university masters aligned themselves with the cause of the
reformers.15 By spring 1421 the highest-ranking prelate in the Bohemian prov-
ince, the archbishop of Prague, Konrad of Vechta, aligned himself with the Hus-
site cause. The university in Prague played a significant role in the establishment
of early Hussitism. On 10 March 1417, the university issued a formal statement
of support for Utraquism as an essential and soteriologically significant religious
principle, declaring that the practice of the lay chalice was proper and conformed
to the commandments of Christ.16 The university was badly affected by the decree
3
of Kutná Hora enacted by King Václav IV in 1409. This royal decision turned
control away from minority Germans to majority Czechs. A significant exodus of
students and members of faculty ensued. A period of steep decline then followed.
In 1416 the Council of Constance suspended the activities of the much decimated
faculty of theology and three years later the law faculty was dissolved.17 This seri-
ously impaired intellectual life in Bohemia and effectively crippled late medieval
higher education in Prague.
In 1418 Pope Martin V instructed the Hungarian king Sigismund to proceed
militarily against the recalcitrant Hussites. Sigismund procrastinated and delayed
for more than two years. By that time the forces of church and empire were conse-
quentially disadvantaged. In the interim a popular movement arose like a phoenix
from the fires of Constance. The radical Hussite community at Tábor in southern
Bohemia was founded. During the same time the reform agenda of the radical
priest Jan Želivský had been established in Prague, the military genius Jan Žižka
had emerged on the side of heresy, and Prague University had determined the
faith might be defended legitimately if attacked.18 The weakness of Archbishop
Konrad in rebutting the burgeoning reform movement was symptomatic of the
general paralysis within the Bohemian province in acting swiftly and decisively.19
By the time King Václav attempted a Catholic restoration his efforts met with
mixed results. Militant Hussitism stymied the initiative and the popularity of the
new movement mitigated against wide support for the beleaguered Latin Church.
On the reform side, Jakoubek of Stříbro and Nicholas of Dresden exerted sig-
nificant theological influence on the development of the Hussite program. The
reform effort was aided by a broad-based and effective program of propaganda
that included visual images, popular songs, and dramaturgy.20 This campaign fea-
tured an interplay of ideas that went beyond epiphenomenal manifestations and
constituted a battle for the Hussite mind.21 This included the formation of sym-
bols, myths, rituals, communities, and discrete religious identities in the period
between 1414 and the 1430s.
Intellectually, Hussites like Jerome of Prague were important figures in the
history of the city of Prague and Charles University. They were pivotal in the
development of medieval heresy and in the beginnings of the Hussite movement.
Along with Hus, Jerome must be reckoned among the most important Czech per-
sonalities in the religious history of Bohemia. He provides an intellectual bridge
between the Middle Ages and the European reformations. Perhaps even more than
Hus, Jerome was a Wyclifite thinker; a philosopher interested in theology. A close
examination of his oeuvre reveals that some topics in Jerome’s academic quaes-
tiones belong to the study of theology. The period between 1380 and 1410 marks
an apex in the history of philosophy in the Czech lands. This follows on from an
important period in the history of theology at Prague.22 It is important to explain
why this was the case, along with identifying the philosophical phantoms that
haunted theological inquiry, especially in its presumed relation to heresy and reli-
gious reform. It is possible to identify the philosophical phantoms that bedevilled
theological inquiry and to understand why these phantoms prompted such savage
4
response to the Hussites generally and to Jerome specifically. For example, how,
and in what way, did metaphysical realism lead to theological error? Further, how
did abstract ‘ideas’ influence the shape of religious practice and produce heresy?
In consequence, what were the implications of philosophy on theology and Chris-
tian doctrine? What was the core of Wyclif’s thought that threatened the church?
Answers to these questions can be found in the Hussite movement generally and in
the career of Jerome of Prague specifically.23 The chronicle written and compiled
by Laurence of Březová provides some direction.
The crusade preached against the Czech heretics was preceded by military skir-
mishes from late 1419. There had been suppression of Hussite heretics leading
to all-out crusade. Anti-Hussite policies and practices in the city of Kutná Hora
is an example. An appeal was made for people to inform on those who practiced
Hussite religion. The city council offered monetary rewards. As a result, more
than 1,600 Hussites were killed in the mine shafts in 1416. Unsatisfied with these
draconian measures, Sigismund believed that a crusade was necessary to ‘sup-
press and exterminate’ the heretics.24 At Wrocław (Breslau), on 17 March 1420,
the papal bull announcing the crusade against the Hussites was read from a pulpit.
It referred to the ‘lethal virus’ of Hussitism but promised full remission of all sins
for crusaders willing to kill heretics.25 This was consistent with crusade ideology
dating to the eleventh century. As early as 1417 Sigismund wrote to the Czech
king Václav IV:
We cannot regard you as our brother if you do not, in the manner of our fore-
bears, exterminate all heretics … Let every Czech, German and Latin person
be aware that I can scarcely wait for the day to come when I shall drown every
Wyclifite and Hussite.26
In late spring 1420 a massive crusade army assembled outside Prague. Some
medieval chronicles claim that 150,000 crusaders from three-dozen nations
appeared. Both sides insisted it was God’s war. Largely peasant armies led by
Jan Žižka won the battle of Prague in the summer of 1420. The disastrous defeat
nevertheless prompted Pope Martin V to urge Sigismund to continue to seek a
military solution to the Hussite problem: ‘Turn all of your attention to this matter;
nothing can be more pleasing to God, more glorious to you and more beneficial
to Christians.’27 There would be more crusades and counter crusades, wars of reli-
gion, and internecine conflict all in the name of God fought between 1419 and
1437. According to Aeneas Sylvius (later Pope Pius II): ‘There was no other king-
dom in that time like Bohemia wherein so many changes had taken place through
wars, slaughtering and miracles.’28 Five crusades were preached against the Hus-
sites and violence persisted for 18 years. The crusading cross was proclaimed on
one side while on the other the chalice was defended. Despite repeated efforts by
imperial and ecclesiastical authorities, the Hussites could neither be stopped nor
suppressed. Their ideas were so powerful that the official church eventually was
forced to invite the heretical Hussites to send representatives to an ecumenical
5
council in Basel in 1433 wherein Hussites negotiated and obtained concessions

from Rome. This is the only instance of such policy in 2,000 years of church his-
tory. In the end, internal differences achieved what her enemies could not and in
1434 Bohemian defeated Bohemian in the interests of the medieval church. But
let us go back now and look within the movement itself.
The period between 1414 and 1421 is fundamental because during these years
the Hussite myth that anthropologically includes stories and beliefs explaining,
justifying, and sanctioning the culture of Hussitism emerged. The narrative of
events possessing sacred quality was communicated in symbolic form referring
to origins and transformations. The foundation of Tábor as a Hussite commu-
nity in 1419 marks a crucial transition from reform to reformation and, perhaps
more importantly for Hussite history, indicates the momentous step from revolt
to revolution.29 The maturity of Hussite reforms were achieved only in the devel-
opment of the Táborite communities. There were two important events in July.
On 30 July, Hussite insurgents led by the priest Jan Želivský accomplished the
defenestration of Prague wherein the city government was overthrown in a ver-
itable political coup d’état.30 The other happened a week earlier wherein a mass
gathering on Mt. Tábor occurred. Most of the crowd gathering for a meeting on
22 July dispersed and returned home. However, a nucleus remained and Táborite
religion and society was formed in anticipation of the end of the world.
Those who gathered on the mountain were in the grip of biblical eschato-
logical symbolism. In Scripture it is on mountains that basic events of rev-
elation occur. It is on a mountain that the Law is given, that Jesus prays,
that he preaches, that he sends them out to preach. In the last book of the
Bible a mountain is the scene of events in which the glory of the messiah is
manifested, when the elect gather around the Lamb who stands in power on
Mt. Zion. According to visions of the prophets the last, eschatological, events
occur on mountains. Those who named their meeting-place Tábor gave the
mountain and the movement a name of eschatological meaning.31
Tábor came to denote more than the mountain upon which the first community
was built. The mountaintop religion and the old Mt. Tábor of 1419 evolved shortly
thereafter into a fortified city by the same name. The new Tábor assumed the aban-
doned fortress of Hradiště and reflected the truths and realities of fundamental
Hussite doctrine. This was known by its shorthand reference the ‘Four Articles of
Prague’ (1420) that included Utraquism, free preaching, the divesting of church
wealth, and punishment of all serious sins.32 Major differences persisted but all
Hussites seem to have agreed with this four-point strategic plan.
From its inception the Hussite movement was a series of religious, political, and
social revolutions. The communities in southern Bohemia were unique: ‘Hence-
forth, at Tábor there is nothing which is mine or thine.’33 People thronged from
across Bohemia and Moravia having sold their possessions and pledged their
money for the cause. All things were shared (save women) and all were equal.
6
This was communism and a community of goods in replication of the biblical

Acts of the Apostles. Community chests were established at the towns of Písek,
Tábor, and elsewhere. A new civil order had dawned. Social divisions were elim-
inated. Cultural hierarchy was mainly dissolved. Payment for rent and service
was forbidden. In order to become members, material wealth had to be forfeited
and turned over to the community. Existing laws were disregarded, debtors were
released from their former obligations, lord–peasant relations were dissolved, all
persons were now considered brothers and sisters, and the idea of private property
was outlawed.
Though popular, Hussites threatened the traditions and stability of late medi-
eval society that perceived itself as God-ordained. Nevertheless, even detractors
of the heretics were forced to admit that an ideal of sorts had been achieved.
But there were problems: The chests were not bottomless. Prophecies predict-
ing the end of the world failed to materialize. Disenchantment set in. Anticipat-
ing trouble, the leaders elected four military captains, among them Jan Žižka.
Their troops became known as the ‘warriors of God’ and they were the reason
why the Hussite heresy was able to become established and flourish for over
15 years.34 The experiments with radical social change succeeded at Tábor for
a time because there was no hindering force in the country powerful enough to
divert the heretics. In time, the archbishop of Prague, Konrad of Vechta, became
a Hussite and the presumptive heir to the Czech throne, Sigismund, was effec-
tively expelled from the country. Nevertheless, the fervent religious practices and
bold social changes were doomed by chiliasm. The radical Hussites believed the
world was about to reach its culmination. That false sense of assurance prevented
Hussite heretics from transitioning from consumption communism to production
communism until it was too late to change course. It must be admitted the driving
forces were initially more theological and religious than social and economic.
Ironically, theology both established as well as doomed many social aspects of
the Hussite movement. There were those wanting nothing to do with violence
and while embracing Hussite doctrines preferred to ignore Hussite polity. Repre-
sentative of this posture is Petr Chelčický, whose writings rank among the most
original of the Hussite period.
As a result of all this, the religious world of late medieval Bohemia experienced
a seismic shift resulting in a cyclic series of transformations touching virtually
on all aspects of life. In the period between 1414 and 1421 serious fault lines
developed and deepened between the communities associated with the Táborite
brotherhood and many of the Hussites in Prague. While both retained the promi-
nence and priority of the priesthood, the Táborites tended to embrace innovation
while the Praguers remained largely faithful to tradition. The former represented
itself as a revival of the primitive church but naturally the fifteenth-century situ-
ation was much different than the first century. Notional biblical literalism pre-
vailed at Tábor while the Praguers continued to privilege ecclesiastical tradition
along with the authority of Scripture. The lay chalice was promoted by both
parties and some of the Praguers were content with that innovation. A Wyclifite
7
understanding of the eucharist made serious inroads into theological thought at

Tábor while the conservative communities did not appear to question the medie-
val doctrine of transubstantiation. In Prague, the sacraments remained essential
for salvation whereas at Tábor the sacraments were viewed as useful but hardly
soteriological. A doctrine of predestination prevailed wherein neither baptism
nor the eucharist could alter one’s elected eternal destiny. The Táborites pushed
well beyond the religious status quo and sought to reform social and political
structures. Reform and revolt characterized Prague while reformation and revo-
lution came to dominate theology and religious practice at Tábor. Prague sought
endorsement from the Roman Church for her reforms while Tábor openly defied
Rome’s authority. In this sense Tábor and her allies, which included the rad-
ical Prague priest Jan Želivský, signalled a schism within the Hussite move-
ment implying not only contempt for Rome but an unwillingness to accept the
authority of the university masters.35 It is noteworthy that no university master
embraced the Táborite program of reform. The Táborites sought to implement a
simplified church wherein clerical vestments, for example, were outlawed, and
the medieval liturgy greatly modified and made plainer and to some extent closer
to the more informal rites of the early church. There was considerable openness
in the Táborite program but this should not be understood as a broad commit-
ment to toleration. In fact, the opposite was true. The limits of toleration can be
seen most acutely in the liquidation of the Pikarts who were massacred under
the direction of Žižka and the warriors of God.36 Compared with contemporary
religious history, the Táborites represented a medieval Taliban, a frenzied form
of fundamentalism, and functioned as apostles of a truth they proclaimed as
confidently as Rome and Constantinople. They expressed consistent righteous
indignation at perceived abuses in the Latin Church and brooked no allowance
for mercy or acceptance of differences. Instead, they pledged commitment to a
policy of violence in defense of their faith.
Among the most important developments in the second decade of the fifteenth
century in Bohemia was the application of Wyclifite ecclesiology. Here a predes-
tinarian idea can be seen in Hus’s doctrine of the church but this did not escape
modification in the Hussite milieu. The theologian Jakoubek of Stříbro linked
Wyclif’s predestination doctrine with the fourteenth-century Czech thinker Matěj
of Janov’s (†1394) conceptual view of the church that conceived of a mystical
community of saints assailed by Antichrist and thus embattled in time.37 The
church on earth has suffered corruption and decline and the faithful few were
forced to join together in reform and commitment to the true church and suffer for
there could be no reconciliation with the Roman Church. Spiritual warfare breaks
out and engulfs the pilgrim church. In this sense, the emerging Hussite Church is
not simply an intellectual extension of Wyclifism but a continuation of Matěj of
Janov. Jakoubek is perhaps an even more significant contributor to the theological
structure of the Czech reform than Jan Hus.38 The latter’s Bethlehem Chapel is
one step along the road to a redefined ecclesiology, which is also only one stage
in the reform of religion in the Bohemian province.
8
One of the interesting, albeit temporary, advances made by the Hussites in reli-
gious and social spheres related to women.39 Jan Milíč had focused his ministry
among the socially disinherited women of Prague, principally among prostitutes.
The community that he established, called ‘Jerusalem,’ was placed into the hands
of women who took charge of some of the houses comprising this project. Both
Matěj of Janov and Jan Hus allowed women to participate in parish and religious
life. This was accomplished by means of hymn-singing and explaining the law of
God. Several women, including Queen Sophia, used their power and property to
assist the reform efforts. In terms of marriage, some Hussites allowed either wives
or husbands to leave their spouses. Divorce was acceptable if marriage hindered
flight into the hills or restricted participation in the reform agenda. This is impor-
tant because women were considered possessions in the later Middle Ages and
were de facto second-class citizens having few legal and social rights. The stance
taken by the Hussites, especially the radicals, gave women some sense of agency.
Hussites also did not prohibit clerical marriage as did the official medieval church.
As far as the unique Bohemian situation went, women fought alongside men in
the armies. Rather than fighting only in times of emergency, Hussite women were
part of standing field armies.40 When it came to preaching, there are references
in the literature of the period indicating that women composed learned treatises.
Unfortunately, none have survived. In some Hussite communities, liturgical songs
were abandoned and in their place songs sung by women and children were intro-
duced (or so the Catholics bitterly complained). This amounted to a double inver-
sion. The traditional and official Latin was changed into the vernacular Czech and
the role of male priests had been, in some cases, given to women in the sense that
priests normally sang the liturgy. There were suggestions that some women con-
secrated the sacrament and robust complaints wherein women were denounced.41
Queen Sophia, who earlier had chosen Jan Hus as her confessor and who attended
sermons in the Bethlehem Chapel and later became a patron of the Hussite reli-
gious cause, embraced religious reform but within definite circumscribed bound-
aries. She did not endorse the religion of Tábor. Her conservative example may
have inspired moderate Hussite women in Prague to rebut their radical sisters and
withstand theologies and religious practices they believed wrong and harmful to
the nature of the evolving reform and revolution in Bohemia even if that meant
curbing the role of women. For all of their advances, in the end, the gains made by
women in the Hussite age must be considered temporary.42
What can be said briefly about Hussite religion?43 The ‘Four Articles of Prague’
were consistently the common ground uniting the several Hussite factions
throughout the early period. Hussite religious practice was guided initially by a
keen eschatological consciousness that was itself spurred on by protracted war
and intense social conflict. Early on, the reform was principally moral, rather than
doctrinal. From Jan Hus to his Táborite descendants, the emphasis rested squarely
upon the law of God. The enduring and central point of Hussite religious practice
across the spectrum of reformed Christianity in the Bohemian province centered
on the eucharist. The innovated emphasis on frequent communion, the lay chalice
9
(Utraquism), and infant communion urged by the priests Jakoubek and Koranda
are suggestive. Despite the deep renewal in eucharistic practice in Bohemia, there
was no consensus on ‘presence.’ The Táborites followed John Wyclif. Conserva-
tive Praguers observed the traditional doctrine of transubstantiation. Numerous
debates on the subject characterized the period between the 1410s and the 1440s
in which traditionalists and radicals squared off at times amicably but sometimes
acrimoniously.44 They were fated never to reach agreement. In terms of authority,
the Bible was lionized, and many followed the emphases of Jan Hus who held that
scripture, tradition, and reason formed the rule of faith. Most Hussites did not
adhere to a sola fide doctrine as did many later Protestants. Upon analysis, Hussite
theology is closer to Thomas Aquinas than Martin Luther. In practice, Hussite the-
ology aimed to counter simony, social injustice, and immorality and in this sense
may be understood principally as moral reform and renewal.45
Hussites were prepared to defend the law of God, their understanding of truth,
while remaining committed to the practice of the lay chalice and the memory of
St. Jan Hus. In 1429, Hussites bluntly told Emperor-elect Sigismund: ‘The Czechs
have drawn their swords in defence of God’s truths, and they will not lay them
aside until they have rallied all to their program.’46 This was a statement of sheer
defiance as well as confident commitment to their religious and social agenda. In
many ways these late medieval heretics were successful; a fact that caused much
aggravation to the Latin Church. In some cases Hussite armies left Bohemia in the
late 1420s with 45,000 men and returned with 70,000.47 The Hussite movement
became a force to be reckoned with in Central Europe.
The religious and social implications of the Hussite movement included con-
cessions exacted from authorities, the sophistication of its agenda, its military
strength, the number of adherents, its longevity, and the social institutionali-
zation of heresy. When Hus took a stand for church reform he was prosecuted
and during the Council of Constance was condemned and burned at the stake
as a heretic.48 The next 15 years changed everything. Not only were Hussites
invited to the Council of Basel as equals, they exacted from the Latin Church
concessions amounting to a measure of legitimation for their religious prac-
tices. Unlike many medieval heresies, the Hussites successfully fused together
religious, social, and national interests.49 The fact that Hussite armies defeated
imperial forces suggests a level of strength virtually unknown in the medieval
west. It is reasonable to claim that between 50 percent and 60 percent of Czechs
in Bohemia embraced the Hussite faith.50 This resulted in the Czech kingdom’s
reputation as a Hussite nation. By comparison, there are no references in medie-
val sources to a Cathar country, a Waldensian nation, or a Lollard kingdom. Spe-
cialists of these subjects will argue for the vitality of these groups but in the end
even the Cathars failed to achieve the pan-European significance of the Hussites.
The Czech heresy persisted openly for more than 200 years until its suppression
in the Thirty Years War when it was driven underground or into exile. In its hey-
day, Hussitism was immensely popular in Bohemia. Religious reform was ver-
nacularized, popularized, and democratized. At Tábor, social-class restrictions
10
were relaxed and the individual was able to participate on equal footing in the
religious practices of the community. He or she no longer merely observed the
celebration of a liturgical rite but became an active player able to sing, hear, and
speak in his or her own language. The average Hussite had access to an unparal-
leled knowledge of religion, theology, and Scripture.51 These advances, however,
did not succeed in addressing permanent equality.
It was the vernacular that functioned as a game-changer in creating discrete
factions, and became the key mechanism in the battle for the minds of the laity.
Vernacular songs and prose texts heightened and accentuated the split between
major religious communities at Prague and Tábor. It is crucial to recognize the
dangers in popularizing John Wyclif whose ideas did not translate well—at least
without perversion—into common parlance. Vernacular discourse has limitations
and pitfalls. Lionizing the vernacular medium uncritically is naive and there are
numerous examples illuminating how the vernacular discussion of technical the-
ology exposed serious and fatal limitations in unedifying ways. Regardless of lay
learning and access to sophisticated forms of knowledge many Hussites had no
business doing theology. They lacked essential qualifications. The m uch-accoladed
Petr Chelčický is an example. A few courageous scholars have judged him out of
his depth, blatantly wrong, a muddled blunderer who misunderstood theologi-
cal subtleties. Vernacular learning often caused more harm than good and many
laity learned just enough to act on personal preferences sometimes creating sheer
chaos; convinced as they were of their own rectitude. The Moravian priest Mar-
tin Húska was not the only ‘chatterer,’ he was just one of countless faceless and
nameless chatterers who liked the sound of their own voices and delighted in
shared ignorance, empowered by the common tongue. Rather than endorsing the
expansive use of the vernacular without critical reflection, it is important to ques-
tion the capacity of the vernacular and expose its limitations.52
Scholars of Catharism might argue there was significant institutionalization of
the group across the Mediterranean, and the union of heresy and noble politics
in Languedoc did engender a generation of holy war. But the institutionalizing
of heresy in Bohemia has no medieval equivalent. In the course of two decades,
leagues of towns committed to the Hussite faith sprang up. Local government
was pro-Hussite in many areas. The city of Tábor had its own ‘Hussite’ bishop.
The Roman archbishop of Prague converted to the Hussite faith. The Hussites
established their own church. The heretics had an unrivalled standing field army
and eventually a Hussite king. All of this had profound implications throughout
the Czech world bringing extensive change socially, politically, economically, cul-
turally, and religiously. Up to 90 percent of ecclesiastical property in Bohemia
fell into the hands of heretics along with close to 200 monastic buildings. At least
220 entire villages once under the control of monasteries and cathedral chapters
were lost to the Hussites and it is possible to argue that feudalism was almost
completely destroyed in Bohemia.53
There were further negative consequences. In some ways, Bohemia became
isolated from the rest of Europe. The wars devastated the country and the
11
iconoclastic excesses of some Hussites depreciated the land and culture in appall-
ing ways. Books, manuscripts, art, sculpture, and religious houses were destroyed.
Economic blockades, or trade bans, and political sanctions exacted high tolls.54
Peasants were often adversely affected and these were not the only ones to suffer
when the Hussites failed to follow their own principles to their logical conclu-
sions or implement the promises of their reforms. Even with these defeats and
disappointments, the Hussite movement remains one of the great struggles in the
history of the Western world for social, political, and religious freedom. Jan Hus
and his followers inaugurated a new historical period. The Hussites were the first
popular movement for reform to successfully challenge Rome and the first to
effect a lasting institutionalizing of heresy. That achievement changed the shape
of European civilization forever.55
Historical writing in medieval Bohemia

The medieval Kingdom of Bohemia did not have a tradition of classical culture.
Following the Christianization of the Czech lands in the ninth century, a written
culture can be detected. Initially this was chiefly Slavic and the influence of the
liturgy was significant.56 That brief period was supplanted by the d ominating
Latin culture that spanned most of Europe. The main language of written records
was Latin. The first Czech chronicler, Cosmas, was the dean of the Prague cathe-
dral chapter whose ‘Chronicle of the Czechs’ (Chronica Boemorum) is a bench-
mark in Czech historical writing.57 The first historical works in the vernacular
emerged in the course of the later thirteenth century. The first major chronicle in
the Czech language appeared in the early fourteenth century but this had a neg-
ligible impact on evolving Czech historiography.58 During the reign of Charles
IV (1346–1378), evidence of ‘new trends in historiography’ emerge principally
in the consciousness that history and historical writing can facilitate politics and
political agendas.59 A variety of sources reinforce that conviction but none more
consequential than the ‘Bohemian Chronicle’ of Přibík Pulkava of Radenín.60
The Latin text and its Czech translation soon became a widely disseminated
account of Czech national history. By the last quarter of the fifteenth century it
was reintroduced in a German edition chiefly to provide German readers with an
understanding of the historical origins of the Hussite movement.61 In fact, it was
the Hussite Revolution that precipitated a turning point in Czech historiography.
Some of the major reports or chronicles written in Latin were translated into
Czech and a new sense of Czech identity began to emerge and a broad range
of perspectives can be identified in the surviving records. Not only intellectuals
but military men made efforts to record their observations and interpretations.
Historical writing not only recorded ideas and events but sought to incorpo-
rate specific representation and interpretation. Moreover, some of these sources
assumed the stance of an apologia. There is an abundance of literature in the
Hussite period and the Hussite Chronicle can be situated among other narrative
histories.62
12
Composition of the chronicle

The De gestis et variis accidentibus regni Bohemiae, also sometimes called
the Origo et diarium belli hussitici, or the Chronica of Vavřinec (Laurence) of
Březová, which from the time of Jaroslav Goll has often and simply been referred
to with the shorthand ‘Hussite Chronicle,’ survives in several manuscripts and edi-
tions.63 It was written in Latin but includes some documentary sections in Czech.
There are ten discrete components in the vernacular. The text encompasses 87
manuscript folios in approximately 59,000 words; just over 53,000 Latin words,
and just under 5,700 Czech words. There are two recensions. The editor of the
critical edition of the chronicle suggested there was a third recension, with the text
of that third tradition preserved in the Chronicon universitatis Pragensis, which he
considered a separate recension of the chronicle of Laurence of Březová.64 What
cannot be established convincingly is that the textual emendations can be traced to
Laurence as opposed to being deviations undertaken by the compiler of the Chron-
icon universitatis Pragensis.65 Setting aside Goll’s hypothesis of a third recension,
the textual differences between the two verified textual traditions are mainly irrel-
evant. A comparison reveals the differences are essentially stylistic modifications
that have no influence on the sense or meaning of the text. Most often one encoun-
ters unimportant variants of the ergo/igitur variety. It is impossible to reliably
prove whether these textual emendations might not simply be the editorial work
of the author or if later scribal hands introduced changes.66 It is relevant to keep in
mind that the only known manuscript of the first recension is even more incom-
plete than the second recension and dates from the end of the sixteenth century.
The chief difference has to do with radically different prologues; a matter taken up
below. There is neither a stable original nor even an archetype and the autograph
(Ur-text) manuscript is not extant. In the modern age there were three principle
medieval manuscripts with the oldest dated to 1467 according to a scribal explicit:
Wrocław, City Library MS. R 199, folios 121r–199v. That manuscript is now lost.
The others are Prague, National Library MSS. I D 10, folios 258r–344v dating from
the late fifteenth century, and XI D 8, folios 19r–99v from the late fifteenth or early
sixteenth century. Another recension of the chronicle survives only as a fragment:
Copenhagen, Royal Library, MS. Thott 688 2°, pages 1–68.
Transmission
We have no reliable information about the initial transmission of the chronicle
and in consequence we have no knowledge of how or to what extent Laurence
may have been involved. Scribal errors are few and inconsequential. To what
extent Laurence may be responsible for these variations cannot be known. The
complete text of the Hussite Chronicle was first published in a modern edition by
the Prague-based German historian Konstantin von Höfler that included materials
clearly not part of the chronicle and relied most heavily on (A).67 A critical edition
prepared by the Czech medievalist Jaroslav Goll was based on six manuscripts
13
including one in Wrocław (W), two in Prague (A) and (B), one in Wolfenbüttel
(E), Copenhagen (K), and Vienna (P). Goll did not have direct access to (K) but
only to a printed version. The sigla, most used by Goll, have been adopted here
but with some modification.
First: (W). The oldest of the manuscripts, dating to 1467, was held in Wrocław
(Breslau) City Library as MS. R 199, folios 121r–199v. In the wake of the Second
World War, this manuscript vanished and is presumed irretrievably lost. There
were two notable characteristics of this manuscript. First, it featured an alterna-
tive prologue in praise of the Trinity (discussed below) and, second, it is the only
manuscript to attribute the origins of Utraquism to Peter of Dresden.68 Hussite
historiography from the fifteenth century always credits Jakoubek of Stříbro as
initiating the lay chalice. The reference to Peter may well be a later interpolation
inserted by a copyist. (W) is the only manuscript that is reliably dated, according
to Goll, ‘1467 post Margarethe f(eria) II’ ostensibly indicating when the chronicle
ended, that is on the second day after the feast of St. Margaret (15 July) in 1467.
The now-lost manuscript, again on the authority of Goll, featured some marginalia
in red ink in the same hand as the writer of the main text.69
Second: (A). The oldest extant manuscript of the chronicle remains in the
National Library in Prague and is identified as I D 10. It dates from the last quar-
ter of the fifteenth century and is bound with several other medieval texts. These
include the chronicles of Giovanni de Marignolli (‘Chronicle of Bohemia’) and
Přibík Pulkava of Radenín (‘Bohemian Chronicle’) as well as the autobiography
of Charles IV, and the epic song of victory composed on the occasion of the Hus-
sites defeating the fifth crusade in 1431. This song, Carmen insignis Corone Bohe-
mie, was written by Laurence of Březová. The text of the Hussite Chronicle can
be found on folios 258r–344v. The manuscript reflects the second prologue Licet
michi contemplanti but prior to this a note appears (in the same hand as the text)
identifying the author and noting his work. A scribal hand indicates that the text
is incomplete (imperfectum cronica). Goll has observed that marginalia in (A),
appearing in red ink along with section headings, sometimes parallels (W) and at
other times is quite independent.70 The manuscript (A) previously belonged to the
Knights of the Cross with the Red Heart in Prague who had a house, Holy Cross
the Greater, in the New Town. This small order was known for its hospital work.
Third: (B). The next oldest manuscript of the chronicle can also be found in the
National Library in Prague under the shelf mark XI D 8. This text is either late
fifteenth or early sixteenth century. The chronicle appears on folios 19r–99v. The
text has been mutilated in several places. Pages from the beginning, middle, and
end have been torn out. Höfler’s additional texts that he appended to his edition of
the Hussite Chronicle were taken from this manuscript. The codex also includes
the chronicle of Beneš the Minorite.
Fourth: (E). The pages excised from (B) happily were preserved in a copy of
that manuscript prior to its mutilation. The copy is late, dating from the turn of
the seventeenth to the eighteenth century, and is kept in the Biblioteca Augusta
(Herzog August Library) at Wolfenbüttel in Lower Saxony, under the signature
14
Figure 1 Hussite Chronicle: Prague, National Library MS I D 10, fol. 265r
Extrav. 154. The text of the chronicle appears on pages 60–222 under the title His-
toria Husitarum. The text commences with the prologue of the second recension,
Licet michi contemplanti, and concludes exactly the same as with all the surviving
manuscripts, except the truncated (K).
Fifth: (K). At the time Goll prepared his critical edition that appeared in 1893
the Copenhagen manuscript, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish Library, MS
Thott 688 2° was unknown.71 It became widely known only in 1897. Kaminsky,
who relied upon Goll, was also unaware of its existence.72 Goll had access to a
printed edition of this text. That text contained only two larger fragments of the
chronicle from the usual beginning of the chronicle to 3 April 1420 and then again
from 25 June 1420 to about 50 words before the end of the dossier of biblical
authorities supporting a doctrine of chiliasm, about 80 percent of the way through
Chapter 6. (K) dates from the end of the sixteenth century and is the sole manu-
script to provide the first prologue that begins ‘Supremae Trinitatis nomine invo-
cato.’ This corresponds with the now-lost (W) and there is no reason to doubt that
this prologue is the older of the two. The Copenhagen manuscript ends abruptly in
the middle of a sentence (daboque terram tibi) but about 20 months earlier than
(A) and (B). The (K) fragments were imperfectly edited and appeared in 1724.73
Sixth: (L). At one time there existed a manuscript in the Lobkowicz Library
later kept at Nelahozeves Castle, about 22 miles north of Prague under the sig-
nature N363. Höfler consulted this manuscript with respect to variants but by the
time of Goll, the manuscript could no longer be found.
Seventh: (P). Goll and Josef Bujnoch refer to manuscript N 7650 that once
belonged to the former Vienna k. k. Court Library, associated with Codex Palati-
nus, hence (P) while Howard Kaminsky refers to it as MS Pap. fol.a.d.XVI.Jhdt.,
Cod. Theol. 99. Either way, this early sixteenth-century text is now preserved in
the Austrian National Library. The salient contents are a compilation of what is
known as the Chronicon universitatis Pragensis and the text relies heavily upon
Laurence of Březová’s chronicle. Goll observes that the scribe was careless.74
Kaminsky argues that from 1414 to May 1420 the dependence is extensive though
somewhat adapted but from June 1420 the relation between the two texts is verba-
tim. Textual analyses reveal that the narrative of Laurence therein is independent
of (W), (A), (B), (K), and (L). Variant readings are numerous, sometimes provid-
ing additional material, and giving more information and in places appear superior
to any of the extant manuscripts.75 All of this led Goll to believe that (P) repre-
sented a special and discrete third recension of the Hussite Chronicle. Curiously,
(P) ends in the middle of a sentence (se cum suis cingens curribus) but not in the
same sentence as (W) and (A) where the narrative ends ‘et facto mane.’76 (B) ends
in the same sentence but slightly earlier than (P).
Eighth: (A2). In the eighteenth century, the Czech historian Franz Martin
Pelcl made a copy of (A). During the time of Goll, this copy was held in the
library of the Counts of Thun at Děčín in northern Bohemia. Ostensibly, it fea-
tured a note attesting to provenance: ‘Sum Francisci Martini Pelzl, qui me ex
autographo describendum curavit anno 1775’ which indicated the text belonged
16
to Franz Martin Pelcl who had copied it from the presumed autograph in 1775.
This appears to indicate that Pelcl regarded (A) as the autograph of Laurence of
Březová’s chronicle.77
Ninth: (Cz). In addition to the Latin manuscripts there is also one other known
and relevant manuscript belonging to the National Library in Prague, XIX A 50.78
During the late nineteenth century this manuscript was kept in the library of the
Counts of Thun at Děčín. On folios 201r–277v there is an Old Czech text of the
Chronicle of Laurence of Březová. The text features the same prologue as found
in (K) that begins with the invocation: ‘Ve jméno svaté svrchované a nerozdilné
Trojice’ (in the name of the holy, sovereign, and undivided Trinity) and follows the
first recension. The title of the text is ponderous:
This is a chronicle written by Master Laurence of Březová, sometimes scribe

of the council of the New Town of Prague during the time of King Václav of
Bohemia. [It contains] things that transpired in the Czech kingdom before the
burning of Master Jan Hus of divine memory and after his death in the time
of Žižka, who regretted his death along with other brethren, [including] the
great tribulations that occurred in the Czech lands to the great destruction of
spirituality.79
The manuscript itself carries a date of 1619 but František Palacký, Jaroslav
Goll, and Marie Bláhová are among scholars who believe the translation itself
dates from the late fifteenth century. The work of the anonymous translator is
uneven and in places demonstrably inaccurate, suggesting the translator did not
adequately understand the Latin text. Parts are slavishly scrupulous but difficult
passages are sometimes either rendered in a sum and substance sense or omitted
altogether. Other renderings are impossible and even ridiculous. It may be noted
that the biblical examples or bases for the emerging chiliastic doctrine (about 1,900
words) are completely absent. The text of the translation appears closest to (K),
but also reflects many unique elements. Bláhová observes that the text ‘contains
independent explanations and many additions unknown in the Latin manuscripts,’
difficult to trace, and are probably glosses introduced by the translator.80 The iden-
tity of the translator is unknown but he may have had connections with the Unity
of Brethren.81 Extracts from a number of other fifteenth- and sixteenth-century
sources reveal acquaintance with the chronicle. These include but are not limited
to Prokop the Notary (c.1390–1483), the various authors of the Old Czech annals,
Václav Hájek of Libočany (†1553), Prokop Lupáč of Hlaváčov (1535–1587),
Daniel Adam of Veleslavín (1546–1599), and others.82 There is evidence that a
more complete manuscript existed at that time than is extant today. The ligature Æ
in the stemma below indicates the now-lost manuscript that some of these writers
had access to. Claims that later writers such as Zacharias Theobald (1584–1627),
Bohuslav Balbín (1621–1688), Jacques Lenfant (1661–1728), and others were
acquainted with the later chronicles of Laurence have been challenged.83 The
reciprocal relation of the existing manuscripts shows the stemma as indicated in
17
T h e c h r o n i c l e o f L au r e n c e o f B ř e z ov á
UR Text
Auctor Hussiticus Æ P 16th c

1420s
X (recension 1)
W 1467 K 16th c
Ludewig 1724 Cz 15th c
Z (recension 2)
L
A 15th c B 16th c
A2 1715 E 17th c
Figure 2 Laurence of Březová chronicle: a stemma
the following diagram, which is rudimentary, makes no pretense at investigative

codicology, does not contribute to technical stemmatic relations, and does not
attempt to deal with redactional variations.84
The broken lines indicate versions of the manuscript no longer extant. The
main lines of the stemma indicate those manuscript and printed sources that sur-
vive and have been examined by scholars who have undertaken critical study of
the chronicle. The Auctor Hussiticus should be accepted as a feasibly identified
source used by Laurence in the composition of his chronicle and this is indicated
by the arrow.
The Hussite Chronicle of Laurence of Březová has been printed several times.
The first, incomplete edition, following (K) has been noted above and was the
work of the German historian, lawyer, and archivist Johann Peter von Ludewig
in 1724. The complete version of the surviving Latin text was published in 1856
by Konstantin von Höfler. With one exception (the Čapek childrens’ song from
the First Crusade) Höfler tended to translate the Czech segments into German.85
Both the Latin text and the old Czech translation were published in 1893 by Jaro-
slav Goll; the former constituting a critical edition. Following Goll, an old Czech
translation of the chronicle appeared during the Second World War, produced by
18
Antonín Dolenský (1884–1956) who worked in the National Museum library in

Prague for many years.86 The first modern Czech translation following Goll’s edi-
tion was by the classical philologist František Heřmanský (1887–1966). It has
been printed twice and it is from Heřmanský that the text was first divided into
120 chapters with proper headings.87 Chapter divisions do not appear in the man-
uscripts. Following this, a Russian translation was published and more recently a
German translation has appeared.88
The Prague manuscripts (A) and (B)

While this is not a critical edition, some observations on the manuscripts in
the National Library in Prague are useful. The contents of manuscript I D 10
(A), related to the chronicle are sometimes noted as covering folios 258r–344v
for the text of the chronicle. Josef Truhlář, who compiled the National Library
manuscripts catalogue, designates the scope of the text as folios 260r–346r.89 A
modern hand (bottom left) has written ‘286’ whereas at the top right of the folio
we find the beginning of the chronicle noted as ‘258 + 2.’ The first paragraph
has been rubricated (red ink), the second and third paragraphs begin with a
small and non-extravagant historiated capital. The second paragraph capital is
colored light and dark blue, green, and gold while the third paragraph capital
is chiefly green. This feature does not recur in the manuscript. Folios 265v,
266v, 270r, 272v, and 277v feature some border decorations, mainly abstract pen
flourishes that reflect little artistic value. There are few marginalia throughout
and none of special significance. There is some use of the manicule.90 The text
ends on folio 372 (modern hand) and 344 + 2 in the older designation. The 72
articles that emerged from the meeting at the house of Lord Petr Zmrzlík in the
Old Town of Prague on 10 December 1420 appear on folios 309 + 2–312 + 2
and these are noted by red and yellow signifiers for each article. This feature is
mostly unusual in the manuscript. The unique and important Czech language
letter associated with the women who confronted the civil magistrates at the
Old Town Hall in July 1421 appears on folios 356v–357v (modern hand) or
folios 330 + 2–331 + 2.
Unlike MS I D 10 (A), MS XI D 8 (B) has a full-page text (left to right)
rather than the usual two columns. After folio 52, three leaves have been cut
out. Folios 70 and 71 have been torn at the top. Folio 71 has a hole affect-
ing five lines on 71r and four lines on 71v. There is water damage throughout
chiefly in the gutter but this has not impaired the text itself. Folio 99 has three
holes affecting a total of 14 lines on 99r and 15 lines on 99v. The text begins
following the first four paragraphs evident in MS I D 10 (A) and commences
with the notation about the excommunication and issuing of an interdict, omit-
ting the genesis of Utraquism altogether: ‘excommunicantibus et interdictum
per totam Pragam ponentibus.’ The text ends during the fight on Vladař Hill
(ad montem dictum Wladarz perveniret et cum suis), which occurred before
19
Figure 3 Hussite Chronicle: Prague, National Library MS XI D 8, fol. 99v
20 November 1421. In consequence the last month of activities noted in other

manuscripts is missing from XI D 8 (B).
Unlike many other medieval chronicles there were no continuations of the Hus-
site Chronicle. Until recently it was believed that in the second half of the fifteenth
century, an abridgement or summary (Výtah) of the chronicle was undertaken.
This enterprise did not get too far. It is about 2,350 words in length and survives
in a single manuscript.91 While Palacký considered it a distinct work, Goll sought
to demonstrate that it was nothing other than an adaptation of the chronicle despite
clear evidence of material not in the chronicle. Indeed, in places the two texts
are so alike that it is easy to see the shorter as another manuscript of the larger.92
The manuscripts catalogue characterizes the first section as a ‘compendium of
fragments’ (in compendium redactae fragmenta) of the chronicle of Laurence.
The second section is described as the ‘continuation’ (continuatio) of the chroni-
cle.93 A comparison of the two texts indicates summarized content, word changes,
and occasional additional material. Notably here is the attempted suppression of
Utraquism and the prohibition of infant communion that are conveyed in the sum-
mary.94 It would appear that the shorter source was better informed about the
nature of early Utraquism than Laurence and the detail of this religious practice
more fully elaborated, though it is significant that the Chronicle of Laurence and
the Auctor Hussiticus reflect different chronology of some events. The standard
view of the Auctor Hussiticus has persisted without serious challenge. Despite the
opinions of Palacký and Goll, there is a case for arguing that the text is neither a
summary nor an abridgement of the chronicle but instead an independent source
upon which Laurence drew in the composition of his chronicle. This means the
shorter text is older than the chronicle itself. The discovery of this text, previ-
ously held in the Benedictine Abbey library at Rajhrad (the oldest monastery in
Moravia), can be identified with a previously known manuscript in Prague and
further that the two manuscripts were originally a single source.95 Analysis of the
Benedictine Abbey manuscript appears to convincingly establish that this anon-
ymous text very likely functioned as a source for the chronicle of Laurence of
Březová.96 Instead of referring to this shorter text as an abridgement or summary
(Výtah) it is more appropriate to follow Jiří Spěváček and Helena Krmíčková and
call it Auctor Hussiticus.97
The Copenhagen manuscript (K)

(K) is significant because it has some parallels with the now-lost Wrocław
manuscript (W). The Copenhagen manuscript consists of 68 pages. The pages are
numbered consecutively from 1 to 68 but after page 31 only the odd numbered
pages are recorded. At the beginning of the manuscript, following three blank
pages, there is a notation written in red ink: ‘Laurencii Byzynii (Brzezyny), can-
cellarii Novae urbis Prag. sub Wenceslao imperatore origo et diarium belli Hus-
sitici ab anno 1414 ad 1420.’98 The annotation is not entirely accurate. Laurence
of Březová may have been the chancellor of the New Town of Prague during the
21
Figure 4 Hussite Chronicle: Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish Library,
MS Thott 688 2°, p. 20
time of King Václav but the latter had been deposed as Holy Roman Emperor in
1400. The description of the manuscript as the ‘Origins and Diary of the Hussite
wars from the year 1414 to 1420’ is fine.
The first notice of this manuscript to the Czech scientific community asserted
that the hand was not very readable but the text consisted in sum of a copy of
most of the chronicle of Laurence of Březová. Neither statement is correct.99 More
accurately the manuscript is noted as being ‘mutilated and in bad condition.’ The
damage is most acute on pages one and two. This includes holes affecting both
pages. There has been repair. We find significant damage and repair on a number
of pages (i.e., 61, 62, 67, and 68) that includes holes and blemishes some of which
affect the text. Pages 61 and 62 have been nearly torn in half. Underlining in red
and black ink occurs on every page. There is also extensive marginalia in red
and black ink featuring several hands but the marginalia hand changes decisively
halfway through the text.100 The additions involve every page save for page 49.
This is the only page that does not have a written comment appearing outside
the text. A list of topics noted in the marginalia include Sigismund, whores, Hus,
infant communion, papacy, Wyclif, Utraquism, Jerome, and Táborites, with most
of these mentioned more than once. This indicates the topics that appear to have
interested the scribe most. Some marginalia passages have been crossed out (i.e.,
pp. 1, 5, 26, 28, 54). Corrections have been made to the text throughout; much of
it fairly minor.101 Elsewhere, two lines at the bottom of page 48 have been crossed
out with red ink and rewritten at the top of page 49. Some 23 pages do not have
catchwords at the bottom (1, 3–20, 33, 40, 43, 54). Some of the damage through-
out the manuscript occurred after these later annotations were made. From time to
time, the damage has rendered some passages difficult to decipher. Otherwise the
hand is not difficult to read. The text consists of two fragments of the chronicle.
The first fragment, ending on page 30 is about 8,650 words. Between the bottom
of page 30 and the top of page 31 there are about 5,000 words missing. The second
fragment totals about 12,000 words. After page 68, there are about 33,000 words
missing. Hence (K), which consists of about 20,700 words, is about 35 percent of
the length of (A) which spans about 58,700 words. As noted above, (K) reflects the
first prologue ‘Supremae Trinitatis nomine invocato.’ The text initially must have
been longer since page 68 has the catchwords ‘daboque terram tibi’ indicating the
top of the next page that is no longer extant. The manuscript ends as it began with
three blank pages.
Latinity
As noted, this is chiefly a Latin work. More than 90 percent of the text is Latin.
Laurence demonstrates his mastery of the language. It is unsurprising that the
chronicler has typical expressions and particular stylistic preferences.102 It is
worth pointing out that common medieval features of the Latin such as the
e-cedilla (ę) that represented the Classical ae-diphthong, can be found in Latin
texts well into the sixteenth century. The e-cedilla indicates a vestigial a. For
23
example, in medieval texts one might find the word hęreticos instead of, or in
addition to, haereticos. The same might be said for sępe and saepe, or ęternam
and aeternam. The scrupulous orthographical ae diphthong, which the e-cedilla
notes, is a feature of the larger shift in Latin orthography throughout the later
Middle Ages wherein the use of the Classical diphthong ae faded and gradually
was replaced with the plain e. The Hussite Chronicle does not use the e-cedilla.
Laurence uses the Latin adroitly and the chronicle is dotted by ‘little master-
pieces of tendentiously elliptical narrative.’103 In other words, in various pas-
sages the narrative achieves rather high artistic levels, and the writing and use
of Latin exceeds the usual dryness and brevity of medieval chronicles. However,
suggestions that Laurence might be regarded as a precursor to humanism are
overwrought as neither his vocabulary nor his linguistic style truly exceed the
typical features of medieval Latin.104
Portions of the chronicle have been copied over from other sources and in these
cases, the Latinity therein is the provenance of earlier or other writers. The same
might be said for the discrete sections in Czech, which are in each case docu-
ments that were available to Laurence. Clearly the chronicler sought to achieve
a documentary character for his work. In the many cases where there is no other
extant copy of the source in question it is impossible to determine whether the
original text was defective or if a mistake was introduced by the chronicler or by a
later copyist. Laurence’s language appears to have been influenced to some extent
by Scripture. The use of the expression insensatus (deranged, stupid, or useless)
or its declensions, occurring 18 times in the Vulgate and thrice in the chronicle,
may be an example.105 On balance, the text of the chronicle appears to have been
composed with care and reflects the diligence of a man previously tasked with
responsibilities as a scribe in the royal chancery and as a town official who was
engaged in the handling of texts, their preparation, translation, and dissemination.
Errors in Latinity that can likely be ascribed to Laurence may be accounted for as
a result of common linguistic slippages characteristic of the age when judged by
the standards of the Classical period. Further, there was no standard spelling or
even pronunciation of Latin in the later medieval period. While Latin was a lingua
franca at the time of the Hussite movement, there were regional variations all
influenced by the local or vulgar tongue. This was certainly the case in the Slavic
world in which Laurence was educated, learned Latin, and prepared his chronicle.
Hence, the Latin of the chronicle reflects both Germanic and Slavic influence.106
I see no point in elaborating the chronicler’s propensity for using the masculine
nouns or noting adjectives, adverbs, or verbs he seems to favor. Most of these are
typical of fifteenth-century writing.107
Assessing the Latinity of the chronicle reveals many of the features associated
with the less ‘pure’ or degraded Latinity of the Middle Ages. These are inarguably
on full display in the text. For example, one encounters the substitution of gerunds
in the ablative for active participles, the increased use of prepositions to make up
for a lack of clarity on the cases taken by certain verbs, and so on. The vocabu-
lary is typical of Latin in the later Middle Ages especially that of the fourteenth
24
and fifteenth centuries. Sentence structure in medieval Latin tends either towards
an extremely simple form or in the direction of an extremely convoluted con-
struction. The chronicle of Laurence of Březová is best described as employing
a sentence structure tending very much towards the latter. That said, there are
occasional sentences or turns of phrase that suggest the author had some exposure
to classical Latin prose of high quality, but without fully assimilating the style. In
summary, the Latin in this text is neither classical nor pure, and one might even
say it is not very good, but it does indicate scattered signs of the increasing interest
in returning to a purer Latin style. This has the result of a style that is both highly
convoluted and occasionally obscure and in consequence the narrative has its own
linguistic challenges.
Author
The author of this detailed chronicle is Vavřinec (Laurence) of Březová who lived
from c.1370 to c.1437.108 He was part of the Czech lower nobility and the son of
Václav of Březová. It is impossible to identify which of the seven possibilities
in Bohemia bearing the name Březová should be assigned to Laurence.109 The
author was an absentee cleric in at least two parishes having petitioned the pope
for special consideration for ecclesiastical office despite being underage (he was
about 20 years at the time) and in this application he had the support of Queen
Sophia. This resulted in a prebend in Louny in 1391. By 1394 he was awarded
appointment as altar priest in the Church of St. Vitus in Prague. By the early
fifteenth century he had also acquired another church appointment in Běchary
northwest of Hradec Králové and sought a further living pursuant to surrendering
one or two of his absentee parishes. Laurence was never ordained priest but is best
considered a subdeacon though he also had interests in liturgy.110 At some stage
he undertook a commentary of the seven penitential psalms.111 During these years
he commenced the study of law but there are no records to indicate he completed
this ambition.112 The law faculty noted his enrolment as Magister Laurencius de
Brzezowa nobilis vir plebanus in Luna, a master and nobleman from Louny. It
is possible that Laurence attended Bethlehem Chapel and heard Jan Hus preach,
but the suggestion is speculative. He maintained almost continuous residence in
Prague. Later he was employed as a secretary in the royal administration of King
Václav IV (†1419) with responsibilities in the chancery likely as a scribe. Some-
time after 1419 he became the secretary of the New Town (Prague) where he had
access to invaluable documents that he put to good use in the composition of the
chronicle. These include two accounts of the Council of Constance prepared by
Petr of Mladoňovice, annals set forth by an anonymous citizen of the New Town
of Prague (no longer extant), along with a variety of other documents and let-
ters. It is worthwhile to note that the use of these records did not consist in mere
citation but Laurence adapted them with critical reflection and correction.113 It
should be borne in mind that the chronicler was an eyewitness to many of the
events he records. Hence, his own testimony forms an important component of the
25
narrative. Laurence held a teaching post at Charles University in Prague though

this was a limited position inasmuch as the Hussite Revolution had effectively
closed the university. He had previously earned a bachelor’s degree in 1389 or
1390 at Prague and followed this by taking a master of arts qualification in 1394.
He was a participant in the 1411 annual university Quodlibet organized by Jan
Hus. There is some merit to the assumption that he eventually attained the rank of
chancellor of the New Town.
We find reference to him in a song of 1427 concerning the failed regency of
Zygmunt Korybut, nephew of the grand duke of Lithuania, who wielded some
political power in Bohemia between 1422 and 1427:
Laurence fits in well with them [enemies of the regent]

Correcting matters in their favor
He knows how to interpret literature
And turn truth into abuse.114
The verse situates Laurence in the Hussite camp and a supporter of the revo-
lutionary political climate that prevailed in Bohemia for much of the period
between 1419 and 1436. He followed the proceedings of the Council of Basel
and in the spring of 1433 delivered a speech to the conciliar delegates on behalf
of the university in Prague.115 The last clear reference to him in the sources dates
from the period 1436 or 1437 and it can be surmised on good grounds that his
life must have ended in or around that time.116 Most scholars agree on this with
the exception of Heřmanský who preferred to avoid comment or conjecture.
Occasional references suggesting the chronicle may have been composed as late
as 1444 seem unlikely and the evidential argument for those claims are weak.
The only other definite work from his pen of note and importance for the Hussite
period is a poem celebrating the victory of the Hussite armies over the crusaders
at the fifth and final crusade encounter near the southwestern Bohemia town of
Domažlice on 14 August 1431. The Carmen insignis Corone Bohemie pro tro-
pheo sibi divinitus concesso circa Ryznberg et Domažlicz is an epic Latin poem
spanning 1,640 lines and more than 5,000 words. It was written shortly after the
event and before the end of that year. It survives in a single manuscript: Prague,
National Library 1 D 10, folios 353r–363r. The lengthy text can be characterized
as a work of history and fiction woven together as triumphalist propaganda. It
has been characterized as ‘the greatest epic composition of the Czech Hussite
movement.’117 Laurence has also been nominated as the author of two political
satires.118 This is questionable chiefly because of his privileged social status and
commitment to the baronial class. As early as 1411, Laurence had discussed the
nature and definition of noble status at a university Quodlibet.119 Moreover, his
general attitude tends to preclude him from authorship but the question remains
unresolved.
The Hussite Chronicle covers the years from 1414 to the end of 1421 but in
most manuscripts ends abruptly during the battle for Kutná Hora with the terse
26
comment, ‘et facto mane.’ The late medieval Czech translation offered the phrase
‘A to se stalo ráno’ (and it happened in the morning), which is a departure from
the Latin text, while the modern Czech version renders it as ‘A když nastalo ráno’
(and when it was morning), whereby faithfully reflecting the Latin used by the
chronicler. The modern German edition has ‘Und als der Morgen angebrochen
war’ (and when the morning dawned), which also accords with the medieval
Latin.120 It is unknown why all of the manuscripts end so dramatically. Some
experts believe that the last pages of even the autograph or the archetype were
lost for reasons unknown.121 The oldest manuscript (W) itself was incomplete
and (A) pointed out this fact indicating that the narrative was mutilated at an
early stage in the history of transmission. It is likely that the last sections of
the autograph or the archetype of the chronicle were torn off and that surviving
copies stem from this truncated manuscript.122 In order to determine what hap-
pened ‘when morning came’ or to understand the sequence of events following
the fragment ‘and in the morning,’ one must look elsewhere. There seem to be
two principle explanations for this curious coda. First, the author was compiling
his chronicle in the mid to late 1430s and was interrupted by death. Second, the
author had been composing his work as the events unfolded but laid his pen
down during the fight at Kutná Hora between Jan Žižka and King Sigismund and
never returned to the chronicle. Fifteenth-century sources reveal that the work
was incomplete. If the incomplete nature of the chronicle is to be attributed to
mutilation, this must have occurred within 30 years of the death of the author as
reflected in the earliest manuscript sources (W). Some of the best experts on the
matter believe the continuation of the text was lost.123 I concur though there is
no evidence to suggest that the chronicle continued its treatment of the Hussite
movement for an indefinite period beyond 1421.
It seems likely that Laurence wrote his chronicle at different times between
the second and fourth decades of the fifteenth century, though it has been more
convincingly speculated that the chronicle was composed in the late 1420s and
revised or rewritten before 1434. The variations in the manuscripts provide evi-
dence that the author’s mood was different at various times of composition. Inter-
nal evidence tends to support this thesis. There is no definite evidence to date
the period of intervals between the several seasons of composition, though Josef
Pekař and Howard Kaminsky believe the intervals of composition may have been
months rather than years.124 It has been shown that there were originally a few
additional entries to the narrative but these did not extend beyond January 1422.
These entries lack the relative fullness of most of the chronicle up to the battle for
Kutná Hora and there is no evidence for assuming the chronicle went beyond the
military incident at Německý Brod (6–10 January 1422). The discovery, or recov-
ery, of two or three short texts from this engagement extends both our historical
and philological knowledge of the chronicle. Václav Flajšhans has demonstrated
that while the last dated entry in the chronicle is 21 December 1421, there are allu-
sions to events up to 6 January 1422 or the battle of Německý Brod that followed
on from the confrontation at Kutná Hora. Clearly, a more complete manuscript
27
of the Chronicle existed in the sixteenth century than is available today. There
are arguments that Prokop Lupáč of Hlaváčov had access to a manuscript of the
chronicle that extended into early 1422. Flajšhans has argued that extensive quo-
tations associated with Laurence have been known and claims these are abun-
dant. Even in examples where the chronicler is not named specifically or at other
times references to the shorthand designation ‘MS’ may have been recognized as
a primitive form of referring to the Hussite Chronicle as a source. Daniel Adam of
Veleslavín occasionally replaced ‘MS’ with ‘Mag. Laurent’ indicating there was
some recognition that ‘MS’ was shorthand for the work of Laurence of Březová.125
Flajšhans credits all of these suggestions as likely. I have appended three of these
extracts to the text of the chronicle.
The indefatigable Hussite researcher František Bartoš postulated that Laurence
composed his narrative in the flush of triumph following the Hussite victory during
the fifth crusade at Domažlice in 1431 and terminated his project in the shadow of
the catastrophe of the battle of Lipany in 1434 when the Hussite military machine
was smashed. He advances arguments from internal evidence to assert that the
composition of the chronicle occurred after events and not at the same time. Lau-
rence must then have decided to revise his work but succeeded only in preparing
a second prologue, Licet michi contemplanti, which appears in all extant manu-
scripts save (K). Kaminsky considers all of this little more than ‘frail speculations.’
While there are clearly two prologues suggesting successive recensions, the theory
of a late composition is weak.126 By contrast, the argument that the chronicle was
written contemporaneously with the events has not proven persuasive.127
Laurence of Březová was certainly a Hussite belonging to the moderate party
of the Praguers and might be identified generally as a disciple of Jakoubek. The
chronicle is the product of an attempt to justify and indeed validate the Prague
Hussite moment in history. Laurence intended to influence public opinion in
favor of core Hussite doctrines and practices, which required a repudiation of
more extreme dimensions of Hussite religion that had gathered to a strength in
the 1420s. The author is a ‘spokesman for Prague Hussitism’ and a ‘Prague apol-
ogist.’128 He was a disciple of Jan Hus and maintained opposition to Sigismund.
He eschewed the radical tendencies of the Táborite and Orebite brotherhoods as
well as the faction in Prague associated with the priest Jan Želivský. This may be
evidenced from his attitude when discussing these Hussite groups and also from
the fact that he omitted much of value from his narrative concerning the more
radical groups. On the other side, he did not sympathize with the very conserva-
tive elements among the Praguers, especially those connected to Jan Příbram who
wished only for the official church to ratify the lay chalice and who, otherwise,
might have been content remaining in communion with the Latin Church. Hence,
Laurence opposed both Sigismund and Tábor while remaining a firm Hussite
avoiding the political and theological extremes characteristic of the movement.
He handles doctrinal materials fairly even where he obviously disagrees. The
Hussite Chronicle reflects the consistent moderate Prague point of view. The
chronicler is particularly remembered for his historical works, especially this
28
chronicle, and he remained to the end of his life a supporter of the Hussite move-
ment. Coming to terms with the chronicle also means considering Laurence in
light of the Hussite question.
There is very little evidence in the chronicle to suggest overt bias, distor-
tion, or manipulation of key events and themes. There is nothing to persuade
the reader that whatever latent bias exists this can be put down to the selec-
tion and arrangement of materials rather than a result of intentional distortion.
Goll was unconcerned about this arguing that complete impartiality could not
be expected from a historian writing about affairs in which he was involved.
František Šmahel considers the chronicler an ‘unbiased historian.’129 This can be
verified in many instances via a comparative textual analysis of primary source
materials from the first generation of Hussite history. It is reasonable to regard
this work as a faithful, accurate, and otherwise useful account of the Hussites up
to the end of 1421. It is possible, though ambitious, to go as far as to claim there
are no factual errors in the chronicle.130 Even with this ringing endorsement, it
is necessary to pose the query: What are the historiographical sins within the
chronicle? The main one lies in recognizing that Laurence tends to be ‘wilfully
opaque,’ and when he tackles an uncomfortable topic he is prone to telescoping
and generalizing and he is unreliable when he chooses to omit information but
he is generally reliable when he supplies data.131 While these general evaluations
are not easily gainsaid, comparisons of the extant manuscripts reveal passages
that are not easily resolved as mere scribal variants or problematic readings.
Throughout the entire text there are distortions on account of deliberate or unin-
tentional interpolations and scribal misunderstandings, and many of these can
be paleographically demonstrated.132 The tale of Peter of Dresden and the lay
chalice is a striking example that along with the incongruent prologues are only
the most glaring examples. Even with some reservations, Laurence of Březová is
considered ‘the greatest secular writer, the best historian and the most important
poet of the Hussite revolutionary literature.’133
The chronicle begins with the introduction of Utraquism in Prague in the
autumn of 1414 under the direction of Jakoubek of Stříbro who had succeeded
Hus in the pulpit of Bethlehem Chapel. Oddly, the Wrocław manuscript (W)
attributes the origin of Utraquism to Peter of Dresden.134 The life and career of
Jan Hus is essentially, and curiously, bypassed, though considerable attention is
paid to the fate of Hus and later of his disciple Jerome of Prague, during the
proceedings of the Council of Constance. The structure of the chronicle presents
early Hussite history in a mainly chronological fashion, in this sense it is accu-
rately a form of Czech letopisy (leto meaning ‘year’ and pis meaning ‘writing’);
a narrative based on an orderly understanding of time and its progression and
presented in a ‘smooth chronological narrative.’135 I have not been sufficiently
interested in quibbling over whether this narrative best fits the medieval literary
form of chronicon, annal, historia, gesta, or something else. It is clearly a record
and interpretation of a specific period of history and a reflection of historical
awareness.
29
While the chronicle does not take sides with the catholicizing tendencies
of men like Jan Příbram, it likewise refrains from openly attacking them. The
same cannot be said for the treatment of the Táborites and Priest Želivský.
Táborite theology along with their religious and social practice was abhorrent
to men like Laurence and he was equally offended by their military doctrine.
This may have been influenced in part on account of his social position yet
simultaneously he could not spurn entirely the revolutionary initiatives.136
Frequently, the chronicle appears to support the barons. However, the military
might of the radical brotherhoods was an indispensable asset in the ongo-
ing struggle against Sigismund and the recurring threat of crusade. Caught
between the Devil and the deep blue sea, the Hussite Chronicle attempts to
negotiate this tricky divide between portraying the Táborites as a wicked,
heretical sect, and that of a necessary evil and, at times, a worthy ally in the
fight to liberate the truths of the Christian faith and establish once and for all
the law of God. Hence, much of the discussion about the Táborites tends to
be equivocal: disdain for their excesses amid gratitude for their presence and
prowess when faced with the threat of annihilation at the hands of the enemies
of God. The conflict is not easily resolved. Laurence remains consistently
either overtly hostile or at best expressing great reservation about the radi-
cal faction. Josef Macek believes that in these areas, ‘Laurence lost all good
resolution about truthfulness, impartiality, and gave the general view of the
Prague citizen concerning the revolutionary appearance of the poor.’137 That
view is far too strong and reflects Macek’s commitment to a particular view
of history.
One of the distinct advantages of the chronicle is the fact that Laurence is no
mere reporter of historical events. By contrast, the Auctor Hussiticus records events
but unlike Laurence does not interact with them and stands rather more detached
from his narrative.138 Laurence is manifestly au fait with theological nuance and
recognizes the central place religion occupies in the Hussite revolution. Hence,
the chronicle is peppered with allusions to, and protracted discussions of, the-
ology and theological dispute. In some places it might be fairly judged that the
chronicle is theological history. This is not to suggest that Laurence understood
completely the nature and consequences of the theological controversy between
the Praguers and the Táborites and the not infrequent subtle nuances. Unlike the
chronicle of the Táborites written by their bishop after 1435, Laurence seems to
use theology to support his narrative rather than the other way round. Put another
way, theology appears to be used in the service of a particular agenda. That being
a strong possibility, together with the unremitting focus upon the moderate Prague
point of view, this renders the Hussite Chronicle as a thoroughly tendentious, but
by no means invaluable, narrative. Along this vein of thought, one of the valuable
digressions in the work is the treatment of the so-called sect of the Adamites (or
Pikarts), which represented an ultra-extreme version of Táborite ideology. The
Adamites were eventually driven from Tábor and slaughtered under the righteous
indignation of Žižka.139 Another crucial dimension evident in the chronicle is a
30
broader perspective. Laurence was keenly aware that some of the events and ideas
he recorded were revolutionary in nature. He appears further to appreciate that
the forces producing the ideas and actions could not be confined to urban factors
in Prague but were informed by events much farther afield. The chronicle reflects
awareness of national political action coupled with radical religious reform. By
contrast, the Auctor Hussiticus emphasizes events in Prague and scarcely consid-
ers developments farther afield.
The prologues and the chronicler

The second recension of the text has Laurence beginning his chronicle with
regret as well as with an historical consciousness and a determination to record
the events that brought Bohemia to international attention. The prose Licet michi
contemplanti contains more than a twinge of disillusionment as the chronicler
observes the state of affairs:
Although as I consider the ruin, as varied as it is enormous, of the one-time

famous and fortunate Kingdom of Bohemia, by which it has been everywhere
devoured as by a serpent and devastated by the discord of internal conflict,
my senses are dulled and my reason, distraught with grief, declines from the
vigor of its faculties, nevertheless, so that future generations of the country
of Bohemia may not be left without knowledge of this awful, no spectacular,
tragedy and thereby on account of senseless negligence fall into a similar or
even worse calamity, and particularly for the preservation, fortification and
strengthening of authentic faith and solidarity, I have faithfully written down
on these pages as carefully as possible the things that I have come to under-
stand as true through trustworthy eyes and ears.140
This morose outlook may be related to the activities and ideas of radical Hussites.
Perhaps this is the one place wherein the Hussite Chronicle must be treated with
much caution especially with respect to the portrayal of Táborite military doctrine
and practice. There is a tendency to demonize the Táborites and portray them as
bloodthirsty hoodlums operating as terrorists under the guise of religious reforma-
tion. Laurence seems to give prominent place to the atrocities of the brotherhoods
while making no mention of the fact that the Praguers engaged in much the same
type of behavior as did, of course, the crusaders as well as the German and Hun-
garian soldiers loyal to King Sigismund.141 There appears to be a deliberate effort
to castigate the Táborites in this respect as possessing no coherent intellectual
or moral center while presenting the Praguers as achieving a higher moral and
humane plateau. The distinction is superficial and without merit. The chronicler
disapproves of the radical brotherhood and tends to blame these communities,
along with their ideas and practices, for the disasters that befell Bohemia and that
also motivated the darker prologue of gloom and despair reflected in Licet michi
contemplanti.
31
The place of the popular priest Jan Želivský in the Hussite Chronicle occupies
much of the same emotional territory as do the Táborites. A clear bias against the
radical preacher can consistently be detected. However, despite authorial hostility,
there is no gainsaying the fact that Želivský exercised a tremendous force over
political and religious affairs in Prague until his death by murder on 9 March
1422, which unfortunately falls outside the terminus ad quem of Laurence’s work.
At one point the chronicler concedes that Želivský was the ‘de facto ruler of the
entire town.’ Another prominent figure is Jan Žižka, presented as ‘the one-eyed
servant’ or ‘courtier of the Czech king’ who was ‘daring and audacious beyond all
measure,’ otherwise characterized as ‘extremely daring and vigorous.’ He is often
the ‘captain’ or the ‘blind captain’ of the Táborites or, by the last few pages of the
chronicle, simply ‘Brother Žižka.’ Men like Želivský, Martin Húska, Mikuláš of
Pelhřimov, Václav Koranda of Plzeň, and, to a lesser extent, Jan Žižka were not the
sorts of leaders Laurence thought should control the Hussite vision. While Lau-
rence mentions Žižka 45 times by name, he has little negative to say about him,
he believed the others were as equally unfit as the radical ideas and movement that
shaped them. Still, by the early 1420s it was clear that these were, incontrovertibly,
the principle leaders and the Hussite program seemed destined to survive and con-
quer as a radical ‘Táborite’ agenda. The essential common denominator remained
the ‘Four Articles’ of Prague but especially the issue of the lay chalice that clearly
emerges in the Hussite Chronicle as the essential raison d’être for the entire move-
ment. The shift in focus from the inauguration of the chalice for the laity in 1414
to the brutal military excesses of the 1420s can neither be dismissed nor denied.
Its consequences, however, meant the eclipsing of Jakoubek by Želivský, Křišťan
of Prachatice by Koranda, the moral reform of Master Jan Hus by the military
doctrine of Jan Žižka, and thus the Praguers slowly faded into the background
created by the deepening shadow of the Táborites. This transition casts a palpable
shudder through the Hussite Chronicle and even though Prague is featured promi-
nently, and Tábor is discussed only in relation to Prague as though it had no unique
relevance, the presentation and focus is historically and evidentially weak. The
sole cause of consolation for men like Laurence was the fact that the cause of the
chalice appeared to have triumphed.
The undeniable eschatological expectation of the early Hussite movement and
the enthusiastic anticipation of men such as Laurence of Březová is reflected
in surviving extracts from a now-lost manuscript of the Hussite Chronicle (W),
which represents the first recension of the text. The prologue elaborates a quite
different point of view when compared with Licet michi contemplanti.
In the name of the holy and undivided blessed Trinity to whose praise I have
determined to write this collection of events that transpired in the Christian
Kingdom of Bohemia and in the Margraviate of Moravia during the years
from 1414 and thereafter. I have taken up this labor with careful attention in
order that the memory of these things in the future would serve to extol the
glorious reputation of all those who love the law of God and the holy truths
32
of God and also that attention might be drawn to the detestable and dishonest
malignancy of all those who opposed and persecuted these things. May God
assist me, the one to whom everything has their being, and through whom
all things are accomplished, and have been made, and by whom everything
exists. Glory to God through all ages. Amen.142
An attempt to reconcile these divergent prologues may be resolved by considering

that the chronicler experienced a change of mind over the course of the time he
witnessed the rise, development, and maturation of the Hussite movement. This
suggests a longer preoccupation with the preparation of the narrative. The first
recension, Supremae Trinitatis nomine invocato in (W) and (K), reflects optimism
and a desire to record for posterity the history and deeds of a vibrant movement
committed to the law of God. However, as the years passed and the law of God
became subsumed into offensive warfare, dramatic political changes, widespread
destruction, and a perceived diminished significance of original core Hussite tenets,
the second and more widely attested prologue Licet michi contemplanti, reflected
in (A), (B), (E), and (P), was composed. It is not possible to identify a single audi-
ence for the chronicle but Laurence tells his readers that the text functioned as a
warning about the possible repetition of such horrible events and might be read as a
cautionary tale. Triumph has given way to defeat and hope has surrendered to grief.
In consequence, the writing of the chronicle does not appear to have occurred
simultaneously with events noted therein. Because Laurence follows a fairly scru-
pulous chronological method, the narrative often seems to resemble a diary. Such
assumption is mitigated by references to events transpiring previously that can be
identified by the use of protunc (then), which appears 56 times in the chronicle, sug-
gesting a gap between events and composition. There does not appear to be any obvi-
ous method for determining with any accuracy when the chronicle was written in
relation to its constituent parts. I have adopted the view advanced by Marie Bláhová:
The introductory narration was written after a larger time period: it is briefer,
has clear conception, by it the author aims to provide a description of the rev-
olution itself, it also has some minor chronological mistakes. But gradually
the narration becomes more detailed and also more lively, and it seems that
there is not a great time difference.143
It is also important to recognize the chronological emphases within the narra-

tive. About 85 percent of the text is devoted to the period between the beginning
of 1420 and the last entry on 22 December 1421. Some 150 pages of the Goll edi-
tion (354–534) concern these two years while the remaining 26 pages (329–354)
are devoted to the period between 1414 and the end of 1419. In consequence,
the chronicle is an incongruous work. Kaminsky suggests that while a chronicle
account reaching into the 1430s might have been advantageous, Laurence had
pretty much outlined the important narrative in the surviving text. This assessment
mirrors Kaminsky’s own truncated history that concluded with 1424.144
33
The fact that Laurence of Březová was Czech comes through rather vividly. His
fidelity to Hus and his unwavering opposition to Sigismund are clarified by his
Czech identity. One may see in the chronicle traces of his nationalist leanings and
his characterization of Germans (the perennial bête noire of the Slavic peoples) as
the violators of truth and the enemies of Czechs tend to bear this out. In that sense, it
is possible to regard the chronicle as a late medieval source of nationalist sentiment
and conflict.145 There are at least 47 references to Germans in the narrative and over
70 references to Hungarians. Of the latter 50 are specifically to Sigismund but the
remainder are general allusions to the Hungarians mentioned as negatively as Ger-
mans. There are 13 direct references to the Czech language (jazyka českého), which
can be related to nationalist commitments. Another striking feature is connected
to the observation that the chronicle tends to downplay the importance of individ-
uals while emphasizing the role of the community. Hussite Prague, for example,
emerges as a collective hero described as ‘the community of Prague’ (Pragensis
communitas) or the ‘Praguers’ (Pragenses).146 Such terms are prolific through-
out the text, the latter turning up more than 200 times. Clearly the city of Prague
remains a major motif in the chronicle and in contemporary literature.147
What interested the chronicler? He neither shrank from 203 references to the
deliberate destruction of fire and burning nor to 31 allusions of violence against
women. On the former, it is noteworthy that he used emotional and evocative
imagery on many occasions when describing the fire that consumes. He prefers
the noun over the verb in all but one case when he utilizes the phrase ‘ignis con-
sumptus voragine’ (consumed by a whirlwind of fire). In 16 places he uses the
ablative singular ‘voragine.’ Twice we find the accusative singular ‘voraginem.’
The nominative singular ‘vorago’ appears once. Another use is the verb ‘vorabat’
in its third-person singular imperfect active indicative form. The image of being
consumed by a whirlwind of fire is ever so much more vivid than the bland expres-
sion ‘burned.’ One also finds 16 mentions of astrological phenomena including
a solar eclipse, two rainbows, the planets Saturn and Mars, celestial bodies, and
strange signs in the heavens. For example, during the second crusade in October
1421 in northwest Bohemia, we read: ‘Above the tents one could see a vision
like a single yellow pillar which went from one tent to the next, and wherever the
pillar stopped, a bolt of fire shot down into the tent.’ The chronicler tells us this
was an act of God against the alien invaders. These arresting examples aside, an
examination of the text suggests six topics of special attraction. First, Laurence
was inclined to politics. He was secretary in the New Town, he worked in the royal
chancery, was involved in opposition to the regent Korybut, and maintained active
antipathy for Sigismund who is described as a criminal. An unedifying dossier fol-
lows: He was complicit in the death of Hus, he was a persistent ‘persecutor of the
truth,’ and clearly heretical. The king was represented as the great red dragon of
the Apocalypse, ‘another Lucifer,’ and a ‘fool.’ He was marked by cruelty, deceit,
and duplicity, and routinely characterized as an opponent of the law of God. Sigis-
mund’s curriculum vitae is presented rather scathingly in the chronicle. Second,
the chronicler exhibits a commitment to nationalist allegiance in terms of Czech
34
identity and national consciousness. If Czechs were considered heretics, Laurence

depicted Germans as enemies of the chalice and the law of God. Third, he took
special interest in matters of religious reform, the development and nature of the-
ology, especially Utraquism, and fidelity to the Four Articles, which he considered
veritas (truth). The preoccupation with veritas can be found more than 120 times
in the chronicle. There are 337 references to the sacrament of the Eucharist and at
least 25 allusions to the sacrament being carried in Hussite processions. One also
finds at least 75 uses of the term lex dei or lex Christi (and its declensions) indi-
cating the law of God motif was profoundly significant. Notably, the chronicler
attributes Hussite success to divine providence more than a dozen times. Fourth,
Laurence cultivated a negative assessment of Táborite religion and violence and
this enmity included the activities of the Prague priest Jan Želivský. Fifth, the
chronicler developed a commitment to all of these ideas that prompted him to
write an apologia for the moderate Hussite movement best identified with the
thought and activities of Jakoubek of Stříbro. His chronicle is a lasting monument
to that interest. Sixth, Laurence of Březová was dedicated to preparing a record
of events for posterity. Both prologues reflect this personal obligation even if the
driving motivation changed from exultation to warning.
Uses and citation of other sources

The chronicle incorporates a number of independent texts into its narrative.
These range from the 51-word vernacular song, intoned by the children after the
first anti-Hussite crusade went down to defeat, to a 1,100-word declaration, in
the Czech language, by the national diet convened in June 1421 at Čáslav, to the
nearly 2,000-word Latin presentation of the fundamental ‘Four Articles’ defended
by all Hussites. These sources have been adapted into a specific and intentional
context by Laurence who has taken up these sources and situated them within
a particular argument framed by sometimes lengthy but always original discur-
sive passages.148 Often the chronicle refers to other sources but equally often does
not make complete references. Overwhelmingly, Laurence refers to biblical texts,
including canonical and non-canonical citations. The non-canonical texts include
the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Third Esdras, Tobit, and Judith. Canonical texts
account for 96 percent of these references. The writings cited, referred, or alluded
to, most include the Gospel of Matthew with 57, Isaiah with 44, Revelation with
34, the Gospel of Luke with 24, I Corinthians with 16, while Jeremiah and the
Gospel of John are noted 15 times each. Altogether, these number about 350 ref-
erences. Canon law, the church fathers, and other traditional medieval authorities
appear around 30 times. In this latter category, Gratian is cited a dozen times, and
the others include Pseudo Dionysius, Origen, Novatian, Leo the Great, Gelasius
I, Bede, Walafrid Strabo, Haymo of Halberstadt, Paschasius Radbertus, John Sco-
tus Eriugena, and Bernard. Augustine is conspicuously absent as is John Wyclif,
though the former is mentioned six times, while the latter and his disciples are
mentioned a dozen times, in the text.
35
Significance of the work

It has been called the ‘most valuable work written in Hussite Bohemia.’149 Others
have argued that ‘Laurence’s Hussite Chronicle is a pillar of our knowledge about
the birth and the course of the first years of the Hussite Revolution.’150 Even if those
claims are overwrought, the Hussite Chronicle is the most important single source
for the events of the early Hussite movement. This is widely recognized in the
historiography.151 It offers to history and scholarship a nuanced understanding of
what can be regarded as an essential component for a proper understanding of late
medieval religion. It is also a considered account of aspects of the later crusades.
It should be noted that an edition of the Latin text appeared in 1893 but after more
than a century this has not attracted an English-language edition and the peculiar
challenges of the Latin text in its larger historical context has limited its use to a
very small cadre of Anglophone specialists. The detail of descriptive narrative and
close attention to religious and political ideas and practices far surpass many other
medieval chronicles. The chronicle is a contemporary epic work that reflects a nar-
rative that genuinely approaches a proper history. The author not only records but
endeavors to explain the causes and consequences of events, not just the author’s
memories. The work is based on extensive material (official and semi-official doc-
uments, letters, chronicles) and these texts are embedded directly into the narrative.
Some of these sources are no longer extant outside this chronicle. The chronicler
does not merely assemble information, he makes an effort at interpreting data. In
this sense, he agrees with the fourteenth-century French writer Jean Froissart that a
chronicle assembles data while a history evaluates the material.152 The author also
has firsthand knowledge of numerous events as he was present at many meetings,
knew their resolutions; or questioned other participants, using their own writings.
This is a very valuable source that goes well beyond a mere telling the tale of a
religious uprising. Previous to his work on the chronicle, and pursuant to other pro-
jects, the author claims to have gathered material from a wide range of sources and
these included ‘Christian, Jewish, and pagan chronicles.’ In addition, the chronicler
supplemented his main sources with other gleanings and also added his own under-
standing of the texts and events in question.153
Laurence of Březová stands out from the normal framework of medieval

chronicles that mechanically, colorlessly, discuss year after year, register-
ing events. The Hussite Chronicle has nothing to do with similar annalistic
records. It is all composed of one problem, a historical event of immense
historical significance, the Hussite revolution, which the author considered to
be worthy of attention.
The chronicler writes with verve as a ‘master storyteller.’154 The availability of

the Hussite Chronicle in the English language, with an introduction and critical or
explanatory notes as well as a textual and historical commentary presents a formi-
dable resource for continuing scholarship and is a key text for additional research
36
and a valuable aid for exploring the nature of the early Hussite movement, the
foundations of the European Renaissance and Reformation (with its contributions
toward toleration, enlightenment, and cultural advancement), as well as the his-
tory of crusading. The availability of an English translation will aid and enhance
teaching at all levels of study while more broadly introducing on the widest possi-
ble spectrum a key text from medieval history. This particularly opens up a consid-
eration of Europe in the pre-modern period in areas east of the Elbe and provides
an important supplement to the general emphasis on England and France. I have
made available to undergraduate students excerpts of the chronicle since 2001 and
currently two of my graduate students are utilizing a full draft translation.
Virtually all of the major historical writings from both Hussite and Catholic
perspectives were written in Latin. Only the Hussite Chronicle was translated into
Czech and this occurred before the end of the fifteenth century.155 Despite the rise
of vernacular writings, Latin remained the predominant literary language during
the time of the Hussite uprising. Once the massive upheavals settled, the ver-
nacular began to make an appearance and these works were chiefly examples of
the ‘history of the present.’156 As the fifteenth century wore on, Czech historical
writing developed its own style of expression, language, subject matter, and per-
spective. This is certainly true of the Hussite Chronicle.157
The influence of the Hussite Chronicle can be detected both in modern Czech
historiography as well as in works of historical fiction. In the former, František
Palacký, V.V Tomek, Josef Pekař, Rudolf Urbánek, F.M. Bartoš, and František
Šmahel are historians whose work exhibits dependence on the Hussite Chron-
icle.158 It might be noted that Jan Hus plays little role in the narrative of the
chronicle. Kaminsky opines that it is strange for a history of Hussites to begin
in 1414 (when Hus is in prison in Germany) and to then explicate the spread of
new religious ideas and practices by so-called Hussites without identifying Hus
or discussing his role in the religious world of late medieval Bohemia.159 It is
also possible to postulate that the chronicle played a negative role in the interna-
tional perception of Hussites in the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries.
That argument maintains that the later uses of the chronicle capitalized on the
critique Laurence levelled against the Táborite faction of the Hussite uprising and
thus undergirded the negative assessment of the overall movement that persisted
throughout Catholic Europe.160
Editorial principles
This study of this chronicle and its translation does not constitute a critical edi-
tion. Its aims are more modest in making available to the Anglophone reader
a key text of late medieval history and religious practice. By extension, there
has been no philological intention embedded in the process. Orthographically,
Czech forms of names have generally been retained with the exceptions of
Prague (rather than Praha), Jerome (rather than Jeroným) and Laurence (rather
than Vavřinec). I remain unpersuaded by arguments that the use of ‘Hussite’ and
37
‘heresy’ nomenclature is inappropriate. These terms and concepts have been

intentionally utilized throughout. The chronicle uses the terms ‘Hussite’ and
‘Wyclifite’ seven times each. Too often titles are imposed upon medieval texts
and this can be problematic. Imposed titles may obscure and distort as much as
illuminate and occasionally they may reflect modern preferences over medieval
concerns. These points noted, I have used the descriptive designation ‘Hus-
site Chronicle’ in referring to this liber sine nomine (book without a name). I
have provided explanatory notes when I have deemed necessary and helpful to
the reader. Corrections have been sparingly introduced only where I felt their
absence impaired a proper understanding of the narrative. Square brackets [ ]
have been used whenever I have added something to the text, for example dates,
a fuller form of a name, and so on. Square brackets enclosing an Arabic number
[468] indicate the page in the Goll edition and text within square brackets also
indicate material not in the Goll edition. Most instances of the designation ‘etc.’
as it appears in the original text have been eliminated. The word ‘item’ appears
more than 450 times in the chronicle and is generally omitted or, in the case of
a list, becomes ‘also,’ ‘likewise,’ ‘similarly,’ or ‘in like manner.’ Abbreviations
in the original text have been expanded. Where manuscripts have been utilized,
word separation conforms to modern usage, ‘u’ and ‘v’ are normalized as are
‘c’ and ‘t.’161 I have taken no particular note of punctuation in the manuscripts
but have modified Goll’s decisions by adopting modern conventions wherever
and whenever I thought the reading might be improved for an Anglophone audi-
ence. I have endeavored to identify cited sources in the chronicle but I have not
ventured to confirm or clarify Laurence’s adaptations of original texts. In cases
where only a book of the bible (Matthew) or a chapter (Matthew 6) is listed I
have endeavored to supply a complete reference (Matthew 6:10).162 References
to the liturgical calendar have been informed by the work of modern Benedictine
monks.163 The use of the ellipsis appears only where the translation follows Goll
but these are few. There are ten sections of the chronicle (one additional docu-
ment and one brief addendum) in Czech. Four of these appear in Chapter 11 and
this chapter is unique in that 80 percent of the 4,000 words is in Czech. Many of
the sentences in the Czech language are exceptionally complex, often extremely
lengthy and even determining the antecedents are frequently challenging. The
vernacular parts have been italicized. Heřmanský and Bláhová identified over
90 variations between Laurence’s text and its subsequent translation. Unlike the
1979 edition, I have not noted textual variants between the Latin original and
the fifteenth-century Czech save in a handful of instances.
Laurence did not use any headings or titles to set off the narrative into constit-
uent parts. It did not seem prudent to produce a translated text of 86,000 words
without section breaks. I was not inclined to adopt the system of 120 separate
chapters as introduced by Heřmanský in 1954. The fact that other editors have
followed this practice did not persuade me. Instead, I have devised 15 chapter
divisions but have retained a reduced number of subheadings in the manner intro-
duced into the Old Czech translation in the Goll edition and replicated in the
38
Dolenský edition. While admittedly modern impositions upon a medieval nar-

rative, these aid the reader and allow the text a greater degree of accessibility
and achieve a modicum of clarity. Likewise, I have made references to scholarly
literature in English wherever possible so as to best aid the Anglophone reader
who may wish to pursue specific inquiries. Earlier translations and editions of the
chronicle have often relied upon seminal Czech studies that appeared in the nine-
teenth century. I have intentionally not cited the massive works by V.V. Tomek on
the city of Prague and by August Sedláček on castles and fortresses in Bohemia,
for example, but often in the chapter endnotes I have drawn upon their work as
reflected in the critical apparatus prepared by others in their editions.164 In terms
of time, distance, and money, I have tried to be consistent. The first category gen-
erally follows the Western liturgical calendar and the canonical hours and I have
relied upon the expert advice of the Prague-based liturgical specialist David R.
Holeton, who has borne my many inquiries with much patience. I have shortened
references to specific dates. For example, where the Latin says ‘the twenty-ninth
day of the month of May’ this has been contracted to 29 May. The second uses
the English mile, rather than the kilometer, as distinct from the German mile or
the Old Czech mile. For the latter, I have followed the directions suggested in the
work of Peter Spufford.
At the turn of the twelfth century, the philosopher Moses Maimonides wrote
from Cairo to the Provençal rabbi Samuel ibn Tibbon offering advice on the art
of translation underscoring the task of engaging with translation as interpretation.
I shall premise one rule: the translator who proposes to render each word
literally and adhere slavishly to the order of the words and sentences in the
original, will meet with much difficulty and the result will be doubtful and
corrupt. This is not the right method. The translator should first try to grasp
the meaning of the subject, and then state the theme with perfect clarity in the
other language. This, however, cannot be done without changing the order of
words, putting many words for one word, and vice versa, so that the subject
be perfectly intelligible in the language into which he translates.165
I have tried to keep that counsel in mind though it is ironic that the rabbi ignored
the advice of the philosopher. Very occasionally the vagaries of the late medieval
Latin and Czech forced me to embrace Horace who suggested nec verbum verbo
curabis reddere fidus interpres and I resorted to something less than a strict word-
for-word approach.166 The text and the context of the Hussite Chronicle represent
a medieval moment worthy of renewed consideration.
Notes
1 Goll, ‘Hussite Chronicle,’ in FRB, vol. 5, p. 344.
2 Otakar Odložilík, ‘The Bethlehem Chapel in Prague: Remarks on its Foundation Charter,’ Studien
zur Älteren Geschichte Osteuropas 2, no. 1 (1956), pp. 125–41.
39
3 Thomas A. Fudge, The Magnificent Ride: The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 1998), pp. 123–77.
4 Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1967), p. 7.
5 The definitive study of the council is Walter Brandmüller, Das Konzil von Konstanz 1414–1418,
2 vols. (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1991–1997), volume 1 was revised in 1999, and a good
resource on the schism is Joëlle Rollo-Koster and Thomas M. Izbicki, eds., A Companion to the
Great Western Schism (1378–1417) (Brill: Boston, 2009).
6 Thomas A. Fudge, ‘The “Law of God”: Reform and Religious Practice in Late Medieval
Bohemia,’ in Thomas A. Fudge, Heresy and Hussites in Late Medieval Europe (Farnham:
Ashgate-Variorum, 2014), III, pp. 49–72.
7 Howard Kaminsky, ‘Chiliasm and the Hussite Revolution,’ Church History 26 (1957), pp. 43–71.
8 František Palacký, ed., Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam in constantiensi
concilio actam et controversias de religione in Bohemia annis 1403–1418 motas illustrantia
(Prague: Tempsky, 1869), pp. 580–90.
9 Palacký, Documenta, pp. 590–3. See also Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution,
pp. 143–51; and John Martin Klassen, The Nobility and the Making of the Hussite Revolution
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1978).
10 This is based upon comments made by Jakoubek of Stříbro in his commentary on the apocalypse.
František Šimek, ed., Jakoubek ze Stříbra: Výklad na zjevenie sv. Jana, 2 vols. (Prague: Nákladem
Komise vydávání pramenů českého hnutí náboženského, 1932–1933), vol. 1, pp. 295–6.
11 Thomas A. Fudge, The Crusade Against Heretics in Bohemia, 1418–1437: Sources and
Documents for the Hussite Crusade (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002).
12 Thomas A. Fudge, Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia (London:
Tauris, 2017); Thomas Krzenck, Johannes Hus: Theologie, Kirchenreformer, Märtyrer (Zürich:
Munster-Schmidt Verlag, 2011); and František Šmahel and Ota Pavlíček, eds., A Companion to
Jan Hus (Leiden: Brill, 2015).
13 David R. Holeton, ‘The Bohemian Eucharistic Movement in its European Context,’ Bohemian
Reformation and Religious Practice 1 (1996), pp. 23–47.
14 Hermann von der Hardt, ed., Magnum oecumenicum constantiense concilium, 7 vols. (Frankfurt
and Leipzig: C. Genschii, Helmestadi, 1699–1742), vol. 3, cols. 805–27.
15 Jiří Kejř, Mistři pražské university a kněží táborští (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1981).
16 František Palacký, ed., Archiv český (Prague: Kronberg & Riwnáče, 1844), vol. 3, p. 204.
17 Jiří Kejř, ‘The Prague Law Faculty and the Law University,’ in Ivana Čornejová and Michal
Svatoš, eds., A History of Charles University, Volume 1 (1348–1802), trans. Anna Bryson (Prague:
Karolinum Press, 2001), pp. 149–68; and Jaroslav Kadlec, ‘The Theological Faculty,’ in Ivana
Čornejová and Michal Svatoš, eds., A History of Charles University, Volume 1 (1348–1802),
trans. Anna Bryson (Prague: Karolinum Press, 2001), pp. 123–45.
18 Fudge, The Crusade Against Heretics in Bohemia, pp. 21–5, 33–8, 45–52.
19 Václav Bartůněk, ‘Konrad von Vechta, Erzbischof von Prag,’ in Georg Schwaiger and Josef
Staber, eds., Regensburg und Böhmen: Festschrift zur Tausendjahrfeier des Regierungsantrittes
Bischofs Wolfgangs von Regensburg und der Errichtung des Bistums von Prag (Regensburg:
Verlag des Vereins für Regensburger Bistumsgeschichte, 1972), pp. 173–219.
20 Fudge, The Magnificent Ride, pp. 178–274.
21 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, p. 323.
22 Chris Schabel, Monica Brinzei, and Mihai Magna, ‘A Golden Age of Theology at Prague:
Prague Sentences Commentaries from 1375 to 1385, the Terminus post quem for Evidence of
Wycliffism in Bohemia,’ Acta universitatis carolinae-historia universitatis carolinae pragensis
55, no. 1 (2015), pp. 19–40.
23 Thomas A. Fudge, Jerome of Prague and the Foundations of the Hussite Movement (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2016), passim.
24 Fudge, The Crusade Against Heretics in Bohemia, pp. 40–1, 127.
40
25 František Palacký, ed., Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkrieges, 2 vols.
(Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1966), vol. 1, pp. 17–20.
26 Palacký, Documenta, p. 684.
27 Dietrich Kerler, ed., Deutsche Reichstagsakten (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1883), vol. 8,
pp. 119–21.
28 Dana Martínková, ed., Aeneae Silvii Historia Bohemica (Prague: Koniasch Latin Press, 1998), p. 6.
29 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, pp. 265–360; and František Šmahel, Die
Hussitische Revolution, 3 vols., trans. Thomas Krzenck (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung,
2002), vol. 2, pp. 1007–365.
30 Kaminsky, ‘The Prague Insurrection of 30 July 1419,’ Mediaevalia et Humanistica 17 (1966),
pp. 106–26.
31 Amedeo Molnár, ‘Eschatologická naděje české reformace,’ in J.B. Souček, ed., Od reformace k
zítřku (Prague: Kalich, 1956), p. 29.
32 František Šmahel, ‘Die Vier Prager Artikel. Das Programm der Hussitischen Reformation,’ in
Winfried Eberhard and Franz Machilek, eds., Kirchliche Reformimpulse des 14./15. Jahrhunderts
in Ostmitteleuropa (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2006), pp. 329–39.
33 Thomas A. Fudge, ‘“Neither Mine Nor Thine”: Communist Experiments in Hussite Bohemia,’ in
Thomas A. Fudge, Heresy and Hussites in Late Medieval Europe (Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum,
2014), VIII, pp. 26–46.
34 Frederick G. Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution (New York: Russell & Russell,
1969).
35 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, pp. 459–60.
36 Thomas A. Fudge, Medieval Religion and Its Anxieties: History and Mystery in the Other Middle
Ages (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 183–202.
37 Stephen E. Lahey, ‘Matěj of Janov: Corpus Mysticum, Communionem, and the Lost Treatise of
His Regulae,’ Religions 9 (2018), pp. 16, doi:10.3390/rel9010016.
38 Jan Sedlák, ‘Husův pomocník v evangeliu,’ in Jan Sedlák, Studie a texty k životopisu Husovu, vol.
2 (Olomouc: Matice Cyrilometodějská, 1915), pp. 306–7.
39 John Klassen, ‘Women and Religious Reform in Late Medieval Bohemia,’ Renaissance and
Reformation, n.s. 5, no. 4 (1981), pp. 203–21.
40 Pavlina Rychterová, ‘Frauen und Krieg in Chroniken über die Hussitenkriege,’ in František
Šmahel, ed., Geist, Gesellschaft, Kirche im 13.–16. Jahrhundert (Prague: Centre for Medieval
Studies, 1999), pp. 127–43 compares three chronicles of the image of female Hussite warriors
and dismisses the usefulness of the image on the grounds that the records are from a male
perspective.
41 References to the hostile nature of sources detailing the activities of women can be found in
Fudge, The Magnificent Ride, pp. 170–2, 266–72 and Thomas A. Fudge, Jan Hus Between
Time and Eternity: Reconsidering a Medieval Heretic (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2016),
pp. 3–28.
42 The historiographical scholarship on women in the Hussite period is limited, hobbled by a lack
of sources, and, apart from one pioneering example, left largely unexplored by Czech scholars.
In Czech, the foundational study is Anna Kolářová-Císařová, Žena v hnutí husitském (Prague:
Sokolice, 1915), which was followed up with her Žena v Jednotě bratrské (Prague: Kalich, 1942),
and the booklet Posluchačky v kapli betlémské (Prague: Kalich, 1947). The work of Božena
Kopičková is significant especially ‘Ženská otázka v českém středověku,’ Československý časopis
historický 37 (1989), pp. 561–74, 682–96; Historické prameny k studiu postavení ženy v české a
moravské středověké společnosti: (interdisciplinární pojetí studia) (Prague: Historický ústav AV
ČR, 1992); and ‘Žena a Rodina v husitství. Současný stav bádání,’ Husitský tábor 12 (1999), pp.
37–48. More recently the doctoral dissertation of Barbora Hanušová, ‘Ženy v reformaci’ Charles
University, 2013 is of some value. In English, see Klassen, ‘Women and Religious Reform in
Late Medieval Bohemia,’ pp. 203–21 and his monograph Warring Maidens, Captive Wives,
and Hussite Queens: Women and Men at War and at Peace in Fifteenth-Century Bohemia (New
41
York: Columbia University Press, 1999). Elsewhere, the work of Alfred Thomas is helpful for its
broader and comparative focus. This includes Reading Women in Late Medieval Europe: Anne of
Bohemia and Chaucer’s Female Audience (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) and A Blessed
Shore: England and Bohemia from Chaucer to Shakespeare (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
2007).
43 Thomas A. Fudge, ‘Hussite Theology and the Law of God,’ in David Bagchi and David C.
Steinmetz, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004), pp. 22–7.
44 Marcela K. Perett, ‘A Neglected Eucharistic Controversy: The Afterlife of John Wyclif’s Eucharistic
Thought in Bohemia in the Early Fifteenth Century,’ Church History 84, no. 1 (2015), pp. 64–89;
William R. Cook, ‘The Eucharist in Hussite Theology,’ Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 66
(1975), pp. 23–35; and Zdeněk Nejedlý, Prameny k synodám strany pražské a táboré (Prague:
Nákladem Královské České Společnosti Náuk, 1900).
45 Thomas A. Fudge, The Memory and Motivation of Jan Hus, Medieval Priest and Martyr
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 211–45.
46 Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge, vol. 2, pp. 22–6.
47 Eduard Winter, Tausend Jahre Geisteskampf im Sudetenraum: Das Religiöse Ringer zweier
Völker (Leipzig: Müller, 1938), p. 123.
48 The most thorough and useful study of the council remains Brandmüller, Das Konzil von Konstanz
1414–1418, 2 vols.
49 František Šmahel, Idea národa v husitských Čechách (Prague: Argo, 2000); and Thomas A.
Fudge, ‘An Ass with a Crown: Heresy, Nationalism and Emperor Sigismund,’ in Thomas A.
Fudge, Heresy and Hussites in Late Medieval Europe (Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum, 2014), XII,
pp. 199–217.
50 Šmahel, Idea národa v husitských Čechách, p. 165.
52 A useful study of these observations is Marcela K. Perett, Preachers, Partisans, and Rebellious
Religion: Vernacular Writing and the Hussite Movement (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2018). See also Pavlína Rychterová, ‘Theology Goes to the Vernaculars: Jan Hus, “On
Simony,” and the practice of translation of fifteenth-century Bohemia,’ in Michael Van Dussen
and Pavel Soukup eds., Religious Controversy in Europe, 1378–1536 (Turnout: Brepols, 2013),
pp. 231–49.
53 František Šmahel, La révolution hussite, une anomalie historique (Paris: Presses universitaires de
France, 1985), pp. 105–10.
54 A superior study on trade is Alexandra Kaar, Wirtschaft, Krieg und Seelenheil: Papst Martin
V., Kaiser Sigismund und das Handelsverbot gegen die Hussiten in Böhmen [Forschungen zur
Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters Beihefte zu J. F. Böhmer, Regesta Imperii, vol. 46]
(Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2020).
55 Parts of this section appeared previously as Thomas A. Fudge, ‘Die hussitische Bewegung
im spätmittelalterlichen Böhmen,’ Religion & Gesellschaft in Ost und West 43, no. 2 (2015),
pp. 11–14.
56 Marvin Kantor, The Origins of Christianity in Bohemia: Sources and Commentary (Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press, 1990); and Roman Jakobson, ‘Remarks on the Poetry of the
Hussite Era,’ in Stephen Rudy, ed., Roman Jakobson Selected Writings, vol. 6 (Berlin: Mouton,
1985), pp. 704–37.
57 Lisa Wolverton, Cosmas of Prague: Narrative, Classicism, Politics (Washington, DC: Catholic
University of America Press, 2015).
58 Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila known by its shorthand ‘Dalimil’s Chronicle.’
59 Marie Bláhová, ‘Vernacular Historiography in Medieval Czech Lands,’ Medievalia 19, no. 1
(2016), p. 41.
60 The text Cronica Przibiconis dicti Pulkaua appears in Josef Emler, ed., FRB, vol. 5, pp. 3–326.
61 Bláhová, ‘Vernacular Historiography in Medieval Czech Lands,’ pp. 41–2.
42
62 Pavlína Cermanová, Robert Novotný, and Pavel Soukup, eds., Husitské století (Prague: Lidové
noviny, 2014) provides an essential overview and in chapter 24 Jaroslav Boubín situates the
chronicle.
63 De gestis is in Höfler, p. 321 (below). Origio appears in Ludewig, p. 124 (below). The designation
chronicon is all the manuscripts provide, while ‘Hussite Chronicle’ begins with Goll in FRB, vol.
5, p. xxiii (below) and is fairly pervasive thereafter.
64 Text appears in FRB, vol. 5, pp. 567–88. Jaroslav Goll, Tak zvané Chronicon universitatis
Pragensis a poměr jeho k Vavřinci z Březové (Prague: Královská česká společnost nauk, 1884),
wherein Goll undertakes a brief analysis of the manuscript text that describes events from the
founding of the University of Prague until 1421 and evaluates its relation to the text of the Hussite
Chronicle that was certainly used by the compiler in elaborating the second part of the university
chronicle and related events between 1414 and 1421.
65 Jaroslav Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ in FRB, vol. 5, p. xxxii.
66 Antonín Dolenský, ed., Vavřinec z Březové: Kronika husitská (Prague: František Strnad, 1940),
p. 7 believes that Laurence did more revising of his account than has been recognized.
67 Geschichtsschreiber der husitischen Bewegung in Böhmen, 3 vols. (Vienna: Aus der Kaiserl.
Königl. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1856–1866), vol. 1 (1856), pp. 321–527. The additions were
drawn from (B) and appear on pp. 503–14 in Czech and German.
68 On Peter, see Howard Kaminsky, ‘Nicholas of Dresden and the Dresden School in Prague,’ in
Howard Kaminsky, Dean Loy Bilderback, Imre Boba, and Patricia N. Rosenberg, eds., Master
Nicholas of Dresden, The Old Color and the New (Philadelphia: Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, n.s. 55, 1965), pp. 5–28; and more recently Petra Mutlová, ‘Radicals
and Heretics: Rethinking the Dresden School in Prague,’ unpublished PhD dissertation, Central
European University, 2010.
69 Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ p. xxv.
70 Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ p. xxvi.
71 www.kb.dk/permalink/2006/manus/726/dan/330.
72 Howard Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement in History,’ unpublished PhD dissertation, University
of Chicago, 1952, p. 21.
73 Johann Peter von Ludewig, Reliquiae manuscriptorum omnis aevi diplomatum ac monumentorum,
vol. 6 (Frankfurt and Leipzig: impensis Orphanotrophei, 1724), pp. 124–216.
74 Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ p. xxviii.
75 Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ p. xxviii; Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement
in History,’ pp. 21–2; and Josef Bujnoch, ed., Die Hussiten: Die Chronik des Laurentius von
Březová 1414–1421 (Graz: Verlag Styria, 1988), p. 15.
76 Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ pp. xxix and xxxii.
77 Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, pp. 15–16.
78 This is mentioned in Marie Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a jeho dílo,’ in František Heřmanský
and Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u Domažlic
(Prague: Svoboda, 1979), p. 313; and in Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 16.
79 This is a translation of the Czech text as provided in Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’
pp. xxxix.
80 Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a jeho dílo,’ p. 313; and Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho
spisy,’ p. xxxix.
81 On the religious thought and practices of the Brethren, see Craig D. Atwood, The Theology
of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius (University Park: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 2009).
82 On the Old Czech Annals, see Joel Daniel Seltzer, ‘Framing Faith, Forging a Nation: Czech
Vernacular Historiography and the Bohemian Reformation, 1430–1530’ (unpublished PhD
dissertation, Yale University, 2004).
83 See Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ p. xxvii for the claim; and for the challenge,
see Václav Flajšhans, ‘M. Vavřinec,’ České časopis historický 39 (1933), p. 566, who argues that
43
these writers were not au fait with the chronicle firsthand whereas Prokop Lupáč of Hlaváčov and
Daniel Adam of Veleslavín were.
84 I am much indebted to the work of Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ pp. xxvxxvii;
Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement in History,’ pp. 20–2; Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a jeho
dílo,’ pp. 312–13; and Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, pp. 13–16, upon which I have relied especially on
their work with the manuscripts and their transmission. This has informed my decisions reflected
in the diagram suggesting the stemma (Figure 2).
85 Geschichtsschreiber der husitischen Bewegung in Böhmen, vol. 1, pp. 418–20, 426–8, 461–78,
481–5, 500–3 and 521–2.
86 Dolenský, Vavřinec z Březové.
87 František Heřmanský, ed., Vavřinec z Březové: Husitská kronika (Prague: Státní nakladatelství
krásné literatury, hudby a umění, 1954); and František Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová, eds.
Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u Domažlic (Prague: Svoboda, 1979).
88 V.S. Sokolov, ed., Gusitskaia khronika (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1962). This has been
reprinted and prepared for publication by the historian A.I. Tsepkov, Gusitskaia khronika (Ryazan:
Aleksandriya, 2009) and Bujnoch, Die Hussiten.
89 Josef Truhlář, Catalogus codicum manu scriptorium Latinorum qui in c.r. bibliotheca
publica atque universitatis Pragensis, 2 vols. (Prague: Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Bohemicae,
1905–1906), vol. 1, p. 54.
90 This is a hand with a pointing index finger used to draw attention to a specific point in the
text from the Latin manicula, i.e., little hand. William H. Sherman, ‘Toward a History of the
Manicule,’ in Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England (Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), pp. 25–51.
91 Prague, NK MS III G 16, fols. 30v–32r and 165r–166v, which has been published in FRB, vol.
5, pp. 537–41 as ‘Výtah z Kroniky Vavřince z Březové.’ See also Goll’s comments in ‘Mistr
Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ pp. xxxvii–xxxviii.
92 Helena Krmíčková, ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové,’ in Helena Krmíčková, Lucie Mazalová, Petra
Mutlová, and Pavel Ševčík, Pro defensa veritatis evangelice (Brno: Masarykova univerzita,
2015), p. 55.
93 Truhlář, Catalogus codicum manu scriptorium Latinorum, vol. 1, pp. 217 and 220.
94 ‘Výtah z Kroniky Vavřince z Březové,’ p. 538.
95 The fragment, a modern half-leather bound text of fifteenth-century provenance, formerly
Rajhrad Monastery Library MS D/K.I.b.21, is now classified as Brno, Moravian Library R 432,
fols. 221r–234r and has now been identified as part of Prague, NK MS III G 16.
96 I am much indebted to the work of Helena Krmíčková, ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové,’ pp. 33–59,
who has thoroughly studied these sources and presented a convincing argument.
97 Jiří Spěváček, Repertorium fontium historiae medii aevi, vol. 2 (Rome: Apud Istituto storico
Italiano per il medio evo, 1967), p. 291; and Krmíčková, ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové,’ p. 42.
98 Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish Library, MS Thott 688 2°, p. 1.
99 Václav Schulz, ‘Bohemica knihovna v Hamburce, Kielu, Kodani a Roskoku,’ Věstník královské
české společnosti nauk. Třída filosoficko—historicko—jazykozpytná 29 (1897), pp. 1–14; but on
Copenhagen pp. 12–14 and for the chronicle p. 12.
100 Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish Library, MS Thott 688 2°, p. 32.
101 For example, Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish Library, MS Thott 688 2°, p. 26,
where ‘pripua’ has been crossed out and above it the word ‘propria’ appears.
102 Dana Martínková, ‘Příspěvek k jazykové charakteristice latinských spisů Vavřince z Březové,’
Listý filologické 105 (1982), pp. 228–32.
104 Martínková, ‘Příspěvek k jazykové charakteristice latinských spisů Vavřince z Březové,’ p. 231.
105 This is not especially unique to Laurence; examples can also be found in the writings of Jan Hus,
Stanislav of Znojmo, and others in the fifteenth century.
106 Good resources for a consideration of Latin in the European Middle Ages is F.A.C. Mantello and
A.G. Rigg, eds., Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide (Washington, DC:
44
The Catholic University of America Press, 1996); James Clackson, ed., A Companion to the Latin
Language (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011); and Peter Stotz, Handbuch zur Lateinische Sprache
des Mittelalters, 5 vols. (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1996–2004).
107 Martínková, ‘Příspěvek k jazykové charakteristice latinských spisů Vavřince z Březové,’ pp.
230–1.
108 Some have supposed an impossibly early birth date of around 1365. Jarold K. Zeman, The Hussite
Movement: A Bibliographical Study Guide (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1977), p. 67.
109 Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 9 surveys the possibilities. Others believe the correct location is near
Kutná Hora. Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ p. xx; and Heřmanský, Vavřinec z
Březové, p. 342. Urbánek concurs with this while Bartoš prefers Březová near Hořovice a locale
close to Žebrák and Točník.
110 Krmíčková, ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové,’ p. 32.
111 Commentum reverendi Magistri Laurencii de Brzezowa super VII psalmos penitenciales, Prague
Castle Archive MS 0 74. I rely on Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ p. xxii.
112 A concise summary of his activities appears in Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a jeho dílo,’
pp. 305–6.
113 Useful discussion on this point in Václav Flajšhans, ‘Traktáty Husovy a Kronika Vavřincova,’
Listy filologické 61 (1934), pp. 54–66.
114 ‘O zajetí Zikmunda Korybuta,’ in Bohuslav Havránek, Josef Hrabák, and Jiří Daňhelka,
eds., Výbor z české literatury doby husitské, 2 vols. (Prague: Českoslovenká academie věd,
1963–4), vol. 1, pp. 327–31 at p. 331.
115 Preserved in Prague, NK MS IV E 16, fols. 245v–246r and noted in Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z
Březové a jeho dílo,’ p. 384.
116 F.M. Bartoš, ‘Z husitského i bratrského dějepisectví, IV: Z nových i starých spisů Vavřince z
Březové,’ Český časopis musea 94 (1920), pp. 1–9, 87–96, 193–203 at p. 193; and Bujnoch, Die
Hussiten, p. 13.
117 Heřmanský, Vavřinec z Březové, p. 346.
118 The texts appear in Jiří Daňhelka, ed., Husitské skladby budyšínského rukopisu (Prague:
Orbis, 1952), pp. 23–40. Useful analysis in John Klassen, ‘Images of Anti-Majesty in Hussite
Literature,’ Bohemia 33 (1992), pp. 267–81. There is agreement on Laurence’s authorship in
Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, p. 439 and Rudolf Urbánek, Z husitského věku:
Výbor historických úvah a studii (Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1957), pp. 29–35, but
this is contestable. Others tend to gingerly accept the proposal including Šmahel, Idea národa
v husitských Čechách, p. 170, while still others declare the matter cannot be established. Petr
Čornej, ‘Husitské Skladby Budyšínského Rukopisu: Funkce—Adresát—Kulturní Rámec,’ Česká
Literatura 56, no. 3 (2008), pp. 301–44.
119 The text appears in Bohumil Ryba, ed., Magistri. Jo. Hus Quodlibet, revised ed. (Turnhout:
Brepols, 2006), pp. 69–71.
120 For the fifteenth-century text see FRB, vol. 5, p. 534 and for the modern text, Bláhová, Vavřinec
z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 277. For the German, see Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 295
121 Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 25.
122 Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement in History,’ pp. 22–3.
123 Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a jeho dílo,’ p. 309.
124 Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement in History,’ p. 25 with references to Pekař.
125 Flajšhans, ‘M. Vavřinec,’ pp. 566–76.
126 Bartoš, ‘Z husitského i bratrského dějepisectví, IV,’ pp. 193–203. The thesis is refuted in Josef
Pekař, Žižka a jeho doba, 4 vols. (Prague: Vesmí, 1927–1928), vol. 1, pp. 23, 38; vol. 2, pp. 60–7.
There is a more accessible summary of this in Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement in History,’ pp.
23–6.
127 A proponent of this idea is Petr Čornej, Tajemství českých kronik: cesty ke kořenům husitské
tradice, 2nd ed. (Praha: Paseka, Čornej, 2003), p. 39. Dolenský, Vavřinec z Březové, p. 7 believes
the chronicle was written at a very late stage.
128 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, pp. 306, 366–7, and 455.
45
129 Šmahel, Die Hussitische Revolution, vol. 1, p. 5. Agreeing are Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement
in History,’ p. 28 and Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ p. xxxv.
130 Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ p. xxxiv; and Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a
jeho dílo,’ p. 312. The former says ‘the data in Laurence’s chronicle are, with some few exceptions,
correct.’
131 Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, pp. 378 and 404.
133 Heřmanský, Vavřinec z Březové: Husitská kronika, p. 349.
134 Krmíčková, ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové,’ pp. 43–7 analyzes relevant texts from the chronicle
and the shorter anonymous source on these matters.
135 Dolenský, Vavřinec z Březové, p. 6. Krmíčková, ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové,’ p. 46 argues
that unlike Laurence the Auctor Hussiticus does not hold a chronological line but of course the
chronicle itself sometimes deviates from a strict chronological order.
136 Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a jeho dílo,’ p. 306.
137 Josef Macek, ‘Vavřince z Březové Husitská Kronika,’ in Heřmanský, Vavřinec z Březové:
Husitská kronika, p. 11.
139 Fudge, Medieval Religion and Its Anxieties, pp. 183–202.
140 Reflected in (A), (B), and most of the other manuscripts. FRB, vol. 5, p. 329.
141 Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement in History,’ p. 36.
142 Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ p. xxviii.
143 Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a jeho dílo,’ pp. 310–11.
144 Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement in History,’ p. 40; and Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite
Revolution.
145 Thiago Borges de Aguiar and Davi Costa da Silva, ‘A crônica hussita de Vavřinec z Březové e sua
auto-imagem nacionalista tcheca,’ Revista de História 174 (January–June, 2016), pp. 381–405
examines the Czech nationalist self-image that may be read in the text. A broader treatment is
Šmahel, Idea národa v husitských Čechách.
146 Petr Čornej, ‘Vavřincova vylidněná Praha,’ Česká literatura 52, no. 3 (2004), pp. 293–323.
147 Note the observations in Wojciech Iwańczak, ‘Hussite Prague in the Political Literature and
Propaganda of the Period,’ trans. Aleksandra Rodzińska-Chojnowska Acta Poloniae Historica 70
(1994), pp. 5–28.
148 Flajšhans, ‘Traktátky Husovy a Kronika Vavřincova,’ p. 54.
149 Marie Bláhová, ‘Laurentius of Březová,’ in Graeme Dunphy, ed., Encyclopedia of the Medieval
Chronicle, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2010), vol. 2, p. 1000.
150 Macek, ‘Vavřince z Březové Husitská Kronika,’ p. 7.
151 Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ pp. xx and xxxiv; Count Lützow, Lectures on the
Historians of Bohemia (London: Henry Frowde, 1905), p. 35 and 47; Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite
Movement in History,’ p. 26; Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution, pp. 17, 34, 257,
295; Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a jeho dílo,’ pp. 311 and 312; Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 9;
Luboš Merhaut, ed., ‘Vavřinec z Březové,’ in Lexikon české literatury, Osobnosti, díla, instituce,
vol. 4, part 2, U–Ž (Prague: Academia, 2008), pp. 1266–8; Šmahel, Die Hussitische Revolution,
vol. 1, pp. 5–6; and Krmíčková, ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové,’ p. 31.
152 J.A.C. Buchon, ed., Collection des Chroniques Nationales Français, 47 vols. (Paris: Verdière,
1824–8), vol. 10, p. 417.
153 Bláhová, ‘Vernacular Historiography in Medieval Czech Lands,’ p. 43 drawing upon Prague, NK
MS XVII F 47, fol. 1r.
154 Macek, ‘Vavřince z Březové Husitská Kronika,’ p. 8.
155 Bláhová, ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a jeho dílo,’ p. 313; and Anna Adamska, ‘Orality and Literacy
in Medieval East Central Europe: Final Prolegomena,’ in Else Mundal and Jonas Wellendorf, eds.,
Oral Art Forms and their Passage into Writing (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2008),
pp. 69–83.
156 Bláhová, ‘Vernacular Historiography in Medieval Czech Lands,’ p. 52.
46
157 Marie Bláhová, ed., Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila v kontextu středověké historiografie
latinského kulturního okruhu a její pramenná hodnota; Historický komentář; Rejstřík (Prague:
Academia, 1995), pp. 34–55, which is a convincing and meticulous study.
158 Čornej, ‘Vavřincova vylidněná Praha,’ pp. 293–323.
159 Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement in History,’ p. 29. This is noted in Kaminsky, A History
of the Hussite Revolution, pp. 6 and 99. See also Fudge, Jan Hus Between Time and Eternity,
pp. 167–85.
160 Kaminsky, ‘The Hussite Movement in History,’ p. 41
161 There was a great debate around the use of ‘ci’ in the fifteenth century. The use of ‘ci’ became more
prevalent whereas classical Latin sometimes (but not always) used ‘ti’ when the letter appeared
before a vowel. The reforming chancellor of Florence, Bartolomeo Scalia (1430–1497), who
prided himself on the purity of his Latin, even in the 1470s and 1480s reflects ‘officium’ written
as ‘offitium.’ However, this is not classical Latin. In the desire to attain a purer form of Latinity
we find many examples wherein overcompensation led to errors. This is one example. Poggio
Bracciolini (1380–1459) sneered at the literary culture of his day. By the end of the Middle
Ages Latin had become so diversified and subject to regional variations that we find complaints
about mutual unintelligibility among Latin speakers from different countries. Erasmus, ‘De recte
pronuntiatione,’ in J.K. Sowards, ed., Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1985), vol. 4, p. 409. Latin spelling was not consistent in the fifteenth century.
162 For the Vulgate I used Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, eds., B. Fischer and Robert Weber
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994).
163 The Book of Saints, compiled by the Benedictine monks of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Ramsgate, 6th
ed. (Wilton, CT: Morehouse Publishing, 1989).
164 Václav Vladivoj Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, 12 vols., 2nd ed. (Prague: Řivnáč, 1892–1906); and
August Sedláček, Hrady, zámky a tvrze království českého, 2nd ed., 15 vols. (Prague: František
Šimáčk, [1880–1927] 1931–1936).
165 Leon D. Stitskin, ‘From the Pages of Tradition: A Letter of Maimonides to Samuel ibn Tibbon,’
Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought 4, no. 1 (1961), pp. 91–5 at p. 93.
166 Horace, Ars Poetica, 132–4. Horace: Satires, Epistles, Art of Poetry, trans. H.R. Fairclough [Loeb
Classical Library, vol. 194] (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926), p. 460.
47
Sites of Important Battles 0 50 miles
Centers of opposition 0 80 km
Elbe
to the Hussites River
Religious houses attacked by Hussites

Děčín
Castles supporting Hussitism Ústí nad Labem
Pro-Hussite Trutnov
Other important centers Bílina Kalich
Most
Chomútov Litoměřice Náchod
Postoloprty Dvůr Králové

Roudnice Mladá nad Labem
Kadaň Mělník
Louny Boleslav Jaroměř
Hořice
Žatec Kostelec Opočno
nad Labem Nymburk Hradec
er Okoř
Riv Slaný Stará Boleslav Poděbrady Králové Oreb
ře
Oh
O H Český Brod
E M I A
Strachův
BŽluticeVlad
Cheb ař Hill Makotřasy PRAGUE Nebovidy
Krakovec Novy Hrad Lipany Kolín Dvůr
Vyšehrad Sedlec Labe River Pardubice
Beroun Kouřim Kutná Hora
Zbraslav Říčany Vysoké Mýto
r
Krasikov Malešov Chrudim
ive
Vrtba Karlštejn Ládví Čáslav
Sión Litomyšl
aR
Žebrák Březová
nk
Živohošť Podlažice
u
Uničov
Tachov Stříbro
ero
Poříčí Sáz Habry Chotěboř
B
Rokycany ava Polička
Kladruby Benešov Riv
Sedlčany er
r
Příbram
ve
ov Plzeň Arnoštovice Německý Brod
š
Ri
otě Vlčtejn
va
Ch Olomouc
vůr
ta
ův D Lipnice Kunštát Boskovice
Vl
Horš Milevsko Želiv
Skála Humpolec
Švihov Vožice
Domažlice Ústí Tábor
Nepomuk
Kozí Pelhřimov
Rýzmberk Klatovy Jihlava
Hrádek Kroměříž
Příběnice
Písek
(First M O R A V I A
Bo
Bechyně
he
Tábor)
m
Rabí Castle Soběslav
ia
Sudoměř Brno
n
Fo
Jindřichův
re
st
Chelčice Lužnice River Hradec
(Š
Husinec
um
Nedakonice
av
Prachatice r
a)
České Budějovice Pohořelice ve
Ri
Trocnov a
Znojmo rav
o
Dy M
Český Krumlov je
Ri
ve
r
Rožmitál nad Šumavě
Rožmberk nad Vltavou
Map 1 Bohemia and Moravia during the Hussite movement 1415–1437

T H E CHRONICLE OF LAURENCE
OF BŘ EZOVÁ
Marginalia: comment in a scribal hand (A)

[This chronicle, admittedly incomplete, of the various events that have taken
place in the unconquered Kingdom of the Crown of Bohemia, both while Václav,
the most serene king, was still living, and after his death, was composed, or
collected, by the distinguished Laurence of Březová, a master of liberal arts at
the famous University of Prague. It will be described plainly below, how great
were the damages and crimes brought about by the subsequent king of Hungary,
Sigismund, and by the most wicked sect of the Táborites.1 The prologue of the
chronicle follows.]2
Prologue 1 (W) and (K)

[In the name of the holy and undivided blessed Trinity to whose praise I have
determined to write this collection of events that transpired in the Christian
Kingdom of Bohemia and in the Margraviate of Moravia during the years from
1414 and thereafter. I have taken up this labor with careful attention in order
that the memory of these things in the future would serve to extol the glorious
reputation of all those who love the law of God and the holy truths of God and
also that attention might be drawn to the detestable and dishonest malignancy of
all those who opposed and persecuted these things. May God assist me, the one
to whom everything has their being, and through whom all things are accom-
plished, and have been made, and by whom everything exists. Glory to God
through all ages. Amen.]3
Prologue 2 (A)
Although as I consider the ruin, as varied as it is enormous, of the one-time famous
and fortunate Kingdom of Bohemia, by which it has been everywhere devoured
as by a serpent and devastated by the discord of internal conflict, my senses are
dulled and my reason, distraught with grief, declines from the vigor of its facul-
ties, nevertheless, so that future generations of the country of Bohemia may not
49
be left without knowledge of this awful, no spectacular, tragedy and thereby on

account of senseless negligence fall into a similar or even worse calamity, and
particularly for the preservation, fortification, and strengthening of authentic faith
and solidarity, I have faithfully written down on these pages as carefully as pos-
sible the things that I have come to understand as true through trustworthy eyes
and ears [329].
Notes
1 The historiography on Sigismund is scattered and thin in English. The forthcoming collection
in Suzana Miljan, Alexandra Kaar, and Christopher Nicholson, eds., Ruling Composite
Monarchies: Sigismund of Luxemburg (1368–1437) (Turnhout: Breols, 2021) will remedy this
deficiency. See also Karel Hruza and Alexandra Kaar, eds., Kaiser Sigismund (1368–1437): Zur
Herrschaftspraxis eines europäischen Monarchen (Vienna: Böhlau, 2012); and Elemér Mályusz,
Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 1387–1437, trans. Anikó Szmodits (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó,
1990).
2 (A) Prague, NK MS I D 10, fol. 258r. The comment appears in red ink. It has been noted by
Konstantin von Höfler, Geschichtsschreiber der husitischen Bewegung in Böhmen (Vienna: Aus
der Kaiserl. Königl. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1856), vol. 1, p. 323 (= FRA, scriptores, vol. 2);
and Jaroslav Goll, ‘Mistr Vavřinec z Březové a jeho spisy,’ in FRB, vol. 5, p. xxvi. The scribal
comment reveals a persistent anti-Táborite bias also detected in the chronicle itself.
3 This appears to be a pastiche of John 1:3, I Corinthians 8:6, and Revelation 1:3.
50
1
B E GINNINGS OF UTR AQUI SM I N

PRAGUE
Two accounts
(W)
[In the year 1414 after the birth of the Son of God, when our merciful Lord first
revealed to his faithful the saving truth that had been disastrously omitted for
many years from the practice of the faith by the lazy ignorance of the priests, he
also miraculously revealed it to a certain Master Peter of Dresden, an upright and
honest man, who had been living in the city of Prague for many years, on account
of which the masters of Prague, agreeing with him, collected those writings and
sent the collection to the Council of Constance.]1
(A)
In the year 1414 after the birth of the Son of God the venerable and most divine
communion of the Eucharist under both species, that is, bread and wine, began to
be given to the common faithful by the [330] honest Master Jakoubek of Stříbro,
a scholarly bachelor of Holy Scriptures, and by some other priests, his helpers in
this endeavor, in the great and illustrious town of Prague, first in the churches of
St. Vojtěch [Adalbert], St. Martin-in-the-Wall and St. Michael in the New Town,
and in the chapel of Bethlehem in the Old Town.2 Indeed, the more this most
sacred communion was suppressed by various terrors of threats and imprison-
ments by the Roman and Czech king Václav [IV] and his clerical officials, and,
on the side of the clergy, especially by Konrad, the archbishop of Prague and other
prelates and monks and also by masters of the glorious university in Prague and
doctors, undertaking and exerting themselves with all their strength to choke out
Utraquism the more it was spreading among religious people of both genders.3
In consequence, within two years not only in two or three churches did priests
and masters, adhering to Master Jan [Hus], who were known as Wyclifites4 at the
time, having acquired the name from a sect resisting them that was said to be of
Mohammed,5 receive the freedom to preach and give communion as described
above to people, but in nearly all the parish churches in Prague, and even in cer-
tain monasteries that had been occupied by the Archbishop and the prelates, who
were6 excommunicating them and issuing an anathema throughout Prague. They
51
attracted large numbers of people, so that not only in Prague but also in many royal
cities, castles, towns, and villages of Bohemia and the Margraviate of Moravia,
common people in great numbers with great religious feeling and reverence were
often betaking themselves to receive Utraquist communion. Though adversaries
and blasphemers of this truth, both clerical and profane, were angry, and crying
out with something more than spite, they could not choke out the truth of this
communion under both species. Because, as is written in 2 Esdras 10, the truth
remains and grows stronger, and lives and achieves victory for ever.7
Notes
1 (K) follows (W) in terms of the prologue but does not include this section about Peter of Dresden
and the origins of the lay chalice. Hence, (W) is the sole witness to this argument.
2 Jakoubek (c.1370–1429) was among the most important Hussite thinkers. He was ordained
around 1402 and from 1410 preached at the Church of St. Vojtěch in Zderaz. He later succeeded
Hus in the pulpit of Bethlehem Chapel. See Paul de Vooght, Jacobellus de Stříbro (†1429),
premier théologien du hussitisme (Louvain: Publications universitaires de Louvain, 1972);
Pavel Soukup, Reformní kazatelství a Jakoubek ze Stříbra (Prague: Filosofia, 2011); and
Soukup and Ota Halama, eds., Jakoubek ze Stříbra: Texty a jejich působení (Prague: Centrum
medievistických studií, 2006). The Church of St. Adalbert was located in the New Town between
the cattle market and the Vltava River. Up until 1412 it was a benefice belonging to Michael de
Causis. St. Martin-in-the-Wall stood in the southern wall of the Old Town. St. Michael stood on
the former fruit market in the Old Town and the incumbent priest was Křišťan of Prachatice, a
close colleague of Jan Hus, and mentioned several times in the chronicle. The Bethlehem Chapel
was a non-parochial church in the Old Town, founded in 1391 with an explicit charter mandate
for preaching in the Czech language. Often exaggerated as suitable for accommodating up to
3,000 people. Notably, the Auctor Hussiticus states that the lay chalice was offered only in the
churches of St. Michael and St. Martin. Helena Krmíčková, ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové,’ in
Helena Krmíčková, Lucie Mazalová, Petra Mutlová, and Pavel Ševčík, eds., Pro defensa veritatis
evangelice (Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2015), p. 46.
3 Utraquism means communion in both kinds, both bread and wine, administered to all baptized
Christians.
4 Lollards or followers of John Wyclif, a condemned English heretic.
5 An exotic term but known sufficiently so that Laurence did not feel the need to elaborate. The
term is mentioned twice in the chronicle. This is passed over in silence by Goll, Heřmanský and
Bláhová, and Bujnoch. A helpful discussion can be found in Pavel Soukup, ‘“Pars Machometica”
in Early Hussite Polemics: The Use and Background of an Invective,’ in Michael Van Dussen
and Pavel Soukup, eds., Religious Controversy in Europe, 1378–1536: Textual Transmission and
Networks of Readership (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 251–87, esp. pp. 252–4.
6 (B) Prague, NK MS XI D 8, fol. 19r begins here. About 270 words precede this point in the text.
7 There is nothing in 2 Esdras 10 corresponding to the theme, however 1 Esdras 3:12 ‘truth
conquers all’ and 1 Esdras 4:38 ‘truth abides and is strong for ever; she lives and rules for ever
and ever’ are relevant.
52
2
H E R E SY, UTRAQUISM, AND THE

C OUNCIL OF CONSTANCE
The same year, 1414, on the day of All Saints [1 November] a council commenced,
that is an assembly of clerical persons, in the imperial town of Constance, con-
cerned with restoring unity and peace in the church [331]. In those days the church
was divided into several factions.1 One faction was in favor of, and belonged for
their obedience to, Pope John XXIII, called Baldassare of Cossa, who was resid-
ing in the Roman court; the second, to Angelo Correr, Gregory XII, and the third
faction was subject to Benedict XIII, called Peter de Luna, and each of them
claimed that he would be the true and legitimate supreme Roman pontiff. Because
of this, the faithful in the church experienced considerable harm to their religion.2
Therefore, to rectify this division within the church, the above-mentioned Pope
John XXIII called a council in the town of Constance, thus complying with the
wishes of the most serene Prince Sigismund, the king of Hungary, to hold the
council in the aforementioned town. In this council, or assembly of clerical per-
sons, Pope John XXIII himself was present, and also 3 patriarchs, 23 cardinals, 27
archbishops, 106 bishops, 33 bishops nominated by monasteries, 103 abbots, and
18 auditors from the papal court, all of whom were doctors; 18 papal chamberlains
[treasurers], 344 doctors of theology, letters and law, and masters, not counting
the doctors who were auditors; 27 of those who impose papal penance [penitentia-
ries], 24 scribes imposing penance for indulgences, 142 writers of bulls, 73 papal
and cardinal procurators, 27 doormen, 28 clerical servants or bailiffs with silver
clubs, and 28 executors of clerical rights.3 There were personally in attendance
28 kings and princes, 78 companions [earls], 676 noblemen of high birth, barons,
and knights; 48 goldsmiths with their servants, 350 merchants with their serv-
ants, 220 cobblers [220 tailors with servants],4 86 furriers with their assistants,
88 blacksmiths with their servants, 260 bakers with their servants, 75 shopkeep-
ers, 72 Florentine moneychangers, 45 apothecaries with servants, 336 barbers, 45
heralds, 516 buglers, pipers, and entertainers, and 718 whores and public girls.5
There were 27 envoys from royal and ducal towns, and counts, many ambassadors
from different churches and bishops, 66 episcopal envoys from imperial towns,
and also many messengers from other various towns.6 Master Jan Hus, preacher of
53
The City of Constance W
Rhine River 55
S N
56
E
13
54 43
44
15 Überlingen
17 50
3 24
6 12 33 Rhine
7 30 River
14 26
16 20 41 49
4 8 21 42 48
34 53
5 36 40 51
27 37 47 52
35 39
18 57 58
1 2 9 28
11 59 38 46
19 45
10
25
22 31
29 32
Bodensee
23
(Lake Constance)
1. Kreuzlingen Abbey (Augustinian Canons) 2. Kreuzlingen Gate 3. Emmishofer Gate 4. Church of St Jodok (Augustinian) 5. Stadelhofen District
6. Schnetz Gate 7. St Paul Street 8. New Street 9. Augustinian Gate 10. Monastery of the Augustinian Hermits 11. Holy Trinity Church 12. St Paul’s Church
13. Brüel Field (Hus was burned here) 14. Pfister House where Hus stayed 15. Gelting Gate 16. Jerome of Prague stayed here 17. St Paul’s Cemetery
Tower 18. Morder Street 19. Marketplace 20. Upper Market 21. St Laurence’s Church 22. Granary 23. Aberhaken Tower 24. Franciscan Cloister
25. Hospital 26. Town Square 27. High House 28. Fishmarket 29. Merchants’ Hall (Council Building) 30. St Stephen’s Church 31. City Hall
32. St Konrad’s Bridge 33. Lanzenhof 34. Picture House 35. Upper Court 36. Arsenal 37. Hus’ books burned here 38. Bishops’ Palace 39. Cathedral
40. Lower Court 41. St John’s Church 42. Preacher’s Street 43. Schotten Cloister (Benedictine Monastery of St James to the Scots) 44. Schotten Gate
45. Dominican Monastery 46. Preachers’ Bridge 47. Zoffingen Cloister (Dominican Nuns) 48. St Peter’s Church 49. Red Light District (Ziegelgraben)
50. Powder Tower 51. Rhine Tower Gate 52. Rhine Tower Bridge 53. Benedictine Monastery of Petershausen 54. Village of Paradise 55. Reichenau
56. Gottlieben Fortress 57. Butchers Shop 58. Tümpfel House 59. Salmansweilerhof (Salem Abbey Townhouse, Cistercian)
Map 2 Constance during the council

the Holy Scriptures [332] from the chapel of Bethlehem, was also present at this
council, who in his preaching continuously criticized and exposed the hypocrisy,
pride, miserliness, fornication, simony, and other sins of the clergy, in order to
bring the clergy back to the apostolic life. He was immensely hated by this pes-
tiferous clergy.
Master Jan Hus at Constance

The same year on Saturday after All Saints’ Day he [Jan Hus] came personally
under the letter of safe conduct and escort of the Hungarian King Sigismund [3
November], after it was publicly announced in Prague by notices that he was
ready to give account of his faith before the Council of Constance.7 But the
letter of safe conduct from the aforementioned king was of no use to him.8 At
the instigation of the perverse clergy from Bohemia, and especially prelates and
masters from Prague, on the Friday after St. Katherine’s Day of the same year
[28 November] he was arrested by the council itself, deceitfully summoned to
the pope and cardinals for discussion, and put into a harsh prison in the mon-
astery of the brothers preachers [Dominican] near the lake of the same town,
and was guarded by jailors from various nations. His friends in Constance who
were there, both clerical and secular, working diligently for his release before
the council and the Hungarian king, were unable to help him because of certain
masters, prelates of the Czech clergy, and especially Master Štěpán Páleč, doc-
tor of Holy Scriptures, and Michael de Causis, doctor of law and parish priest
at the Church of St. Vojtěch in the New Town of Prague, who, moved by great
envy and jealousy against him, fabricated many false and slanderous articles in
order to vilify the holy and orthodox preacher of the Gospel, and they accused
him falsely before the council of trying by all means to destroy the clergy in his
preaching, by stirring up the secular authorities for the destruction of this clergy.9
Therefore, while in this prison, Master Jan Hus, who had a manly spirit, chose
to die [333] rather than to approve the enormous abuses of the beastly clergy.
He wrote secretly many letters and other very useful writings to his friends who
were present in Constance, and these writings were carefully being delivered to
Bohemia. He was also, in return, being strengthened and supported by consoling
letters from these friends and supporters, and was reaffirmed in standing coura-
geously in his good and holy proposition. Certain of the aforementioned prison
guards, bribed by the friends of Jan Hus, were showing his letters to Master
Hus’s supporters, cautiously and carefully, because of their fear of the council;
and moreover, they ingeniously showed their letters and writings to Master Hus
himself by hiding them under some of his dishes.10 Also, at the request of his
friends and some of the prison guards he wrote very fine brief tracts, though
he had no books with him. These included ‘Concerning God’s commandments,’
‘Concerning the common prayer,’ ‘Concerning the pater noster,’ ‘Concerning
mortal sin and how it can be forgiven,’ ‘About the three enemies of humankind,’
55
‘About penance,’ ‘About matrimony,’ and ‘About the sacrament of the body and
blood of the Lord’; he also wrote a little treatise about Utraquist communion.11
When the priests of Prague, who were on his side, were brought this treatise, vig-
orously impassioned for the acceptance of their communion, they fought with the
sword of the word of God [Ephesians 6:17] and were courageously inveighing
against the strictures of the perverted clergy. Therefore, the Devil, the ancient
enemy of humankind, reflecting that people of both sexes were bewailing their
sins according to the preaching of faithful priests, doing penance, and frequently
and with great devotion making themselves ready to receive Utraquist commun-
ion, stirred up rumors and rivals of this truth, who, fabricating for themselves
new falsehoods in order to choke out this communion, were litigiously placing
these falsehoods before the council: accusations to the effect that the Wyclifites
and Hussites, being drunk in the evening, were taking the body and blood of the
Lord Christ from their priests; that they were blessing the sacrament of Christ’s
blood in pots; that they were carrying it in flasks and bottles in homes and cel-
lars; and that the priests were prepared to give the sacrament to anyone of either
sex day and night [334],12 and that they held meetings in cellars and other secret
places where they would, after receiving the blessed sacrament, commit many
abominable and gravely disordered deeds.13
Condemnation of the lay chalice

The Council of Constance, holding a naïve belief in these kinds of false and
invented accusations and denunciations, mature deliberation having been set
aside, and the proper poise of judgment having been abandoned, being driven
not by zeal for the health of souls, but by envy and hatred against those receiving
the Utraquist communion, so that so laborious a task was undertaken without
the consultation and consent of the council itself, condemned this most holy
and divine communion of the body and blood of Our Lord in both species,
which was bringing so much spiritual nourishment to believers.14 [The council]
forbade the people to practice this communion any more, and in the year of our
Lord 1415 on the fifteenth day of June condemned as erroneous and heretical
this communion and all those receiving it. [They] ordered that those who were
unwilling to cease practicing this communion would be considered as heretics
to be burned and severely punished by the bishops, or their officials, or by the
inquisitors of heresy, with the invocation of the secular arm in the provinces,
wherever attempts were made to go against the decree of the council, putting
their own will and the custom of the Roman Church of not giving communion
in this way above reason and the evidence of the Holy Scriptures, although cus-
tom should lawfully cede priority to truth. However, ignoring the decision and
mandate of the council, which was against the law of God and also against the
primitive church, not only adults, but also small children or baptized infants, for
the confirmation of this baptism, in time were receiving the sacrament of the
56
divine Eucharist in both species, with Master Jakoubek of Stříbro, bachelor of

Holy Scriptures, together with other priests and masters following him, prom-
ulgating this communion and beginning to practice it.15 Indeed on account of
this infant communion a great schism was triggered between the Masters and
the priests adhering to the truth of God and Master Jan Hus in Prague and the
Kingdom of Bohemia.16 Some masters said that it was heretical and unnecessary
for the confirmation of holy baptism. Others opposed them and supported it
with the words of St. Dionysius and other doctors of the early church, and were
asserting that infant communion is in accordance with Catholic doctrine and
necessary for salvation, and confirmed that any church sacrament should be
completed and confirmed by the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord.17
Nevertheless the aforementioned communion of the body and blood of the Lord
in both species, that is bread and wine, made available both to adults and to little
children and infants day by day was growing and spreading more and more, and
although its adversaries tried, using various methods every day to suppress it and
annihilate it, they were unable to do so. In time the adversaries of this obvious
truth fell down and submitted before it and repaid their debt with unspeakable
damage to their properties and bodies by the will of God, as shall be clearly
expounded later [335].18
Deposition of Pope John XXIII

In the year 1415, on the Wednesday before Passion Sunday, that is 20 March,
Pope John XXIII, sensing the threat to him from the council, and specifically
his deposition from the papacy, escaped from Constance and fled to a certain
town of Friedrich, the duke of Austria, four miles from Constance, with the
help of the aforementioned duke.19 But after a short time, while, on the orders
of the Roman and Hungarian king Sigismund, the properties of the duke were
being ravaged by the imperial towns and by the Swiss, and certain of his castles
were being attacked because of his involvement in helping Pope John escape,
Pope John was brought by Duke Friedrich back before the council intending to
bring to an end the destruction of his properties.20 Then Pope John was placed
by the council in the prison of Ludwig, son of the late Klem,21 the duke of
Bavaria, and count of the Palatine, and later the council vilified him as a her-
etic and together with Gregory XII and Benedict XIII deposed him, as will be
described later [336].22
Arrest and imprisonment of Master Jerome of Prague

Then in May, Master Jerome, a man endowed by God with eloquence and inge-
nuity, publicly displayed notices in Constance, attaching them to the gates and
doors of the city and the churches, and the houses of the cardinals and other dis-
tinguished prelates, asking King Sigismund and the council to provide him with
57
a letter of safe conduct in order to give answer publicly to anyone who would
charge him with any offense of heresy and errors, and for defending the purity
of his orthodoxy before the council and that he might then return to Bohemia.
However, the suitable letter of safe conduct by no means accomplished what
he had hoped for. While returning he was captured by the officials of Duke
Johannes of Bavaria, son of the late Klem, count of the Palatine, having been
betrayed by his enemies in Hirschau, and brought before that duke to Sulzbach.
When the Hungarian and Roman king Sigismund and the council learned of
this, they sent a message to Duke Johannes asking him to send Master Jerome
to Constance. The aforementioned Johannes complied with their wishes and
sent Master Jerome in shackles to Constance together with a letter wherein he
profusely and frequently praised the council itself, and the campaigns of the
Lord, in rooting out errors, and exhorted them to carry on these campaigns
vigorously, and to turn over Master Jerome and his accomplices to the destruc-
tion of their bodies so that their spirit might be saved on the day of the final
judgment [I Corinthians 5:5]. Therefore Master Jerome was brought in chains
to Constance and put before the council, where he was attacked with numerous
blasphemies and abuse, and then put into a harsh jail in a town tower near the
cemetery of St. Paul. In this jail he was put in cruel stocks with his feet bound
to the shackles, and, chained with iron fetters, he was hung by his hands in this
prison for 11 days, receiving only the most meager food, and he was afflicted
with a serious illness almost to the point of death. However, hoping that he
would assent to the council in everything and would praise their decisions,
having allowed him a period of some days for convalescence, they relaxed and
softened the conditions of his imprisonment, and thus he lay bound in that
tower for almost one full year [337].23
Charges against Pope John XXIII

Then on Wednesday after the feast day of the Holy Trinity, which was 29 May,
a verdict was issued by the General Council of Constance against Pope John
XXIII, by which he was deposed from the papacy as a result of many and vari-
ous articles produced against him by the Conciliar prosecutors.24 He was handed
over by the council to the custody of the Roman and Hungarian King Sigismund,
as the universal guardian and defender of the church, in the name of the council
itself. This verdict was issued, decided, and decreed by the Council of Con-
stance, for the sake of the unity of the church: that never should Lord Baldas-
sare of Cossa, formerly Pope John XXIII, be reelected Pope; likewise for Peter
de Luna, formerly Benedict XIII, and Angelo Correr, formerly Gregory XII,
so-called by his followers. Among other things, in the articles that were brought
forth against Pope John XXIII, the following abhorrent things were alleged:
namely that the man in question had been, and presently was, an oppressor of
the poor, an adversary of justice, a recourse of villainous people, a picture of
58
simony, a voluptuary, the yeast of vices, and a defector from virtue; that he had
ignored public laws, was totally given over to sloth and other carnal temptations,
and completely opposed to the life and morality of Christ; a mirror of evil rep-
utation, an ingenious deviser of wickedness, and such a scandal to the Church
of Christ, that among the Christian faithful who knew of his life and customs
he was commonly referred to as the Devil incarnate. It was also stated that he,
Pope John, committed adultery with the wife of his brother, and also with nuns,
as well as fornication with young girls, adultery with married women, and other
sins of incontinence, deeds on account of which the wrath of God descended
upon the sons of disobedience [Ephesians 5:6]. Likewise, it was alleged that he
was a vessel of all sins, ensnared in murder, poison, and other serious crimes;
that he was a simoniac, an inflexible heretic, and a notorious scandalizer of the
church of God. It was also alleged that Pope John XXIII persistently claimed,
asserted as doctrine, and taught, in the presence of various prelates and other
upright and reputable men, again and again, relentlessly persuaded by the Devil,
that there is no eternal life, nor any other life beyond this one, but rather he
claimed, and resolutely believed, that the human soul perishes with the body
and dies in the same manner as all animals, and that no one having once died
will rise on the last day, contrary to the article of Christian faith concerning the
resurrection of the dead [338].
A solar eclipse
Furthermore, on 7 June, which was the Friday after the feast day of St. Boni-
face, at the eleventh hour, the sun was entirely eclipsed, so that Mass could not
be celebrated without lighting. This was a sign that Christ, the sun of justice
[Malachi 4:2], had been darkened in the hearts of many prelates who were
champing at the bit to put Master Jan Hus to death through the authority of
the council.25
Culmination of the legal process against Jan Hus

Then on Saturday, on the octave of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, 6 July, Master
Jan Hus, the scholarly bachelor of Holy Scripture, a man of shining virtue in life
and morality and a faithful preacher of the Gospel, was sentenced to death and
unjustly vilified by the Council of Constance.26 This was based upon the false
testimony of the witnesses and the relentless instigation of Master Štěpán Páleč,
doctor of Holy Scriptures and Michael de Causis, parish priest from St. Vojtěch
Church in the New Town of Prague, representing the Czech clergy, and the influ-
ence of King Sigismund.27 This was done despite the fact that he was not given a
proper hearing in which to prove his innocence.28 During the public session of the
council he was deposed from the priesthood, and the clergy handed him over to the
secular arm. On that day he was taken away from the town of Constance and tied
59
with chains and ropes to a pole chiselled in the shape of a thick plank and driven
into the ground in a certain meadow, surrounded by bundles of straw and wood.29
Joyfully singing ‘Christ, thou son of the living God, have mercy on me’ he was
consumed by a whirlwind of fire. After he was burned, in order that no remains
of his body would remain on the earth, his ashes were thrown into the Rhine
River, which flows not far from there, in defiance of the Czechs.30 His imprison-
ment, condemnation, and death have been treated and written down in more detail
elsewhere.31
Therefore, after they killed him, the despicable clergy, especially in the Czech
kingdom and the Margraviate of Moravia, which brought about his vilification
[339] with bribes and by other various means, and consented to him being put to
death, by the righteous judgment of God [Revelation 16:7], more and more each
day were harried by the confiscation of their goods by the secular authorities, dep-
osition from their posts and status, and even physical harm, as will be able to be
expounded in detail in the following sections.32
Then on 6 July [sic 26 July], the Council of Constance sent in letters, accom-
panied with seals of rulers and four nations, that is, the Italian, French, Ger-
man, and English, to the clergy, nobility, and higher-ranking persons of the
Czech kingdom, the decisions against Master John Wyclif and Master Jan Hus,
and, adding that their doctrines would duly spread, implored the recipients, by
the viscera of Christ Jesus, to forbid pestiferous men spreading the teaching of
John Wyclif and Jan Hus, the condemned heretics, to preach and teach within
the Czech kingdom, or their own borders, as much as it was within their power
to do so.33
Complaint of the Czech kingdom over the death of Jan Hus

Then on 2 September of the same year, marquises, barons, nobles, and other
high-ranking persons of the Czech kingdom and the Margraviate of Moravia,
assembled at that time in Prague, wrote letters under their own seals to the
Council of Constance, rebuking that council for the unjust and unlawful sen-
tencing to death of Master Jan Hus, a preacher of the Gospel.34 They claimed
that the council had condemned him as an unrepentant heretic at the accusa-
tions, slanders and instigations of the mortal enemies of themselves, the Czech
kingdom and the Margraviate of Moravia, despite not having given him con-
fession, or convicted him legitimately, as they ought to have done, or proved
against him any errors or heresies; and that, having condemned him, they
punished him with a most harsh and shameful death, to the undying infamy
and disgrace of the most Christian Czech kingdom and the most illustrious
Margraviate of Moravia.35 They added, among other things, that whoever, no
matter of what status, eminence, or title, no matter his condition, position,
or professed religiosity, had said or claimed, or should say or claim [340],
that the alleged errors and heresies had evolved in the Kingdom of Bohemia
and the Margraviate of Moravia and had the nobility itself and other faithful
60
Christians, every such person, with the sole exception of the Hungarian king,
as they had said, was lying, on his own life, and he was a scoundrel, villain, and
a most perfidious traitor of the aforementioned kingdom and margraviate, and
of the nobility itself, and that such a man was himself alone the most pernicious
heretic, and son of all malice and depravity, and even of the Devil, who is a liar
and the father of lies [John 8:44].36
Recantation of Jerome of Prague

In the same year, around the time of the feast of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary
[8 September], Master Jerome of Prague, for a long time kept harshly bound in
prison, when a session of the council was opened, was led to the Old Church,
and there, assailed with threats of death to himself by the council, he was pres-
sured and forced to abjure and recant, and to assent that Master Jan Hus had
been justly condemned by the council.37 Indeed, he recanted in the public ses-
sion according to the will of the council, in the manner that had been indicated
to him, because of his fear of death, and hoping that he would thus be able to
escape from the clutches of the council. He was put into prison again, but a less
harsh one this time, and was guarded daily by armed men. However, when the
prosecutors appointed against him, to wit, Michael de Causis and Master Štěpán
Páleč and others, their accomplices in this business, learned afterward from the
words of Master Jerome himself, and certain other indications, that he had made
his recantation not sincerely, but with a mind towards escaping, with some Car-
melite brothers coming there from Prague, they brought new accusations against
Master Jerome, and were trying to get him to respond to the articles presented
against him. Because certain of his judges, the Cardinals Peter Cameracensis
[Pierre d’Ailly], Giordano Orsini, Anthony of Aquileia, and Francis of Florence
[Francesco Zabarella], observing the malice of the aforementioned prosecutors,
and seeing that injustice was being done to Master Jerome, were working before
the council for his release. One day, when they were arguing for their cause [341],
the German and Czech theologians, enemies of his, were resisting strongly, say-
ing that he should, under no circumstances, be released. And one Doctor [Jan]
Náz, rising, addressed the Cardinals:
I am surprised at you, most reverend fathers, that your excellencies should

be intervening on behalf of such a worthless heretic, on whose account
we in Bohemia, along with the rest of the clergy, have suffered many
damages, the likes of which your excellencies will perhaps suffer, and we
fear that perhaps you have received bribes from those heretics, or from
the Czech king.38
When the Cardinals were thus rebuked, they washed their hands of the case of
Master Jerome; the aforementioned prosecutors, on the other hand, obtained
different judges. However, Master Jerome was unwilling to respond to the
61
articles while in prison, nor was he agreeable to the deposition of those judges,
but rather he demanded a public hearing in which he might finally reveal the
purposes of his mind. The presiders of the council, therefore, believing that
Master Jerome wanted to renew and confirm his prior recantation in a public
hearing, discussed giving such a hearing to him, and decided to grant it, as will
be discussed later.
Interdict imposed on the city of Prague

The same year around All Saints’ Day, 1416, before Candlemas [1 November],
an interdict was proclaimed in Prague, with the archbishop, prelates, parish
priests, and monks ceasing worship; and throughout all the churches and mon-
asteries, all priests who were promoting the Utraquist communion and were
adherents of Master Jan Hus were given the freedom to carry out worship and
preach the word of God daily, who, with the enemies of this most holy Utraquist
communion and Master Hus declared at that time to be followers of Moham-
med, came down from Prague to Vyšehrad, and to the church at Psáře below
Vyšehrad, at Bubny, and at Ovenec.39 For this reason considerable harm came
to the Prague clergy, and especially to prelates and monks. For many of them
were driven from their rightful positions, and priests who were supporters of the
Utraquist communion and of Master Hus were installed in their places, with the
approval of the Czech king Václav [IV], on the recommendation of some of his
advisers [342].40
Trial of Jerome
Likewise, in the year of our Lord 1416, on the Saturday before the day of the
Ascension of the Lord Christ, that is, 25 May [sic 23 May], the aforementioned
Master Jerome of Prague was brought to a public hearing at the cathedral. And
there, before the entire council, 107 articles were presented afresh against him
by the commissars of the council on behalf of his prosecutors, so that he could
not escape the snares of death that they had laid out for him.41 During this hear-
ing, held from the morning until midday, he gave answers most accurately to
more than 40 articles, all making allegations against him. He denied that he had
done what was alleged in the malicious and false articles, saying that the false
witnesses, as if they were his enemies, had written them against him. He was not
sentenced to death in that particular session, since he was not able to respond
to all of the articles before the noon hour, and for this reason 28 May was set as
an extended deadline for him to respond to the remaining articles. Then on that
day, he was brought again to the cathedral at dawn to respond to the remaining
articles, and there he was sentenced to death. In this hearing from the early
morning on he was speaking with extreme depth and accuracy of many and var-
ious things. Among other things he alluded to the many philosophers and wise
62
men from the heathen tradition, for example Plato, Seneca, Cato, etc., and also
Isaiah, Jeremiah, many other prophets and holy men from the Old Testament,
and the holy apostles along with many other holy martyrs of the New Testament,
who were all wrongfully punished for the truth and tortured by various means.
Then he praised the distinction and holiness of Master Jan Hus, since he had
known him since his young days and could confirm that he was not a fornicator,
drunkard, or a sinner, but pure, modest, sober, and a holy and faithful preacher
of the Holy Scriptures. He affirmed that whatever opinions the Masters Jan Hus
and John Wyclif held and wrote down, especially their rebukes of the abuse
and luxury of the clergy, he himself wished to hold them even to death, adding
that these were holy men, and that they believed with the Holy Roman Church
on all points of orthodox doctrine. He finished his defense by saying that his
conscience did not convict him as much for all his sins as for the sin he commit-
ted on the abominable bishop’s chair when he had spoken unjustly against that
good and holy man, Master Jan Hus, and his doctrines, in his recantation, and
especially when he had agreed to his unlawful condemnation, and he concluded
his speech by taking back entirely the recantation he had made on the accursed
chair, asserting that he had done it because of his fear of death and the weakness
of his spirit. So he was taken back to the jail and cruelly bound with iron chains
on his hands, feet and arms [343].
Then on the Saturday after the feast of the Ascension, that is on 1 June [sic,
actually 30 May], he was brought to a public session of the council at the cathedral
through a great crowd of armed men, and there his verdict was pronounced, and
he was condemned to death. They put a tall paper crown with red devils painted
on it on his head, and took him out of town.42 But he, marching out of the town,
sang ‘Credo in unum Deum’ [I believe in one God] and ‘Felix namque es’ [You
are happy, Virgin Mary] as he was led to his death, and spoke to the people in the
German language, saying:
Dear children, my faith is as I have just sung. However, I am going to die

because I did not want to give in to the Council and to agree with them in say-
ing that Master Hus was condemned righteously and justly. For I knew him
well and I know that he was a holy man and a faithful preacher of Christ’s
teachings.
When he reached the place of punishment, in the same place where Master Jan
Hus had been wrongfully executed, he was stripped of all his clothes and tied with
ropes and chains to a pole in the shape of a thick plank, driven into the ground,
and pieces of wood were put around him. Joyfully singing ‘Be greeted, festive
day’ and ‘Into your hands [344], O Lord, I commend my spirit’ [Luke 23:46], he
was consumed in a whirlwind of fire. Moreover, after the offering over him and
the burning of his clothes, his ashes were taken down in carts to the river Rhine
flowing in the area and thrown into the river, lest any of his remains be left on the
63
earth. The captivity and manner of death of Master Jerome of Prague have been
dealt with in greater detail elsewhere.43
Election of a new pope

In the year of our Lord 1417 on the feast day of St. Martin, that is 11 Novem-
ber, after lengthy discussions and disputations about the election of the supreme
bishop between the doctors of various nations and the other prelates at the Council
of Constance, Odo, cardinal of Colonna, was elected pope unanimously by the
23 cardinals and 30 other prelates, with the consent of the college of Deputies,
who agreed to his being chosen as the Roman bishop-elect.44 On the Wednesday
after St. Elizabeth’s Day, that is, 21 November, he was solemnly crowned with all
proper offerings according to common custom, and was called Martin V.45
Closing of the Council of Constance

Then in the year of our Lord 1418, on the feast of Pentecost [May], after deciding
upon and making certain pronouncements and decrees and after the distinguished
and orthodox men, Master Jan Hus and Master Jerome of Prague, unjustly con-
demned for the holy truth, had been consumed in a whirlwind of fire, and hav-
ing elected a new pope, Martin V, the Council of Constance was dissolved and
dispersed. But the council would have to settle a harsh account before the most
righteous judge, the almighty God, for the unjust condemnation of the Utraquist
communion of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the aforemen-
tioned masters Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague.46
Notes
1 John XXIII (1410–1415), the successor to the Council of Pisa’s compromise candidate Alexander
V (†1410), held court temporarily in Rome but was deposed by the Council of Constance in
May 1415 (†1419). He was recognized to some extent in Italy, by King Sigismund and by
King Václav IV. Gregory XII reigned from 1406 until 4 July 1415. Often regarded (though
erroneously) as the rightful Roman pope who constituted the Council of Constance that had
been convened by Sigismund and John XXIII. Benedict XIII had been pope in Avignon since
1394, but was deposed in Pisa, refused to resign, and found limited recognition in Spain and
Scotland (†1424).
2 Joëlle Rollo-Koster and Thomas M. Izbicki, eds., A Companion to the Great Western Schism
(1378–1417) (Brill: Boston, 2009).
3 (K) provides the phrase ‘item pedelli cum baculis argenteis 24, item pedelli consistorii.’
Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish Library, MS Thott 688 2°, p. 3. Noted in Goll,
FRB, vol. 5, p. 331 who relied upon Johann Peter von Ludewig, Reliqviae manvscriptorvm omnis
aevi diplomatvm ac monvmentorvm, vol. 6 (Frankfurt and Leipzig: impensis Orphanotrophei,
1724), p. 126.
4 (K) distinguishes between 122 cobblers or shoemakers and 220 tailors with servants (‘item
sutores vel calcifices 122, item sarteres cum servis 220’). Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/
Royal Danish Library, MS Thott 688 2°, p. 3. Goll, FRB, vol. 5, p. 331 knew it via Ludewig,
Reliqviae manvscriptorvm, vol. 6, p. 126 (‘item Sutores vel Calcifices cum seruis 122. item
64
Sartores cum seruis 220’). Jan Frederik Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden:
Brill, 1960–1964), fasc. 2, p. 114.
5 Ulrich Richental, a contemporary chronicler who lived in Constance, says there were over 700
offen hůren (‘open whores’) but this excluded an indeterminate number of private hookers that he
was unable to count. Thomas Martin Buck, ed., Chronik des Konstanzer Konzils 1414–1418 von
Ulrich Richental (Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2010), p. 206. Other sources claim there may
have been as many as 1,500 prostitutes in Constance during the days of the council. The chronicler
Eberhard Daucher who attended the council claimed to have located ‘700 common women’
but noted he did not wish to search further. Hermann von der Hardt, Magnum oecumenicum
constantiense conciliorum (Frankfurt: Gensch, 1699–1742), vol. 5, p. 20. Elsewhere it was noted
that ‘one whore earned 800 florins’ (item dicitur, quod una meretrix lucrata est viiic florenos).
Hardt, Magnum oecumenicum constantiense conciliorum, vol. 5, col. 50. Further details in
Thomas A. Fudge, The Trial of Jan Hus: Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedure (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 275–6.
6 For figures relating to the council, see Buck, Chronik des Konstanzer Konzils, pp. 13–35 and
summarized on pp. 206–7. Buck notes that Ulrich Richental’s ‘statistical prowess’ is enormous
and impressive even if it does not achieve equivalence with modern standards (p. XLIX).
Laurence did not share Richenthal’s enthusiasm for statistics.
7 Hus did not possess the imperial document until after he arrived in Constance.
8 There has been much debate around the provisions and intentions of the safe conduct (salvus
conductus). See Fudge, The Trial of Jan Hus, pp. 182–6.
9 Jiří Kejř, ‘Master Štěpán of Páleč and Hus’s Trial,’ Kosmas: Czechoslovak and Central European
Journal 28, no. 2 (2015), pp. 89–107; and Thomas A. Fudge, The Memory and Motivation of Jan
Hus, Medieval Priest and Martyr (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), pp. 109–33. The Auctor Hussiticus
notes that Páleč had formerly been Hus’s friend. That caveat does not appear in Laurence.
Helena Krmíčková, ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové,’ in Helena Krmíčková, Lucie Mazalová,
Petra Mutlová, and Pavel Ševčík. Pro defensa veritatis evangelice (Brno: Masarykova univerzita,
2015), p. 54. Moreover, Laurence appears to blame entirely Hus’s domestic enemies for his fate.
František Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o
vítězství u Domažlic (Prague: Svoboda, 1979), p. 323.
10 Meaning that letters coming and going from the prison were smuggled in and out concealed under
food trays facilitated by dilatory or sympathetic guards.
11 Anon., Historia et monumenta Ioanii Hus atque Hieronymi Pragensis, 2 vols. (Nürnberg:
Montanus & Neuberus, 1715), vol. 1, pp. 38–65.
12 James of the Marches filed an inquisitorial report from the vicariate of Bosnia in the 1430s that
includes a list of 64 articles reflecting generic views of late medieval heresy. Rome, Vatican
Library, MS Vat Lat 7307, fols. 1v–25r with the articles appearing on fols. 23r–24v.
13 Essentially a trope. Gábor Klaniczay, ‘Orgy Accusations in the Middle Ages,’ in Mihály Hoppál
and Eszter Csonka-Takács, eds., Eros in Folklore (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2002), pp. 38–55;
and Frank Williams, ed., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1987–
1994). John Wyclif was a late medieval polarizing thinker who exerted a powerful influence in
Bohemia where he was lauded as the ‘evangelical doctor’ by some and scorned as ‘our dog’
by others. Comment in Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 326.
See also Stephen E. Lahey, John Wyclif (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); and David R.
Holeton, ‘Wyclif’s Bohemian Fate,’ Communio Viatorum 32 (Winter 1989), pp. 209–22.
14 Text in Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. (London: Sheed &
Ward, 1990), vol. 1, pp. 418–19. Laurence’s contention that this decree may not have refected the
will of the entire council or may have been irregularly ratified is fatuous.
15 David R. Holeton, La communion des tout-petits enfants: Études du mouvement eucharistique
en Bohême vers la fin du Moyen-Âge (Rome: C.L.V. Edizioni Liturgiche, 1989) is the definitive
study. See also Thomas A. Fudge, ‘Hussite Infant Communion,’ in Thomas A. Fudge, Heresy and
Hussites in Late Medieval Europe (Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum, 2014), XIV, pp. 179–94.
65
16 Laurence has apparently convoluted these developments and chronology. There is no reliable
evidence that infant communion was practiced in or before 1415.
17 De ecclesiastica hierarchia, 2.8, in PG, vol. 3, cols. 422–3.
18 According to Laurence, the crusades against the Hussites were caused by opposition to the lay
chalice.
19 In the Middle Ages, the Roman mile was c.1481 meters (roughly corresponding to the
English mile), the German mile was c.7420 meters, and the Old Czech mile was 11,249
meters. Laurence would have been familar with all three measurements. Gustav Hoffmann,
Metrologická příručka pro Čechy, Moravu a Slezsko do zavedení metrické soustavy (Plzeň:
Státní Oblastní Archív, 1984); and Miloš Chvojka and Jiří Skála, Malý slovník jednotek měření
(Prague: Mladá fronta, 1982). The town was Ermatingen, west of Constance beyond the
Gottlieben not far from the Rhine, a distance of about five miles. Eustace J. Kitts, Pope John
the Twenty-Third and Master John Hus of Bohemia (London: Constable, 1910), p. 301. Hence,
Laurence is citing the Roman mile.
20 This is Friedrich IV (1382–1439). There is a drawing of him jousting in Ulrich von Richenthal,
Chronik des Konzils von Konstanz, Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek Cod. St. Georgen 63,
fols. 53v–54r.
21 The late Klem refers to Ruprecht of the Palatinate (1352–1410), known also as Klement (or
‘Klem’), who had previously been king of the Romans (1400–1410).
22 This was the Gottlieben fortress situated down the Rhine from Constance about two and a half
miles. It had been built in 1251. There is some chance that Pope John and the heretic Jan Hus were
briefly accommodated in the Gottlieben at the same time; Hus in the west tower and the deposed
pope in the east tower. If true, the irony is immense.
23 Thomas A. Fudge, Jerome of Prague and the Foundations of the Hussite Movement (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2016); and Thomas A. Fudge, Hieronymus von Prag und die Grundlagen
der Hussitischen Bewegung (Münster: Aschendorff Verlag, 2020).
24 The text can be found in Hardt, Magnum oecumenicum constantiense conciliorum, vol. 4,
pp. 237–48. Overview in Thomas A. Fudge, ‘Jan Hus in the Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts,’ in
Jens Meierhenrich and Devin O. Pendas, eds., Political Trials in Theory and History (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 117–18.
25 The eclipse was total and lasted for almost five minutes at 7:12 a.m. It was noted by Petr of
Mladoňovice (FRB, vol. 8, p. 74) and other contemporary chroniclers including the Notae
Altahenses (Altaich, Germany) in George Heinrich Pertz, ed., Notate Altahenses in Monumenta
Germaniae Historica, Scriptores (Hannover: Hahnsche, 1869), vol. 17, p. 424. The latter says
it occurred at the sixth hour of the day. F. Richard Stephenson, Historical Eclipses and Earth’s
Rotation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 406–7.
26 See Fudge, The Trial of Jan Hus for an elaboration of the entire court case that spanned five years
(1410–1415).
27 Michael de Causis earned the moniker ‘litigious fellow’ from the Czechs on account of his legal
activities and he was considered by supporters of Hus as employing ‘dirty means’ (špinavými
prostředky) to achieve his goals. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika,
p. 323.
28 This was commonly held by fifteenth-century Hussites and taken up by many modern scholars
as a case of judicial murder. A legal analysis suggests otherwise. Fudge, The Trial of Jan Hus,
pp. 339–48; and Jiří Kejř, Husův proces (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2000), pp. 200–12.
29 The meadow is the Brüel Field situated outside the city walls to the west in the direction of
Gottlieben Fortress.
30 Laurence was not in Constance but Petr of Mladoňovice and Ulrich Richental were (the latter
being a resident). Both say the ashes of Hus and Jerome were thrown into the river that flowed
nearby. Mladoňovice in FRB, vol. 8, p. 120 (Hus) and p. 349 (Jerome). Richental’s account is in
Buck, Chronik des Konstanzer Konzils, p. 66 (Hus) and p. 68 (Jerome). The traditional site of the
execution is not particularly close to the river. It is a brisk ten-minute walk to the Rhine from that
66
spot and would require more time to push a wheelbarrow. Where were the ashes dumped? There
are several options. First, the traditional placement is correct and the story is right. Second, the
place is wrong and the actual site is closer to the Rhine. Or, third, the reference is to a small stream
(Grenzbach) that flows into the Rhine and is located less than 100 yards from the traditional
execution site. I discussed these options at length with Henry Gerlach in Constance.
31 Namely, in the work of Petr of Mladoňovice. Matthew Spinka, John Hus at the Council of
Constance (New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), pp. 87–234. Latin text in FRB, vol. 8,
pp. 25–120.
32 Rejection of the lay chalice noted above and complicity in the death of Hus are the two principle
causes of the crusades according to Laurence of Březová.
33 Louise R. Loomis, ‘The Organization by Nations at Constance,’ Church History 1, no. 4 (1932),
pp. 191–210; and Martin John Cable, ‘Cum essem in Constantie … ’ Raffaele Fulgosio and the
Council of Constance 1414–1415 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 185–90.
34 Some 58 members of the Czech nobility met at Prague on 2 September and issued a protest. Three
days later they formed a league of resistance against anti-reform initiatives. František Palacký,
ed., Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam in constantiensi concilio actam et
controversias de religione in Bohemia annis 1403–1418 motas illustrantia (Prague: Tempsky,
1869), pp. 590–3.
35 The protest has often been misconstrued. Of the 452 signatures, there were no more than 60
barons (higher nobility) who signed. About 391 were yeomen, knights, and lower nobility.
Many signatories were poor in terms of property and economic status. Heřmanský and Bláhová,
Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 326 note most of the men were actually opposed to Hus
and his followers and were supporters of the official church.
36 The sole extant copy of the protest is Edinburgh, University Library, MS P.C.73, which I studied
in 1991. The text is in Palacký, Documenta, pp. 580–4. The names of the barons are printed on
pp. 584–90.
37 The recantation was declared formally in the parish church of St. Paul. St. Paul’s was a tenth-
century foundation built outside the-then city walls. On the inside of the city wall was the
St. Paul’s Tower. The city used it as a dungeon. During the Council of Constance, Jerome of
Prague was incarcerated therein. Paul Motz, ‘Die ehemalige Pfarrkirche St. Paul in Konstanz,’
Nachrichtenblatt der Denkmalpflege in Baden-Württemberg 5 (1962), pp. 2–6.
38 Jan Náz was a Czech diplomat and lawyer active during the reign of King Václav IV.
39 Vyšehrad (meaning ‘upper castle’ in Czech) is a tenth-century fortress on the right bank of the
Vltava River just south of Prague. Psáře was a parish on the north side belonging to the Vyšehrad
chaper. Bubny was a settlement north of Prague located at a prominent bend in the Vltava River.
Ovenec was also a settlement north of Prague but to the west of the royal game preserve.
40 On interdict see Elizabeth Vodola, Excommunication in the Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1986); and Peter D. Clarke, The Interdict in the Thirteenth Century: A Question
of Collective Guilt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
41 Hardt, Magnum oecumenicum constantiense conciliorum, vol. 4, pp. 634–91.
42 Milena Kubíková, ‘The Heretic’s Cap of Hus,’ Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice
4 (2002), pp. 143–50.
43 Thomas A. Fudge, ‘Waking the Dead: Discovering Jerome of Prague … and His Beard!’
Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 64, no. 2 (2017), pp. 445–61. The chronicler
is referring principally to the work of Petr of Mladoňovice.
44 The concilium deputatorum is a term sometimes used to refer to a subcommittee of a larger
council.
45 This was the only time in Christian history wherein a pope was elected north of the Alps.
The Konzil (built in 1388) was a merchants’ hall. The new pope immediately established his
office in the episcopal palace of Constance employing former secretaries and scribes who had
worked with John XXIII. This was Odo Colonna (1368–1431) who sanctioned all five crusades
against the Hussites between 1420 and 1431. Birgit Studt, Papst Martin V. (1417–1431) und die
67
Kirchenreform in Deutschland [Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters.

Beihefte zu J. F. Böhmer, Regesta Imperii 23] (Cologne: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004).
46 The final session of the council occurred on 22 April 1418. Martin V left Constance on 16 May.
Given his stated objectives in writing the chronicle, it seems odd that Laurence did not mention the
pope’s appointment of the Dominican cardinal and archbishop of Dubrovnik, Giovanni Dominici
to undertake a Hussite extermination campaign. Already there was organized opposition to the
broad thrust of conciliar doctrine with respect to the Czech reform movement. For the translation
of a Hussite agreement among some Bohemian squires (1417), see John Martin Klassen, The
Nobility and the Making of the Hussite Revolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978),
pp. 152–3.
68
3
R ELIGIOUS REVOLT AND

R E P RES SION IN B OHEM I A
In the year 1419, some evangelical priests, supporters of Master Jan Hus and
promoters of the lay chalice, who at that time were known as either Wyclifites or
Hussites, started to gather together with the sacrament of the body of the Lord on
a certain mountain [345] near the Castle of Bechyně, which mountain they called
Tábor, with the faithful of both sexes from various regions, cities, and towns of
the Czech kingdom.1 Here they began to give to the common people with great
reverence the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, especially on festive
days, while the enemies of this kind of communion refused to do so in nearby
churches. Then on the day of St. Mary Magdalene [22 July], with a large number
of people of both sexes from various regions gathered together, along with small
children, on that mountain, numbering more than 40,000 people, they were giving
with great piety the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord in the Utraquist
manner, that is with both bread and wine, according to the commandment and
practice of Christ and the custom of the early church. On account of this the Czech
king Václav was very much disturbed, being afraid that he might be dethroned,
and suspecting that Mikuláš of Hus might be installed in his place, whom he
some time ago had expelled from Prague, when he was at St. Apollinaris with his
entourage, surrounded by a large number of people of both sexes who were, how-
ever, unarmed when Mikuláš was speaking on behalf of the multitude in favor of
Utraquist communion for both adults and children.2
Defenestration and political insurrection in the New Town of Prague

Again, in the same year on the Sunday after the feast day of St. James, that is 30
July, the burgomaster and some councilmen of the New Town of Prague, along
with the sub-magistrate, enemies of the Utraquist communion, were outrageously
thrown out of the town hall and atrociously slaughtered by the common people
and Jan Žižka, a courtier of the Czech king.3 This was done for this reason, that
they had ridiculed, there near the town hall, the procession that was returning with
the blessed sacrament of the body of the Lord from St. Stephen at the little Pond
to the Monastery of the Virgin Mary on the Sand.4 At this time King Václav was
temporarily residing with his court at Nový Hrad [New Castle], about one mile
69
Břevnov Monastery Prague 30
m Castle ld
Brusnice Strea 46 l Fie
2 51 pita H ill
Hradčany 1 41 Hos
10 kov
r
4 Church of Vít
32 14
ive
Lesser Town Old
R
c 55 St. Peter
Pohořele 47 Town
va
5 7 20 31
6 64 29 11 28
Vlta
3 9 45 Poříčka Gate
24
13 St Ambrose
48 8 26 23 22 Cloister
49 27 25 15
Chapel of 50 53
19
St. Laurence 52 Mountain
18 21 St Henry Church Gate
40
12 39
Carthusian Gate
Trávník
17 43 33
at
16
Key
mo
1. Cathedral of St Vitus 29. Church of St James
2. Church of St George 30. Francis Gate
3. Strahov Monastery 31. Franciscan Monastery of St James 42 New
4. Písek Gate 32. Church of the Holy Spirit Town Horse Gate
5. Strahov Gate 33. Horse Market 37
Carthusian
6. Archbishop’s Court 34. Cattle Market
Monastery
7. Church of St Nicholas / School 35. Emmaus Cloister (Slovany)
(Kartouzy) Zderaz 34
8. Charles Bridge 36. Corpus Christi Chapel
moat
Monastery
9. Gate Tower 37. New Town Hall 38
Vltava River
10. Church of St Castulus 38. Church of St Stephen 36 Svinská Gate
11 . Church of St Benedict 39. Church of Mary of the Snows
12. Church of St Martin-in-the-Wall 40. Black Rose (Příkopě Street)
13. Pillory 41. Church of St Clement (Poříčí Street)
14. Dlouhé třídy Gate 42. Church of St Adalbert (Vojtěch) St Katherine
St.Katherine
15. Carolinum 43. Carmelite Cloister Convent
16. St Stephen Gate 44. Cathedral of SS Peter and Paul 35
17. Zderaska Gate 45. St Nicholas Church
18. Bethlehem Chapel 46. St Francis Cloister
moat
19. Church of St Giles 47. St Thomas Monastery Church of

20. St Valentine Gate / Church 48. Hospitallers of St John St Apollinaris
21. St Havel Gate 49. Church of St Mary Magdalene
22. St Ambrose Gate 50. St Anne Convent Servite Augustinian
23. Law College 51. Monastery of the Holy Cross Monastery Monastery
24. Týn Church 52. Dominican Convent
25. Church of St Michael 53. Church of St Gall
26. Old Town Hall / Square 54. Saxon House
27. St Clement’s Dominican Monastery 55. Zmrzlík’s House 44
28. St Benedict’s Gate
Vyšehrad
Castle
Religious house, convent, monastery, church
Church of St. Pancras
Sites of Important Battles
el
Kavill
H
Nový Hrad
Map 3 Prague at the end of the Middle Ages

away from Prague.5 For this reason the enemies of the truth in Prague were greatly
afraid. Those who had killed the aforementioned councilmen then forced both the
serfs and the tenants from the New Town to arm themselves quickly [346] and to
appear in the town hall under threat of losing their lives or being evicted from the
town. Therefore many people, especially those who blasphemed the truth, fearing
that death was threatening them, began to flee from the town. The community
of the New Town elected four captains to be in office until the election of new
councilors, and handed over to them in the town hall the seal and other signs of the
council, and at this time the town hall was guarded day and night by a large num-
ber of armed men. King Václav was very much angered, vexed, and grieved by
this, and decided to eradicate all the Wyclifites and Hussites, and especially their
priests.6 But some of the king’s advisers, those who were in favor of the Utraquist
communion and the teaching of Master Hus, started to negotiate with the elders
of the Old Town about an agreement between the king and the municipality of the
New Town, in order to prevent many disasters. Therefore both parties ultimately
agreed that the municipality of the New Town, being guilty of the crime of defen-
estrating the councilmen appointed by the king himself and abominably slaugh-
tered, should subjugate itself to the king, and that the king should confirm new
councilors, elected by the municipality itself, which was effectively carried out.
Death of King Václav and his secret funeral

The same year on Wednesday after the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin
Mary, which was 16 August, King Václav suffered a stroke at around the hour
of vespers and died suddenly with ‘a great shouting and roaring like a lion’ in
Nový Hrad [New Castle] near Prague.7 After several days, because of fear of
the people, his body was brought during the night to Prague Castle and laid in
the chapel of St. Václav, of the Czechs, and after a few weeks was brought, in
a most pathetic manner, during the nighttime to Zbraslav, to a monastery called
Aula Regia.8 This was the place he wished to be buried, and he was buried by
fishermen, bakers, and the monks of the same monastery. His death and deeds
should serve as an example for all kings, so that they might fear God, and, so far
as they are able, safeguard and defend his law [347].
Iconoclasm and the destruction of religious houses

Then on the Thursday after the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, that
is 17 August, the day after the death of King Václav, some from among the
common people gathered with the permission of the burgomaster of the Old
Town, Jan Bradatý, and having rid themselves of all fear, were running with
utter temerity around the churches and were breaking, destroying, and violating
organs and images, especially in those churches where people were not permit-
ted to take Utraquist communion. Parish priests and monks ran away and hid
themselves from the sight of the mob, with the adversaries of the truth withering
71
away with great terror and trembling. Then, finally, towards evening, they arrived
at the Monastery of Kartouzy and stole nearly all the property that was in it,
having become drunk on various drinks that were there and spilled the rest over
the earth. They captured all of the monks of the monastery and drove them in a
procession with loud shouting and tumult over the bridge to the town hall of the
Old Town of Prague, because they had consented to the death of Master Jan Hus
and because they resisted the Utraquist communion.9 The following day, which
was the feast day of St. Agapitus, the third day after the death of King Václav
[18 August], the Monastery of Kartouzy was consumed in a whirlwind of fire,
with only its walls remaining. Then, entering the Church of the Mother of God
at Luže, they smashed and destroyed the grave of Master Albík, the provost of
Vyšehrad, and that of the archbishop of Caesarea built in the chapel of the same
church that he had founded, in addition to desecrating and destroying images.10
Then on the first Sunday after the day of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary,
which was 20 August, the monastery of preachers on the Sand was destroyed
and burned to the ground by the common people of both genders, and some of
its monks were captured.11
Gathering at the mountain of Křížek

Likewise, in the same year on St. Václav’s Day [28 September], large numbers of
people of both genders from Prague [348] and other regions gathered at Křížek’s
mountain near Ladví, and here, having listened to a number of sermons from the
priests, telling them to love each other in God and to pursue manfully the truth
of Christ, they received the body and blood of the Lord with great piety.12 And
soon on the same day almost the entire multitude, with the blessed sacrament of
the body of Christ, transferred itself to Prague, together with the Praguers, and
during the night entered Vyšehrad Castle, in which many attendants and relatives
of the former King Václav had used to temporarily reside, and entered the town
of Prague, and the Praguers welcomed them with great festivity, with many lights
and the ringing of bells, and they camped in the Monastery of St. Ambrose, where
they were looked after with supplies by the Praguers for several days. Finally, how-
ever, the Praguers, and especially the elders, having made a truce for a set period
of time with the royalists who were in possession of Prague Castle and Vyšehrad,
all those not from Prague returned to their residences, though not before causing
much damage in the churches and monasteries through the breaking of images,
and especially in the Church of St. Michael in the Old Town.
Prague monasteries under siege

On the Tuesday after the feast day of St. Gall, that is 17 October, the Czech Queen
Sophia and some of the Czech lords, namely Čeněk of Vartemberk,13 otherwise
of Veselá, the supreme burgrave of Prague Castle, Vilém Zajíc of Hažmburk, and
Jan Chudoba called Ralsko, besieged and occupied Prague Castle, the Strahov
72
Monastery, the court of the archbishop and the Monastery of St. Thomas, taking
Germans and other foreigners to help them against the Praguers, aiming to seize
the treasures left after the death of King Václav. Thus great discord and violence
sprang up in those days between the queen and the aforementioned lords, on the
one hand, and the Praguers on the other hand, for the sake of the liberation of the
truth of Christ and especially the Utraquist communion, which the Prague com-
munity was keen about.14
Hussites besiege Vyšehrad

Again, in the same year, on the Wednesday before the feast day of the apostles
Simon and Jude, 25 October, the community of the New Town besieged the Castle
of Vyšehrad [349] and they put to flight the household of the former King Václav,
and Jan Žižka, the servant of the aforementioned King Václav, joined himself to
the community.15
Battle for the Lesser Town of Prague

Likewise, in the same year on the Saturday after All Saints’ Day, that is 4 Novem-
ber, at two o’clock, at the prompting of some priests, and notably priest Ambrož
of Hradec Králové, large bells began to be rung all over Prague, to call people
to come and help those who were journeying to Prague from Tábor, and were
being held back by ambushes having been laid by the lords of the kingdom and
some royal officials.16 When large numbers of people with arms from the Old
and New Towns of Prague gathered, Mikuláš of Hus led them to the bridge, and
royalist forces from Prague Castle, from the court of the archbishop and from the
house of the duke of Saxony were shooting at them with cannon trying to prevent
them from coming into the Small Side [Lesser Town]. The Prague community
then broke through the doors next to the Saxon house, but entered the Lesser Town
not without suffering casualties, and, a fight having broken out with the royalists,
people were killed on both sides. Finally, when the royalists were no longer able
to resist the Praguers, when evening came, they fled from the archbishop’s house,
from the house of the duke of Saxony, from the Monastery of St. Thomas and from
other strongholds to Prague Castle, in their terror leaving behind horses, weapons,
and other properties in large quantities, and the Praguers, helping themselves to
these and taking great spoils in the Lesser Town, carried them down to the Old and
New Town, and during almost the entire night large bells were being rung, adding
insult to injury.17 That night was a night of tribulation and anguish for many, a
night of weeping and wailing, as if it were the Day of Judgment [Proverbs 1:27;
James 4:9], with the effect that Queen Sophia and Lord Oldřich of Rožmberk, ter-
rified, fled from Prague Castle at midnight, with the royalists barely managing not
to lose the royal castle to the Praguers.18 Then at about the tenth hour of the night
[four o’clock in the morning], when few Praguers were left in the Lesser Town, the
royalists ran down from the castle, ransacked the town hall, seized the treasures
73
and books belonging to the city, and burned it down in a whirlwind of fire together
with the adjacent houses [350].
The following day, that is, on Sunday after All Saints’ Day, 5 November, after
midday, the community of the Old Town and New Town once again entered the
Lesser Town with force and started fighting with the royalists, and both sides suf-
fered casualties. The royalists then set on fire the school of St. Nicholas and other
houses below the castle, captured some of the burghers who were favorable to
the Utraquist communion, and fled to Prague Castle.19 The denizens of Prague,
however, after laying waste to the court of the archbishop and breaking into and
destroying many buildings within, returned to their homes. Thus on that day great
damages were done in the Lesser Town both by the royalists and the Praguers.
Thereafter the royalists were daily crowding around the royal treasures to guard
them against the Praguers and periodically doing much harm to the inhabitants
of Prague, and putting up roadblocks to prevent supplies getting into Prague, and
besieging the fortifications and strongholds of Prague.
Royalists defeated by Táborites

Then on the feast day of St. Leonard [6 November], Táborites numbering almost
4,000, whose elders were then Lord Břeněk of Švihov, Chval of Řepice [and
Machovic], and Kuneš, his brother, after a fight with the royalists in a certain
location about one mile from Knín, with Lord Petr Ptáček, Jan Svidnický, with
Koldics, sons of Michael, with Václav Donínský and some of the light infantry of
the Táborites having been killed, along with many of the better horses of the roy-
alists, keeping back the royalists from themselves the Táborites came to Prague,
and were warmly welcomed by the citizens of Prague.20
Truce between Queen Sophia and the municipality of Prague

Also, on St. Briccius’s Day [13 November] a truce was agreed on between the
queen and Lord Čeněk of Vartemberk, the supreme burgrave of the kingdom, and
other captains of Prague Castle on one side and the municipality of Prague on
the other.21 This was in effect until the following feast of St. George [24 April],
and was [351] toiled over by elders of both sides, and strengthened with a fine
of 50,000 sexagenae [or kopa].22 The queen promised in writing, along with the
nobles, to the Prague community to defend, and to tolerate as much as possible
throughout the Czech kingdom the law of God and the truth of the Gospel, and
especially the practice of Utraquist communion. On the other hand, the munici-
pality of Prague promised in writing to the queen and to the lords not to destroy
images, not to break into churches and monasteries, and to hand over Vyšehrad to
the royalists. When this truce was confirmed, the New Town handed over Vyšeh-
rad to the royalists, from which castle, as I will be able to describe later, many
evils and damages were inflicted on the Praguers. After these terms of peace, as
have just been described, were confirmed, the aforementioned Táborites, having
74
caused much damage to the houses where they were accommodated, through the
destruction of buildings and the taking of many spoils in the Lesser Town, going
away from Prague, returned home.
Repression in Kutná Hora and elsewhere

During this time the Czech faithful, both priests and the laity, who were in favor
of the practice of Utraquism and with great reverence received communion in
this manner, grieving the unjust death of Jan Hus, a man of holy memory and a
faithful and distinguished preacher of the Holy Gospel, which the corrupt clergy
of the Czech kingdom and the Margraviate of Moravia, and especially the bish-
ops, abbots, canons, parish priests, and faithful religious of the kingdom, unable
to tolerate his much-needed admonitions and preachings laying bare their lux-
ury, simony, greed, fornication, and the general dissipation of their abominable
lifestyle, had brought about by making contributions of money for his death.23 It
was believed that Master Jan Hus had been sentenced to death at the Council of
Constance according to the testimony of false witnesses, with King Sigismund of
Hungary complicit to a great degree in his death, and executed in a most harsh
manner. These aforementioned faithful Czechs, I must say, suffered great trou-
bles, tribulations, grievances, and torments from the blasphemers and enemies
of the truth, who were cruelly inflicting on the Czechs the theft of property, cruel
manners of captivity, hunger, thirst, and bodily slaughter. For the aforementioned
enemies of the truth pursued the priests and the laypeople [352] who were zealous
for the lay chalice throughout many different parts of the country. They turned
them over to the miners of Kutná Hora, and some indeed were sold to them.24
These people of Kutná Hora, being Germans, cruel persecutors of the Czechs,
and especially those who loved the truth of Christ, inflicting various blasphemies
and different manners of torture on them, inhumanly threw them down into very
deep pits, or mine shafts, primarily at night. Some were still alive when they were
thrown down, while others were beheaded first. This was done primarily at the
shaft near St. Martin’s Church past the Kouřim gate, a place that the mountain men
called Tábor. Indeed, the people of Kutná Hora blazed up with such enormous cru-
elty against the Christian faithful, and those who adhered to the law of God, that in
a short period of time more than 1,600 who supported the most Holy Communion
of the chalice were murdered wretchedly by them and thrown into the shafts, and
the executioners were often exhausted by the exertion of the slaughter. But this
inhuman rage against faithful Christians was followed up justly with divine venge-
ance. About two years from that time, as punishment for the numerous murders of
the faithful there, this mining city was utterly destroyed and burned down to the
ground in a whirlwind of fire, as will be described in later sections.25
In the year of the Lord 1419 in the month of November, a certain priest named
Jan, called Nákvasa, who used to give communion in the Utraquist manner to
those of the people who were zealous for the lay chalice, and especially to the
sick, walking through the villages, was captured near Klatovy during his journey
75
by Lord Racek of Rožmberk and his servants, and exchanged with Germans from
Bavaria, who were at that time coming to the aid of the aforementioned lord
against the inhabitants of Klatovy, for a great price. When he would not denounce
the Utraquist communion for the common people when the Germans attempted
to force him to do so, having been tortured by various abuses, blasphemies, and
insults, he was bound with belts drawn around him to a certain tree by his hands,
which had been pierced with their swords, and, after they put a heap of wood and
straw around him, he was consumed by flames [353]. In those same days, in the
month of November, the people of Kutná Hora arrived in the town of Kouřim
and arrested some councilmen and elders of the town, who were advocates of
the Utraquist communion, together with the parish priest who had been installed
there by King Václav, a certain Master Jan, called Chůdek, and the presbyters, and
brought them, bound, up to the mountains.26 When they arrived with them in the
town during the nighttime, the people of Kutná Hora insulted them with various
blasphemies and heresies, and threw burning torches at them. Then they put them
into a cruel captivity, binding him with iron fetters and chains.27
Czech barons meet King Sigismund in the city of Brno

Also, in the same year, on the day of the birth of Christ [25 December], nearly all
of the nobles of the Czech kingdom and the Margraviate of Moravia, royal towns
and burgraves, and other officials of royal castles gathered in Brno at the order
of the Hungarian king Sigismund. There were many princes and papal delegates,
bishops, as well as Queen Sophia and many high-ranking people there with the
aforementioned king at that time. The people of Prague, whom the king and almost
the whole Christian world despised, because they were zealous for the promotion
of the law of God and His truth, and especially the lay chalice, and because, at one
time, grieving the unjust condemnation of Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, men
of blessed and holy memory, by the Council of Constance, they denounced it as
unjust, sent a solemn delegation to the town of Brno, which arrived on the day of
St. John the Evangelist [27 December] with buglers, so that the Hungarian king
Sigismund and other people of high birth were looking on and admiring, and they
were accepted in the allocated inns. They were freely practicing the divine liturgy
and the rite of the lay chalice only in the inns with the priests that they had brought
with themselves from Prague, for an interdict, or a cessation of the divine rites,
had been pronounced by the clergy in the city of Brno, presumably on account of
the presence of the Praguers and Lord Čeněk. On the third day the Prague dele-
gation appeared before the king. They knelt in front of him for a sufficiently long
time in his presence as was the custom, greeted him in the name of the Prague
community, and accepted him as their hereditary king and master. He spoke to
them quite harshly, and sent them to Prague with the order [354] to remove all
chains and posts from the streets of the town and to pull down all fortified build-
ings in front of the castle, built after the death of King Václav.28 This was to be
indicative of their submission to his power and reign. They were also ordered by
76
no means to subject monks and nuns to any molestation, but to treat them fairly
until his arrival. At the same time, he deposed all of the officials of the Czech king
Václav as well as the burgraves of castles, who were supporters of Utraquist com-
munion and of the Praguers, and installed in their posts adversaries of the truth
and blasphemers. Among them was Janek, called Sádlo of Miličín, otherwise of
Kostelec, who used to be a favorite of King Václav. He handed over the Castle of
Karlštejn where many treasures of the former King Václav had been hidden, and
where the imperial relics were being conserved, and likewise regarding any other
castles he had under his control, at the order of the Hungarian king Sigismund, to
Zdeslav of Buřenice, called Tluxa.
Return of the Prague delegation

Therefore, in the year of our Lord 1420, on the Friday before the feast of the Epiph-
any of the Lord [4 January], the solemn delegation of the Praguers returned from
Brno and their conference with the Hungarian king, and removed the chains and
posts from the streets and took them to the town hall. They also pulled down fences,
block-houses, and all buildings and fortifications built by the common people
against Prague Castle, and the enemies of the truth, and especially the Germans,
laughed at them and clapped their hands with joy, saying: ‘Now the heretics, those
Hussites and Wyclifites, will perish and will be finished.’ On this account, a great
fear and terror overcame the adherents of the truth. Canons, parish priests, and
other priests, monks, and even certain secular people, who after the death of King
Václav had run away from Prague because of their fear of the Hussites, returned
with delight. This was a result of the fact that it had been announced by the heralds
in the towns [355] in the name of the king and in the names of the councilors, that
anyone who had been chased away might return freely, and that no one should dare
to shout at priests, and especially at monks: ‘In a sack, monk, in a sack!’ Because
during the reign of King Václav it became a habit that whenever a monk was walk-
ing around, adults and children shouted at him: ‘In a sack, monk, in a sack!’29
Continued persecution of Hussites at Kutná Hora

Also, on the Tuesday after the feast of the Epiphany of the Lord, that is 9 January,
at the crowing of the cock, Master Jan Chůdek, parish priest of Kouřím, along
with three other priests, whose names were Jakub, Martin, and Leonard, was
wretchedly thrown by the people of Kutná Hora into a deep mine they called
Tábor.30 This same Master Jan was warning the people of Kutná Hora to atone
for committing such atrocities against Christ’s faithful, who were zealous for the
lay chalice, and for their other sins, and if they did not, they could expect severe
retribution from God. This they deservedly experienced two years thereafter as
will be described later. During the same night many secular people were killed by
the people of Kutná Hora and thrown into mines because of their support for the
communion of the chalice.
77
Cities of refuge and the teachings of the Táborite priests

Likewise, during this time some Táborite priests were preaching to the people
Christ’s second coming, during which time all evil ones and adversaries of the
truth deserved to perish and be annihilated, and all the righteous ones would be
saved in five towns. For this reason some of the towns where the communion
of the chalice was freely practiced, did not want to sign any agreement or make
peace with their adversaries, and chiefly the town of Plzeň.31 For the aforemen-
tioned Táborite priests in the region of Bechyně and in other places preached
many heretical things that were in contradiction to the Christian faith, by incor-
rectly interpreting the writings of the prophets according to their own concep-
tions, and disregarding the orthodox interpretations of the holy doctors, making
the people crazy with their sensational preachings, and warning that everyone
who wished to escape the wrath of almighty God, which was supposed to be sent
into the entire world, should move from their towns, castles, and villages [356]
like Lot from Sodom to the five towns of refuge. These were the names of those
towns: Plzeň, which they called the city of the sun, Žatec, Louny, Klatovy, and
Slaný.32 This was on account of the fact that almighty God wanted to annihilate
the entire world, with only those who fled into the aforementioned towns being
spared. To confirm this they attempted to prove it through prophetic writings,
which, however, they interpreted erroneously and heretically, and they were also
disseminating throughout the Czech kingdom letters containing the doctrines
described above. Many simple and zealous people, acquiescing in these silly
statements as if they were true, not according to reason, but according to the
authority of the messenger, were therefore going so far as to sell their goods for
a low price, and went to these priests with their wives and children from various
regions of the Czech kingdom and the Margraviate of Moravia, throwing their
money at their feet.33
Žižka and his men battle their enemies in the town of Plzeň
When these things were happening as they have just been described, many
Utraquists, and notably Lord Břeněk of Švihov, Lord Valkoun of Adlary, and Jan
Žižka, servant of the former King Václav, with certain accomplices from Prague,
went to the town of Plzeň. After the enemies of the truth were expelled from
the town of Plzeň, they closed themselves off against Queen Sophia, the barons,
and the other royalists, unwilling to enter into any kind of terms of peace with
them, whom they considered enemies of God and his law. Therefore, at the insti-
gation of the priests, and especially that of Václav Koranda, the monasteries of the
town, churches, and certain official buildings adjacent to the town were demol-
ished and destroyed.34 Moreover, Lord Bohuslav Švamberk wanted to enter into a
fight with them one day, but was chased away with his troops from the battlefield,
not without considerable casualties and destruction on his side. Therefore Queen
Sophia and noblemen and royal officials sent a large number of people to besiege
78
Plzeň. So the two sides were fighting frequently, with crowds of people fortifying
themselves in certain bulwarks around them, and were cutting off one another’s
hands and feet [357].35
King Sigismund orders Hussite extermination policy

Likewise, in those days the Hungarian king sent letters all over the kingdom to all
noblemen, and in particular to all officials of the kingdom, namely to the cham-
berlain, to the supreme burgrave of the kingdom, and to the burgraves of royal
castles, to burgomasters, and councilors of towns, to the effect that they should
by any means necessary arrest, persecute, and, as much as possible, wipe out the
Wyclifites and Hussites, and those practicing communion with the lay chalice.
Táborites capture the Castle of Hradiště

With these things taking place, one of the Táborite priests, called Vanček, together
with a certain bell ringer by the name of [Jan] Hromádka, who were among the
original instigators and organizers of the meetings on the mountains, having joined
together with Jan Bydlín and Jan Smolín and a certain number of Táborite peasants,
hid for several days in the forests during the Shrovetide carnival. They planned to
take by force the town of [Sezimovo] Ústí assisted by those in the town who were
on their side. They succeeded in this plan on the first Wednesday of Lent, which
was 21 February, before daybreak because the people were drunk and, after the
dancing and other festivities customary at that time were sound asleep, as if they
were secure. They immediately captured the enemies of the truth, both secular and
clerical, some of whom escaped through the walls of the city, others of whom they
chased away and confiscated their properties. Each day more of those who were
supporters of the lay chalice came to this town from the neighboring regions. Then,
after several days, the Táborite brethren surrounded the fortress of Hradiště, which
belonged to the lords of Ústí. The original town had been built there and its walls are
still there. They conquered this stronghold in a short period of time and occupied it.
They handed it over to Lord Prokop of Kamenice, a relative of the aforementioned
lords from Ústí. Some time later, they burned down the town of Ústí in a whirlwind
of fire and moved with their women and children to the mountain of Tábor. Over
the course of some time they fortified it and built houses for themselves to live in.
They called this mountain Tábor, and each day they inflicted considerable damage
on those of their neighbors who did not wish to be their allies [358].
Notes
1 It is possible (following some of the major Czech historians), to connect the foundation of
the Táborite movement with the expulsion of Hussite preachers from Prague churches. Their
activities had prospered through the support of Queen Sophia who had protected the reform
movement. The crackdown was forced by Bishop Fernando de Palacios of Lugo in February
1419, who, taking over from Giovanni Dominici (who died at Buda in June 1419), had initiated a
79
process of heresy hunting. The location of the mountain in question has been much debated but
it may have been Burkovák hill near Nemějice. František Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová, eds.
Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u Domažlic (Prague: Svoboda, 1979), pp.
329 and 347.
2 Miloslav Polívka, ‘Nicholas of Hus: One of the Leading Personage [sic] of the Beginnings of the
Hussite Revolution,’ Historica 28 (1988), pp. 75–121. There is no compelling reason for why this
man represented any greater threat to the king than another save for his leadership at the head of
the mob that confronted the king in Prague.
3 Medieval Prague was made up of four legally and physically separate boroughs; namely the Old
Town, New Town, Lesser Town, and Hradčany (castle precinct). Thomas A. Fudge, Jan Hus:
Religious Reform and Social Revolution (London: Tauris, 2017), pp. 19–26. Laurence twice
refers to Žižka as ‘familiaris regis Bohemie’ (Goll, FRB, vol. 5, pp. 348–9, 356) but this should
not be understood as a relative or family member in the modern sense. J. F. Niermeyer, Mediae
Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden: Brill, 1960–1964), fasc. 5, pp. 408–9.
4 The procession was led by the former Praemonstratensian monk Jan Želivský, who is not identified
by the chronicler. Želivský came to Prague in 1418 from Humpolec and more specifically from
the Praemonstratensian house nearby. He was preacher at the Church of Mary of the Snow. St.
Mary’s Church on the Sand (as it is often called) was the monastic church of the Carmelites and
did not belong to the Dominicans, or the order of preachers, as the chronicler repeatedly says.
The church was founded during the reign of Charles IV and featured the highest Gothic choir
in Prague and was visible from almost everywhere in the city. Josef Bujnoch, Die Hussiten:
Die Chronik des Laurentius von Březová 1414–1421 (Graz: Verlag Styria, 1988), p. 302. The
best source on the defenestration is Howard Kaminsky, ‘The Prague Insurrection of 30 July
1419,’ Mediaevalia et Humanistica 17 (1966), pp. 106–26. The best source on Žižka in English
is Frederick G. Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution (New York: Russell & Russell,
1969).
5 Closer to three miles from the Old Town Square but again this indicates that Laurence is referring
to the Roman mile.
6 There are at least six changes of Prague councilors (elected and deposed) in this chronicle. Goll,
pp. 346, 374, 399–400, 448, 496, and 515.
7 Vespers is observed at sunset. New Castle was located southeast of Prague on the road towards
Říčany.
8 This was a Cistercian monastery located south of Prague at the confluence of the Berounka and
Vltava rivers in the village of Zbraslav. It had been founded in 1292 by King Václav II and served
as a traditional burial place for Czech kings and nobility. The Hussites destroyed it in 1420.
9 A reference to what is now called Charles Bridge, built from 1357 to replace the twelfth-century
Judith Bridge badly damaged in a flood of 1342. A temporary wooden structure had been used
since 1342. At the time, this was the sole bridge across the Vltava at Prague.
10 Albík of Uničov had been King Václav’s personal physician from 1396 and was, briefly,
archbishop of Prague (1412–1413).
11 The Church of the Virgin Mary of the Snow (on the Sand) was a Carmelite monastery as noted
above. During the interdict, the armed people invaded the monastery on 3 November and menaced
the monks. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 331. Goll says the
monastery was not burnt to the ground and the chronicler is in error. FRB, vol. 5, p. 347.
12 Literally ‘at the crosses.’ This is a hill on the road south of Prague towards Benešov. Ladví is a
small village near Kamenice.
13 Čeněk of Vartemberk (†1425) was a significant landholder, governmental official, and lord
high burgrave from 1414–1420. Mercurial in his religious allegiance he switched sides between
Hussites and Catholics several times. Defeated by Jan Žižka at the battle of Hořice on 20 April
1423, he retired from the fray. Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution, pp. 366–7.
14 One of the very few passages in the Auctor Hussiticus that does not also appear in the chronicle
aligns here. ‘Likewise, in the same year, the Hussite priests, obedient to no one and fearing no
one, were constantly exhorting the people in their sermons to destroy monasteries and icons and
80
confiscate the worldly goods of the clergy, and, in addition, to get rid of the church rites that had
been invented by human beings and to hold fast to the law of God; with the result that, on account
of the desecration of icons, as well as the destruction of perhaps eight monasteries, the kingdom
of Bohemia acquired a very evil reputation among the other nations.’ FRB, vol. 5, p. 539. Noted
in Helena Krmíčková, ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové,’ in Helena Krmíčková, Lucie Mazalová,
Petra Mutlová, and Pavel Ševčík. Pro defensa veritatis evangelice (Brno: Masarykova univerzita,
2015), p. 51.
15 Though mentioned as being present at the defenestration above, the chronicler now makes the
point that Žižka is part of the Hussite movement.
16 On the priest see Jan B. Lášek, ‘Priest Ambrož and East-Bohemian Utraquism: Hradec and Oreb,’
Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 3 (2000), pp. 105–18. ‘According to Jewish and
early Christian custom, which was maintained in the Middle Ages, the beginning of the new
calendar day was counted from the onset of darkness, and from then on the first hour (of twenty-
four) was counted. This time is therefore in November according to our time of day between
13:00 and 14:00.’ Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 304; and also Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z
Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 332.
17 The Saxon House sat immediately at the western approach to the bridge across the Vltava. The
house was originally a part of the ‘Saxon Court,’ consisting of a group of houses given to the Dukes
of Saxony by Charles IV. St. Thomas Monastery, from 1285, belonged to the Augustinian hermits
and sat about three blocks north of the Saxon House. Jaroslav Kadlec, Das Augustinerkloster
Sankt Thomas in Prag vom Gründungsjahr 1285 bis zu den Hussitenkriegen, mit Edition seines
Urkundenbuches (Würzburg: Augustinus Verlag, 1985). The archbishop’s house or palace was
also located nearby in the Lesser Town.
18 Goll noted that (W), in consequence, characterized the queen and the lord of Rožmberk as
refugees. FRB, vol. 5, p. 349. Queen Sophia, a Bavarian princess, became King Václav’s second
wife in 1389. She attended the sermons of Jan Hus in Bethlehem Chapel. She made Hus her
chaplain and for a number of years used her power to protect and facilitate the nascent reform
movement. Ultimately she yielded to papal pressure and was the subject of a legatine summons
on 20 February 1419. Text in P. Augustin Neumann, Nové prameny k dějinám husitství na Moravě
(Olomouc: Nákladem matice cyrilometodějské, 1930), pp. 48–50. Inasmuch as Sophia remained
a threat to Sigismund he confined her in Bratislava where she suffered much and eventually died
in 1428 after failed escapes. She is entombed in the ‘Chapel of the Czech Queen.’ There is little
in English on Queen Sophia but there is a recent Czech study of note. Božena Kopičková, Česká
královna Žofie: Ve znamení kalicha a kříže (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2018).
19 Presumably, the School of St. Nicholas was connected to the Gothic Church of St. Nicholas, a
late thirteenth-century foundation that stood where the eighteenth-century Baroque Church of St.
Nicholas is now located.
20 Chval of Machovice (near Hluboká) also controlled Řepice near Strakonice and was a co-founder
of Tábor and later administrator of Písek. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská
kronika, p. 333.
21 St. Briccius is St. Brice of Tours, a fifth-century Frankish bishop. Knín was a small town about 25
miles southwest of Prague towards Příbram.
22 The feast of St. George falls on 23 April in the Christian world but in Bohemia it is 24 April
because St. Adalbert (a national patron) also falls on 23 April. On money, see Peter Spufford,
Money and Its Use in Medieval Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); and
Peter Spufford, Handbook of Medieval Exchange (London: Offices of the Royal Historical Society,
1986), p. xxiii notes that one groschen was equal to 60 sexagenae. The main currency at the time
Laurence was writing his chronicle was the Prague groschen of Václav IV. This was divided
into seven denominations. Half of the money was called hellers (pennies). The Czech ducat of
Václav IV, or the Hungarian ducat of Sigismund, remained the main currencies of payment for
transactions outside the kingdom. Following the outbreak of the Hussite Revolution, only small
coins and hellers were minted and this was practically the sole tender. The Prague mint used
mainly confiscated material, especially that belonging to the church. Hence, some of these coins
81
were called ‘kalíškove’ (little chalice coins). Later on, when the precious metal was exhausted,
coins were made from inferior metals, especially copper. They were called ‘flútek.’ There is no
English equivalent. These coins were made of copper and appeared expensive but in reality these
were just cheap coins. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, pp. 350–1.
Exporting silver was prohibited.
23 The Prague diocesan synod and the cathedral chapters of St. Vitus and Vyšehrad did collect
money in support of the prosecution of Jan Hus. Thomas A. Fudge, The Trial of Jan Hus:
Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedure (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 181.
24 Kutná Hora was the second largest city in Bohemia and home of the once-lucrative silver mines.
These were the most important source of silver in all of Europe. The population was about
8,000 but may have been twice that number in the previous century on account of a mining
boom. There were diversified guilds there and building proceeded in a manner second only to
Prague. The national mint was headquartered there as a result of a consolidation of up to 17 mints
scattered across Bohemia. Spufford, Money and Its Uses in Medieval Europe, p. 125. Laurence
suggests that a German-operated extermination center functioned here and was perhaps the most
successful of the anti-Hussite initiatives. Rewards were offered for heretics with a layperson
attracting one groschen while a priest might bring a bounty hunter a reward of five groschen. On
the city in general, see Thomas A. Fudge, The Magnificent Ride: The First Reformation in Hussite
Bohemia (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), pp. 20–1.
25 This does not occur since the manuscript narrative breaks off with events during the night of
21–22 December 1421. Did Laurence intend to write about these events but never achieved that
aim or did he do so and this part of the chronicle has been lost?
26 References to the ‘mountains’ and to ‘mountain men’ earlier may be understood as synonyms for
the town and people of Kutná Hora.
27 Jan Chůdek was appointed in 1417 to take the place of Štěpán Páleč, who did not return to
Bohemia following the Council of Constance. In October 1419, Sigismund appointed Chůdek to
a post in Kouřim. On the principle of ius patronatus see Peter Landau, Jus Patronatus: Studien zur
Entwicklung des Patronats im Dekretalenrecht und der Kanonistik des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts
(Cologne: Böhlau, 1975).
28 Heymann asserts that the reference to ‘fortified buildings’ signifies all newly built fortifications
in Prague. Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution, pp. 106–7.
29 The phrase ‘in a sack’ may include a legal connotation meaning to ‘have in one’s power,’ which
could be related to the sense contained in the Czech ‘w sak’ meaning to be ‘stuck in a bag’
and drowned. This was one of the ways of carrying out the death penalty in the Middle Ages.
Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 305. The cry, ‘in the bag’ meant ‘into the bag.’ This may have further
connotations linked to the drowning of unworthy or undesirable priests that occurred during the
reign of King Václav IV. The Latin word ‘saccus’ does not appear in the chronicle and Laurence
has used the Czech phrase ‘w sak’ in the text, which may suggest the phrase was unique to
Bohemia.
30 There is a fifteenth-century illumination of these events. Smíškovsky Gradual, Vienna, ÖNB
suppl. Mus. Sam. MS 15492, fol. 285r. Frequently referred to in medieval documents and
literature, and while varying with the season, the crowing of the cock is often associated with
dawn or the predawn period. There is significant ethnographical documentation for this. Kevin K.
Birth, ‘The Regular Sound of the Cock: Context-Dependent Time Reckoning in the Middle Ages,’
KronoScope 11, nos. 1–2 (2011), pp. 124–44.
31 Ranking with Prague, Wrocław, and Kutná Hora, Plzeň was among the most important centers in
the kingdom. During the Hussite Revolution, Plzeň emerged as a nationally significant city with
a discrete political, economic, and religious profile. Moreover, it was inhabited predominantly by
Czechs in distinction to other Bohemian urban centers that had large German populations.
32 In antiquity, many cultures had designated precincts or locations that provided asylum and
protection to fugitives and guaranteed safety. The Hebrew Bible refers to ‘cities of refuge’ in
several texts: Numbers 35:11–12, Deuteronomy 19:1–10, and Joshua 20:4–9. The Hussites
adopted and modified the idea to apply in their eschatological worldview. For an overview of the
82
Hebrew concept see Moshe Greenberg, ‘The Biblical Concept of Asylum,’ Journal of Biblical
Literature 78, no. 2 (1959), pp. 125–32; and Jamye R. Reaves, Safeguarding the Stranger: An
Abrahamic Theology and Ethic of Protective Hospitality (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications,
2016), pp. 198–205.
2014), VIII, pp. 26–46.
34 Václav Koranda was a priest in Plzeň as early as 1417. He came to prominence within the Táborite
orbit, exercised decisive radical influence, and remained a fervent adherent of Hussite doctrine
until he was, along with others, subjugated in the 1450s and died sometime during that decade in
obscurity.
35 There are five instances of physical mutilation noted in this chronicle. These cases are in distinction
to judicial mutilation. There are parallels during the early thirteenth-century Albigensian crusade.
See also Jörg Rogge, ed., Killing and Being Killed: Bodies in Battle—Perspectives on Fighters in
the Middle Ages (Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2017).
83
4
T Á B OR, RESIS TANCE , VI OLENCE,

AND CRUS ADE
That same year, on 15 March, in the city of Wrocław, with the consent of the Hun-
garian King Sigismund, who was residing there temporarily, Jan of Prague, called
Krása, a great promoter of the truth, was sacrilegiously, unlawfully, and unfairly
sentenced to a most harsh death by Fernando, the papal legate, a group of bishops
and doctors and masters, and other prelates and clergy, for this reason, that he was
unwilling to affirm, approve, assert, hold, and believe the following articles:1 (1)
that the Council of Constance was legitimately gathered in the Holy Spirit; (2) that
whatever the aforementioned Council decided, decreed, and reformed was just,
sacred, and to be adopted by all the Christian faithful on pain of mortal sin; (3) that
whatever the Council rebuked and condemned, it had done so justly, piously, and
correctly; (4) that the aforementioned Council of Constance, in condemning the
Masters Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague to a most vile death, had acted in fairness
and holiness; (5) that the Council had judged with orthodoxy and holiness that
giving the Utraquist communion to the people was to be condemned. Of course,
these articles are false, erroneous, heretical, blasphemous, and mendacious, and
contrary to the law of God and the truth of the gospel. Because the aforemen-
tioned Jan Krása did not wish to approve these articles, he was condemned to a
most shameful death by those unjust and godless scribes and pharisees, namely
the bishops, doctors, masters, and clergy, and, after he was dragged through the
city by horses by his tormentors and executioners and insulted with various blas-
phemies and slanders, he was consumed in a whirlwind of fire.2 Although he was
urged with various warnings, attempting to force him to abandon the truth of the
law of God and give in to those evil men in their malice, he remained strong and
solid in our faith and persisted in his holy proposition like a tenacious soldier, a
most courageous champion of the Lord, for, while he was praying for his enemies,
he endured all their blasphemies, heresies, slander, and mockery, in addition to
his extreme punishments. He was as an example of his master, and of the Lord
Jesus, the Good Shepherd, like a sheep led to the slaughter for the truth of the
Gospel. Finally, having breathed out his spirit to the Lord, he merited to pass from
this life in the blessed hope, and to obtain the palm [branch] of a martyr. May the
Triune God, who alone is blessed throughout all ages, also deem us worthy to be
so meritorious.3
84
Another account of the death of Jan Krása

[Sigismund, the Hungarian king, arrived in Kutná Hora soon after the day of St.
George [24 April] with a large army, and marching through Wrocław he ordered
the decapitation of many older townsmen and councilmen, those who had resisted
King Václav. Also with him was the legate and Pope’s council from Rome. The
Praguers sent letters to him with Mikuláš, a student from Bethlehem, requesting an
audience with his priests, so that there could be a disputation, and that the books
of the old holy doctors could be used and to leave them with this, and that they
were keen to accept him as king, to reign in the stead of King Václav, his brother.
And he, learning the name of the messenger of the Praguers, ordered him put into
the jail with Krása Venecník from Prague, whom he had ordered imprisoned for
the holy truth. Krása Venecník was pleased that he would have a companion in his
martyrdom and he talked to him gently and admonished him saying:
Dear brother Mikuláš! Our martyr’s crown is approaching. Let us endure

this small difficulty given to us by our dear God for eternal reward,
remembering the Lord Jesus, how he suffered cruel death for us and saved
us by his innocent blood, then how martyrs went through difficult death,
including virgins.
So he talked a lot to him begging him to be firm. Then on the Thursday before Lent
[15 March] they took both of them out of the jail and tied their legs to horses in
order to drag them [to death]. Then the legate came up to them and exhorted them
to denounce the truth of God. The student Mikuláš, messenger of the Praguers,
fearing death, recanted and denounced [the truth]. They untied his legs and they
dragged Krása Venecník behind horses slowly over the cobblestones [359], and
the executioner stopped often and many people rushed alongside him. The legate
kept reproving him saying: ‘Abandon this heresy and leave this teaching, which
the Czechs have started, do not die, save your life!’ But he answered that he would
gladly undergo this death for the holy reading [or writ]. He spoke to him often
prompting him to dissent from the truth. So they dragged him to the place where
they used to drag carcasses, and here they burned him to death because he did not
want to say that Master Jan Hus had suffered very much.]
Proclamation of the first crusade against the Czechs

and the fight at Sudoměř
In like manner, on the fourth Sunday of Lent, 17 March, at the order of the papal
legate in Wrocław, who was then residing there with the Roman and Hungarian
king Sigismund, a papal crusade against the Czechs, especially against those who
were supporters of the lay chalice, as if they were heretics and rebels against
the Roman Church, was proclaimed throughout the churches in sermons.4 In the
meantime, the royalists were, through various methods and devices, discussing
85
peace through various persons with the Táborites who had fortified themselves
in Plzeň. But they had no intention of closing a deal with them, as the Táborites
considered them heretics and adversaries of the truth. However, acquiescing in
the counsel of some of the Praguers sent to them, they finally made an agreement
with the royalists under certain conditions. First, that the town would have the full
freedom of practicing Utraquist communion; second, that they could move freely
with their children and women to Hradiště at the mountain of Tábor. To these
conditions the royalists agreed under certain penalties, however deceitfully. They
wrote secretly to the master of the mint of Kutná Hora called Mikeš Divoký and
to Lord Petr of Šternberk and the master of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in
Strakonice and to other royalists gathered with large numbers of cavalry in the
region of Písek, to the effect that, when the Táborites and the inhabitants of Plzeň
went out from there, they should attack them on their journey with an armed con-
tingent and kill them, which is what happened.5 On the feast day of the Annunci-
ation, 25 March, Lord Břeněk of Švihov, Valkoun of Adlary, and Jan Žižka [360]
along with other brothers who were supporters of the lay chalice and their priests,
namely Václav Koranda and Markolt, who had fortified themselves in the city of
Plzeň against the royalists, as was described above, with the intention of reach-
ing Hradiště, left the town of Plzeň under the aforementioned agreement with
the sub-chamberlain Lord Václav of Leštno.6 The royalists with a strong army
marched against them near a pond near Sudoměř.7 When they clashed in battle,
the Táborites surrounded themselves with their wagons, and many people on both
sides were killed and many wounded, among them Lord Břeněk, who was killed
on the front line. The battle lasted for several hours, but at sunset the royalists left
the battlefield, capturing 30 or more of the brethren, whom the master of the mint
led bound to Kutná Hora. But the main body of the brethren, leaving some of their
wounded in villages, arrived at Hradiště where they were gratefully received by
the brothers of this mountain.
Želivský preaches against Sigismund

At that time, priests in Prague and especially Jan, the preacher in the Monastery
Church of the Blessed Virgin on the Sand in the New Town of Prague, a former
monk from Želiv, who at that time was preaching about the Apocalypse of St.
John, was stirring up the people to resist the king of Hungary, who was staging
an assault on the lay chalice, whom he referred to as the red dragon about whom
it had been prophesied in Revelation, and deservedly, since the king allowed his
favorites to wear a golden dragon on their chests, which was the sign of his order.8
Therefore, the aforementioned priest Jan was fiercely attacking the king in his
sermons to the people.9 Since large crowds of people were gathering and listening
most eager to his teachings on account of his eloquence, although he possessed
little actual knowledge, many of the faithful, because of his and other preachers’
sermons, did not hesitate to risk the loss of their lives and properties for the truth
of the communion of the chalice.
86
Enemies of the Hussites flee to safety

In those days after the proclamation of the crusade by the pope in Wrocław against
the Czechs who were supporters of the Utraquist communion, all the Praguers
who were enemies of the lay chalice, and of the holy memory [361] of the Masters
Jan Hus and Jerome, both lay and secular, rejoiced, saying:
Now these despicable heretics will be burned, or they will all die by the sword
of the king of Hungary, along with their children and wives. Therefore let us
flee quickly from them to safe places, lest we die along with them.
Therefore, fearing to lose their lives along with their properties, they removed
themselves to the castles of Prague and Vyšehrad and the fortifications around
them, with the consent of the elders of the city of Prague, along with their wives,
children, stores of treasure, and more valuable property. Nearly 200 of the more
wealthy and important inhabitants and landlords of the Old Town, and about the
same number from the New Town, and especially the Germans, swearing an oath
of fidelity to the nobles who managed Prague Castle and Vyšehrad for the Hun-
garian king Sigismund, so that after the feast day of St. George [24 April], when
the truce had expired, they would help them conquer the town of Prague and then
finally return with joy to their own residences, after the supporters of the Utraquist
communion were killed and wiped out. But almighty God, who never abandons
those who hope in him and are sincerely zealous for his most holy law, in a mar-
velous manner changed the lyre of their rejoicing into weeping and lamentation,
as will be told later.
Resolution to oppose King Sigismund and the

enemies of the chalice
Likewise, on the Wednesday before Easter, that is on 3 April, the Utraquist
Praguers, having come to the conclusion that the Hungarian king Sigismund
had nothing good in store for them and the other supporters of the truth, at
the encouragement of certain clergy, and namely the priest Jan, a preacher
in the monastery of the New Town, they gathered with priests and masters,
supporters of the communion of the chalice, in the town hall of the Old Town,
and they swore an oath to defend the communion of the chalice of com-
mon people against anyone who would interfere with it and vilify it, without
concern for losing properties or lives. Then they made some records, and
accepted an oath from the councilors who were left to be faithful on their
side for the defense of the truth. They elected and established four captains in
the Old Town and four in the New Town [362], to whom they handed over the
keys to the town hall and gates, as well as the authority to manage, oversee,
and act on all matters pertaining to the promotion and defense of the truth,
and they promised complete obedience to them. They added 40 captains of
87
lower rank in the Old Town and the same number in the New Town. After they
made records of all these matters and confirmed them with public seals, they
returned to their homes.10
Capture of the town of Vožice by the Táborites

Likewise, on Passion Friday, that is, on 5 April, around sunrise, Táborites from
Hradiště stormed and conquered the town of Vožice. They captured many royal
mercenaries, and some others fled to the castle. They also killed many and they
burned down the township in a whirlwind of fire. They took many spoils, particu-
larly horses, as well as prisoners, and returned to Hradiště, and then they bartered
their prisoners for their own captives, captured not long ago near Sudoměř and
taken to Kutná Hora.
Armistice between Prague and Vyšehrad

Similarly, on Easter Monday [8 April] and immediately thereafter, the
Praguers, with the terms of peace between themselves and the royalists hold-
ing the castles of Prague and Vyšehrad, dug large and deep moats around
Vyšehrad and Botice extending up to the riverbed of the Vltava for the defense
of the town of Vyšehrad.11 They labored hard with their wives and little girls
and boys, and the people of Vyšehrad ridiculed them saying: ‘These moats
will not help you if you want to resist your hereditary master, the Roman and
Hungarian king Sigismund.’
Táborites conquer another fortification and

brutalize the resistance
In those days the Táborites from Hradiště selected four captains for whom they
had respect, that is, Mikuláš of Husinec, Jan Žižka the one-eyed, former servant
of King Václav and a distinguished ally of the law of God, who will figure sig-
nificantly in the following events, Zbyněk of Buchov and Chval of Řepice. They
attacked with a war party a strong fortification called Sedlec, near Ústí, and gained
possession of it through this attack, in spite of the fact that those who were in it
resisted vigorously; and soon they beat to death with flails Lord Oldřich, the mil-
itary master of Ústí, and, chopping off [363] his feet, they threw him into the fire.
They killed certain other men, having spared six important individuals, and they
ordered that one of them, whoever wished to save his life, should decapitate the
others. So one of them, called Pinta, decapitated five of his comrades, and became
an ally of the Táborites. In this fortification, or battlement, there were many goods
from the vicinity in the form of gold, silver, monstrances, goblets, and expensive
clothing that had been placed there for safekeeping. The Táborites put all of those
things in a pile, burned them up in a whirlwind of fire, and demolished and burned
down the fortification.
88
Action at Prague Castle and Vyšehrad

On the Wednesday after the feast day of St. Tiburtius, that is on 17 April, Lord
Čeněk of Vartemberk, the supreme burgrave of Prague Castle, returning from
Wrocław from visiting the Hungarian king and having come to the conclusion that
the king wanted to totally annihilate the communion of the chalice, he expelled all
the enemies of the chalice, clergy and secular people, of noble birth and common
people, maidens, and children, taking flight with a seemingly unending quantity
of goods, from the town of Prague to the castle.12 He then besieged the castle with
his army and made an alliance with the town of Prague for the defense of the truth.
The enemies of the truth, and in particular the Germans, fled to the mountains and
neighboring cities, leaving behind innumerable properties in Prague Castle. Their
women then were sitting in front of the castle every day and lamenting more on
account of the gold, silver, money, and jewelry left in the castle, than because of
their own sins. All the time they begged vehemently for the return of their pos-
sessions. The supporters of the truth, scarcely pitying these women, were jeering
at them, mocking them, and even rejoicing in the loss of their properties. On the
same day the Prague community surrounded Vyšehrad from all sides and they
would have taken the castle in a short time, had they not, fearing betrayal, left
the battlefield, because the royalists in Vyšehrad had totally run out of food. But
when the community left the battlefield, on the next day the people of Vyšehrad,
after great spoils had been taken, made better [364] fortifications and caused much
harm to the Praguers in terms of properties and lives.
Activities of the Táborites

At the same time [20 April], the aforementioned Lord Čeněk sent letters of
accusation all over the Czech kingdom and all over other duchies and principal-
ities surrounding his own, and those belonging to Lord Oldřich of Rožmberk,
and wrote letters of complaint against the Roman and Hungarian king Sigismund,
using the seal of Prague, providing various arguments and reasons why he should
not be accepted as the lord and king of Bohemia.13 Then on the feast day of St.
George [24 April 1420] Táborites from Hradiště gathered a great number of tenant
farmers and peasants, who supported the communion of the chalice, and demol-
ished and burned down the Praemonstratensian monastery in Milevsko.
At the same time, the Táborites, encouraged by their priests, with large numbers
of peasants and country folk, including women, who adhered to the communion of
the chalice, and also children whom they called slingers, their numbers growing
day by day, were perpetrating many spectacular and unheard of crimes and scan-
dals against the entire Czech kingdom, especially in the regions of Benešov and
Plzeň, burning down churches, monasteries, and the houses of priests, attacking
castles, towns, and fortifications and burning them down too. Among others, they
burned down the monastery in Nepomuk, and conquered the very strong Castle
of Rábí, where clergy and laypeople from the surrounding area had stored up for
89
safekeeping an apparently numberless quantity of gold, silver, gems, armor, and

expensive clothing. The Táborites took this booty out of the castle, except for a
certain amount of money, a few pieces of armor, and some horses, and put it in a
pile and burned it. In front of the castle they also burned seven monks and priests
whom they had captured in the castle. They also captured the young sons of the
master of the castle, called Jan Krk. Captain Žižka, who was daring and audacious
beyond all measure, who commanded the whole army, and whom the peasants,
unarmed except for flails, mallets, and [365] crossbows, followed and were eager
to obey, took charge of them. Then they plundered and burned down the castle.
The Táborite priests, it is feared, who were walking before the army with the body
of the Lord, were the principal cause of all these evil things, instigating the peo-
ple in their sermons. For these lawless deeds Lord Čeněk was intensely despised
together with all the barons and nobles allied to him, and he regretted that he had
ever occupied Prague Castle without the consent of the Hungarian king.
Hussites in eastern Bohemia come to the aid of Prague

At the same time, in the region of Hradec near Třebechovice a great multitude of
laypeople were gathered on a certain mountain they called Oreb by Lord Hynek
Krušina of Kumburk and the priests, especially Ambrož of Hradec, and they con-
quered the very strong Monastery of Hradiště near Valečov, looting the properties
that were in it, and burned the monastery down.14 On the feast day of St. Sigis-
mund [1 May] they entered the town of Prague in large numbers, their priests with
the body of the Lord marching in front of them, and they were met by a great
crowd of people of both genders, likewise in procession with the body of the Lord,
and were honorably and gratefully received by the community of Prague, and
accommodated in St. Apollinaris for the defense of the town against the people
of Vyšehrad and provided with many provisions.15 At the same time Lord Hynek
Krušina of Kumburk was elected captain, that is, military commander, by the
Praguers.
At the same time, at the beginning of the month of May, the people of Chodov
gathered on a certain mountain in the region of Plzeň, and their leader was a
certain priest, armed and on horseback. Lord Bohuslav Švamberk, a great adver-
sary of the truth regarding the communion of the chalice, gathered his host and
attacked them; several hundred were killed and others wounded. The armed priest
was captured and brought to Plzeň, and here he was taken out of the town by ene-
mies and hideously burned to death to the sound of trumpets.
Betrayal by Čeněk of Vartemberk

Also, the same time Lord Čeněk, seeing that the people of Prague could not con-
quer Vyšehrad [366], and hearing that the Táborites kept burning down churches,
monasteries, castles, and villages, became disgusted, and consulted with his peo-
ple in secrecy about his plan to hand Prague Castle over to the Hungarian king
90
in order to receive clemency from him. Therefore Lord Vilém Zajíc and Lord
Arnošt Flaška, on behalf of King Sigismund, arrived in Prague Castle [5 May]
under a letter of safe conduct, and they negotiated a truce with Lord Čeněk and
the municipality of Prague, which was to last for two weeks while the king and the
municipality of Prague negotiated permanent terms of peace. But some of
the Prague priests, fearing treachery, issued warnings during their sermons to
the common people, to the effect that they should not believe the Hungarian king
or make any truce with him. Because the people were divided, the Prague munici-
pality could not give any certain answer at their first meeting. The aforementioned
lords sent by the king, not waiting for a final answer from the municipality, were
presumably negotiating secretly with Lord Čeněk about handing over Prague
Castle, and they returned to the king and announced to him the secret intention
of Lord Čeněk to hand over Prague Castle, in exchange for mercy for his cul-
pable acts, and that what he had done should not be attributed to him or to his
children in perpetuity, and finally that on his properties the communion of the
chalice should not be obstructed by the king until that matter had been conclu-
sively decided throughout the whole kingdom. The king agreed to permit all this.
Then when Lord Arnošt Flaška with the others returned to the castle on the feast
day of St. Gothard [6 May], the following day they spoke with Lord Čeněk and
some councilors and people from the municipality, saying that the Hungarian king
Sigismund wanted to hold a full public hearing about the communion of the chal-
ice, and that whatever could be logically demonstrated to be consonant with the
law of God would meet with no obstruction from him, but rather would be aided
and promoted. To discuss the answer to the message of this delegation, which,
presumably, had been deceitfully and fraudulently created, the municipalities of
the Old and New Towns gathered in the town hall on the sixth day of the month of
May. The municipality wished for the king to give a letter of safe conduct to some
representatives from the municipality so that they could safely come to him and
leave and debate with him concerning it.
Because these discussions had not been fully completed [367], on the follow-
ing day, that is 7 May, around dawn, Lord Čeněk allowed Lord Vilém Zajíc and
Lord Václav of Leštno and Hlavác with his Czech and German hosts to come into
Prague Castle and handed the castle over to them and to the Hungarian king with-
out the knowledge of the Prague municipality.16 For this reason all the people of
Prague were much distressed and discouraged, and called him not their lord, but a
most vile traitor to the kingdom and municipality.
Immediately they pulled his [Čeněk’s] standard, which was spread over the
tower of the town hall, down to the ground, and they spread it, full of holes,
over the pillory, as if he was without faith. They painted a little hat in the like-
ness of his helmet and put it under the standard. This meant that he had not
adhered to the community in good faith, but had deceived them under the little
hat of subterfuge and intrigue. Lord Hynek Krušina of Kumburk, who acted at
that time as a faithful friend of the truth, remained with several hundred cavalry,
with the municipality of Prague and with other municipalities, desiring, so far
91
as he was able, to resist, along with the Praguers and other municipalities, any
man posing a threat to Prague, in the name of the law of God, and in particular
the lay chalice, even unto death.
Therefore, on the same day, at the hour of vespers, some of the lighter forces
from the municipality, not having a commander, attacked Prague Castle and
advanced all the way to the first gate, and began to break down the doors and rail-
ings. Čeněk, seeing this, in fear left the castle with only a small retinue through
one of the gates, and some of those following him were killed by the Praguers
and their arms and horses were taken. But because the common people did not
observe any rules or obey any superiors, after much damage was done and much
confusion was created, and many fighters were grievously wounded, and some
killed, the people of Prague abandoned the attack and camped in Strahov for
several days with the intention of reaching the castle. Then, finally, when their
enemies in the castle and in Hradčany [368] were gaining strength and fortifying
themselves, they set fire to the Monastery of Strahov and burned many books
and priestly vestments and entered the city. The following day they burned down
Holy Cross Monastery at the foot of the bridge and cells of the Monastery of
St. Thomas and many houses in the Lesser Town in a whirlwind of fire. The
Vyšehrad mercenaries, having driven away the Prague soldiers who were guard-
ing Botice and killed some of them, filled the moats dug by the municipality
with earth and destroyed by fire many houses between Slovany and Vyšehrad,
so that the people of Prague, defeated and humiliated, were eager to formulate a
peaceful truce that previously they had been unwilling to do.17 In those days Lord
Hynek of Kolštejn arrived in Prague for the defense of the law of God and allied
himself to the Praguers.18
The Lesser Town of Prague burned down

In those days the Praguers, fighting from the house of the Duke of Saxony at
the foot of the bridge, with its tower well fortified by armed men, obstructed the
way out from the castle. They also took the Monastery of St. Thomas and the
house that previously belonged to the sub-chamberlain that was connected to
the monastery, and likewise occupied it with well-armed soldiers. They even-
tually destroyed by fire almost the entire Lesser Town along with the Church of
St. Nicholas. They transported grain, wine, beer, and whatever else they could
move from the Lesser Town to the Old Town without obstruction. With the
opponents of the lay chalice fleeing from the Lesser Town to Prague Castle, the
supporters of the truth without molestation transferred themselves with their
remaining properties to the Old Town. Then Lord Hynek Krušina left Prague
and went back to his properties. The Praguers were skirmishing every day with
the soldiers in the castle and the inhabitants of Vyšehrad, and many on both
sides were savagely killed daily, and not many were captured. Since both the
Praguers and the inhabitants of the castle were lamenting these events, after
making a truce for six days between themselves, they selected some men to go
92
with [369] Lord Václav of Leštno, then sub-chamberlain, and sent them as a
delegation with a letter of safe conduct to the Hungarian king who was stopping
in Kutná Hora with the papal legate Fernando [de Palacios], the bishop of Lugo,
and certain princes, especially from Silesia, to negotiate some kind of accord.
Therefore when they knelt before the king they delivered a greeting from the
municipality of Prague and asked him to deign to allow them to receive the
communion of the chalice, and begged him, as their master, to be so gracious as
to forgive them all their culpable acts, and asked him to come to Prague, assur-
ing him that not only would the gates be opened to him, but the walls would be
knocked down. Then he, elevated by his pride like another Lucifer, gave this
order to the Praguers, already humbling themselves more than was required
before him: that they were to immediately remove all the chains from the streets
that they had previously taken down at his order and bring them from the town
hall to Prague Castle, as well as all armor, cannon, and all firearms from the
Old Town, and from the New Town to the Castle of Vyšehrad, and that only then
would he come to Prague and give some form of clemency to them. The Prague
delegates, receiving this answer from the king, relayed this with sorrow to the
municipality, and the whole municipality, hearing this, and vexed by the com-
mand of the king, was distressed, and vowed anew to resist the power of the king
in the name of God and for the defense of the truth of the communion of the
chalice, even if this meant losing their lives and properties. They immediately
erected new posts in the streets of the town and put up many more chains than
had been there before and fortified themselves on all sides. Then they sent for
the Táborites who were gathered at Hradiště and asked them to leave everything
and, if they wished to be in the service of both the truth of the law of God and
the Praguers themselves, to come to Prague in as much force as they were able.
Battles elsewhere
At the time when the Hungarian king was in Kutná Hora another great number
of peasants who desired the lay chalice were gathered with many miners on one
mountain between Ledeč and the Castle of Lipnice in order to defend the truth
of the lay chalice.19 For this reason no small fear befell the people of Kutná
Hora. Therefore they convinced many of the miners with flattery and bribes
[370] to return home and carry coal for them. When the number of people in
this gathering was reduced, they set out for a journey to Tábor or Hradiště to
their brethren with the sacrament of the body of the Lord. Then great numbers
of royalist troops sent by the king from the mountains attacked them head-on
on the level plain. But the peasants, surrounding themselves with their vehicles,
hurled stones and fired projectiles from their cannon. Though the royal cavalry
were well armed and there were 20 of them for each peasant, so the story went,
they were reluctant to attack the unarmed peasants and headed back to Kutná
Hora with shame, and many of them were wounded and some killed. However,
one of them, having drawn his crossbow, shot Petr, the parish priest of Ledeč
93
who was at that time in the company of the peasants, in the head and killed
him. So the peasants, being scattered like sheep without a shepherd, returned
to their homes.
Táborites in Prague and their initiatives

Agreeing to the above-mentioned petition from Prague, the aforementioned Tábo-
rites did not hesitate to march from Hradiště to Prague with their priests, women,
children, and a large number of wagons. However, they left many people behind
to guard the mountain of Hradiště near Ústí. When they approached the town of
Benešov, a large number of infantry and cavalry marched out and tried to prevent
them from entering the town. But they entered the town from the other side in
force, and almost all the people of the town fled from the town to the monastery
that had been built there and into the fields. Then the Táborites burned the whole
town including the church and the vicarage. Then, when they were attacking the
monastery, had not the flames prevented them, they would have gained it by force
and perhaps destroyed it down to the ground. Leaving behind the monastery for
the time being, they marched on farther to the village of Poříčí. They crossed
the [Sázava] river, and camped on the field near the water with the intention of
spending the night there. But when they discovered that their enemies were quite
close, they harnessed their horses to the wagons and kept marching without rest.
But their enemies organized themselves into three great wedges, and attacked
them, surrounding them from all sides. Their captains, as it was said, were Václav
of Leštno and Petr of Šternberk and Konopiště, Janek of Chotěmice, Pipo Spano
[371], and Václav Donínský. Despite the fact that it was nightfall, the Táborites
entered battle against their enemies with their cannon, halberds, maces, and flails,
which made a great din. By the providence of God, after a harsh fight, they put
them to flight, killing about 20 of them. They captured many of their lances and
banners painted with red crosses.20 After this, they hurried to Prague in peace, with
no one obstructing them further.
On 20 May, Táborites of both genders arrived in Prague by the thousands.
Their priests held high the sacrament of the body of Christ on a monstrance
pole, marching in front of the people into the town of Prague, which they entered
during vespers. The inhabitants of Prague met them on the road with processions
of clergy and welcomed them with gratitude, and provided them with provisions
in large quantities from their stores, a great abundance of which was found in
houses of those who had fled, especially the various kinds of drink. After the
women were sent away to be housed in St. Ambrose Monastery, the Táborites,
with their wagons and horses, camped on the island in front of the Poříčská gate,
and there they had their temporary accommodation.21 Their priests preached
God’s word to them daily and encouraged them to fight for the law of God and
especially for the communion of the chalice, and devoutly giving them commun-
ion with the venerable body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that the peo-
ple were always eager and ready for the campaign of God. As was stated above,
94
the secular captains of this group of Táborites were the following: Mikuláš of
Hus, the burgess of the New Town and a member of the great council, Zbyněk
of Buchov, Chval of Řepický [of Machovice], and the extremely daring and
vigorous one-eyed Jan Žižka.
On 21 May, some of the Táborites, walking in groups around Prague, by force
cut off the beards of many men with scissors, especially their mustaches, which
they were calling superfluous. Also, they cut off the plaits of maidens and tore to
pieces the fine garments of the women. When the Praguers, and in particular the
mercenaries in their employ, expressed anger because of this, the Táborite captains
[372] gave strict orders to their troops to the effect that no one was to take it upon
himself to do such things.
On 22 May, when Lord Jan the elder of Michlšperk, called Michalec, and some
other nobles allied to him were journeying to Prague Castle in order to fortify it,
with a large number of cavalry, wagons, expensive clothes, provisions, and axes
designed to cut the chains in the streets of Prague, the Táborites broke out from the
aforementioned island, crossed the river and fell upon them and killed a number of
them, with Lord Michalec barely able to escape with a few of his men to Prague
Castle, and the others were scattered across the fields. So the Táborites, having
confiscated their wagons, brought them to the aforementioned island together with
some of the badly wounded prisoners. Soon on that same day, the people of Prague
joined them and burned down the Monastery of Břevnov, and brought nine monks
to Prague and put them in prison.22
Reinforcements from northwestern Bohemia arrive in Prague

On the Thursday before Pentecost, that is, 23 May, troops, numbering several
thousand with wagons, cavalry, and many women, and the sacrament of the body
of Christ, from the regions of Žatec, Louny, and Slaný, arrived in Prague, to aid
the Praguers in the defense of the law of God. Their captains were two warlike
serfs named Záviše Bradatý and Petr Obrovec. The elder of their priests was
Master Petr, called Špicka.23 They were accepted by the Praguers with joy and
singing of songs. While marching to Prague, they attacked and conquered a mon-
astery called the Apostolic Gate [Porta Apostolorum or Brána apoštolská], but
not without suffering casualties.24 Then those who had been stationed in the mon-
astery for its defense, understanding that they would not be able to resist, asked
to be permitted to go away freely with their horses and arms. The aforementioned
people from Žatec, Louny, and Slaný permitted them this. But when they wanted
to plunder the goods that were inside, some of them set the monastery on fire
without the knowledge of their superiors. Because of the intensity of the fire,
many highly valuable books, chasubles, and other precious clerical vestments,
along with innumerable other goods, which were not able to be carried away,
were shamefully and piteously burned [373]. During this march the people from
Žatec, Louny, and Slaný, when marching to Prague past the fort of Makotřasy,
burned down buildings and caused much damage to Petr, called Mezerícký, an
95
extremely rich merchant, with many of his goods being consumed in the fire, and
the parish priest, along with another priest, Lord Václav, who used to be a chap-
lain of the town hall of the Old Town of Prague, were burned to death.
Táborite women destroy a convent and help fortify Prague

On the night before Pentecost, which was 25 May [1420], Táborite women
demolished the convent of the nuns of St. Katherine in the New Town of Prague,
and overthrew it by pulling down the roof. Then on the same day Lord Vilém
Zajíc gathered large numbers of serfs and peasants and occupied the moun-
tain above Slaný. In the course of doing many terrible damages to the peo-
ple of Slaný, he spoke cunningly, saying that Prague had given in to the king’s
mercy. Therefore, the richer people of the town of Slaný gave in to the king and
allowed Lord Vilém into the town. Chasing away the priests who were giving the
Utraquist communion to the people, they permitted dancing, dice-playing, and
other public sins. And so, on the feast of Pentecost [26 May], the house of Lord
Zajíc by the gate in the Lesser Town [of Prague] was burned down along with the
neighboring houses. Also, at around this same time, on the order of the elders,
the women from Tábor, Žatec, Louny, and Slaný, whose number was great, were
digging moats from Na Slovanech Monastery to the Monastery of St. Katherine,
together with women from Prague. The people of Prague deployed strong guards
of men at arms at Slovany, Karlov, and at St. Apollinaris, because of fear of the
inhabitants of Vyšehrad.
Sigismund’s cautious venture

Around the same time the Hungarian king Sigismund, hearing about the arrival of
the Táborites at Prague marching through townships from Kutná Hora, arrived at
New Castle, which used to belong to his brother Václav, and having only looked
at the treasures, he left. Then, with the Hungarians and miners and with the lords
who were his allies, he pitched tents and camped in the meadows near Litoměřice.
He [374] intended to gather as many people as possible there in order to conquer
the town of Prague. But on the same day that people from Žatec, Louny, and Slaný
arrived in Prague, as was mentioned above, hearing that they were intending to
attack him with the Táborites, immediately the next day, leaving behind much in
the way of food and provisions, he fled from the field and with the Hungarians
marched towards Stará Boleslav. But the people of Kutná Hora returned swiftly to
Kutná Hora with cannon and other arms.
Opposition to Sigismund and agreement on the Four Articles

In like manner, in those days, the people of Tábor, Žatec, Louny, and Oreb, com-
ing together with the municipality of Prague, deposed the councilors from both
the New Town and the Old Town and replaced them with others. These, calling
96
together their captains, communities, and clergy, came to a unanimous conclusion.

First, they agreed that they should all stand as one against the Hungarian king
Sigismund or against any adversary of the law of God, and especially of the lay
chalice, and namely anyone who wanted to restrict the communion of the chalice
in any way, or attempted to wipe it out. Second, they should force the clergy to lead
an apostolic life, precluding them, if possible, from simony, wealth, luxury, lech-
ery, and other disordered behaviors, so that they might be able to preach the Word
of God more freely and perform the other duties appropriate to the ordained. Third,
that all mortal sins, and especially public ones, such as going to pubs on feast days,
and especially Sundays, haughtiness, and an excess of fine clothing, were to be
wiped out, along with other disordered behaviors and transgressions of the law of
God. From these articles, which the people of Prague and their allies put forward,
the four principal ones were later nullified and redacted back to a fitting form; but
these matters will be dealt with in greater detail in the following sections.
Prague expels enemies of the chalice

Next, it was agreed that they should hunt down the enemies of the law of God
diligently, and interrogate them and not permit them to remain in the city. There-
fore, at the order of the councilors, the priests of the churches, as time went by,
visited individually the houses of their enemies, warning them to attend masses, to
confess their sins, and to effectively prepare for taking the Utraquist communion
under penalty [375] of being expelled from the town.
Therefore some of their enemies, of both genders, who still had not fled Prague,
were disturbed on many counts, because they now had to state their approval of
the things they were previously blaspheming. Some chose to leave Prague, leaving
behind their homes, and some of their properties, rather than accept the commun-
ion of the chalice; some, because of sheer fear of losing their material goods,
accepted the chalice; and some, accepting humbly the advice about accepting the
Utraquist communion, confessed that they had been misled by wicked priests,
and having made confession, they were accepting the Utraquist communion with
great sincerity and piety. Then it was commonly said that more than 70 houses in
the Old Town and almost the same number in the New Town had been deserted
in the exodus of their adversaries from Prague. The councilors and other officials
allocated these houses to the newcomers and others, and were making the drinks,
grain, jewels, and other goods that were still being found, into common property
and using them for the defense of the city. Next, on 27 May the Hungarian king
Sigismund arrived from Boleslav with his queen and with the queen [Sophia]
of his brother the former king Václav, and from here to Slaný. Next, on 28 May,
which was on the Tuesday after the feast day of St. Urban, the Praguers together
with the Táborites and people from Žatec and Louny took the battlefield to cap-
ture Hradčany and the castle. The Táborites and soldiers from Žatec encamped in
Pohořelec and the soldiers from Louny in Strahov in order that they might prevent
supplies being brought to the castle from all sides.25
97
Hussite martyrs in Litoměřice

Next, on 30 May, in the city of Litoměřice, 17 men of the city, having been very
harshly held in a certain tower filled with manure for a long time on account of
their adherence to the Utraquist communion, were drowned in the Labe River
flowing below the city on the order of King Sigismund, and they received martyrs’
crowns in the blessed hope of God.26
Activities of the king and the papal legate

While in Slaný, the Hungarian king Sigismund sent a summons to the town of
Louny [376] with orders that they should come to Slaný and represent them-
selves before his majesty just as the other towns had done under his royal pro-
tection. Therefore, representatives of Louny delegated by the municipality were
dispatched to him. Believing they could trust his promises they surrendered to
the king. Without the consent of the municipality they allowed his troops to enter
the town. Many abominable acts were committed by these troops against young
girls and wives, and blasphemies against the sacrament of the body and blood of
the Lord Jesus Christ and persecutions against those who received communion
in the Utraquist manner, were also carried out and perpetrated by the villainous
troops of the aforementioned King Sigismund of Hungary—it is awful and absurd
even to write about such deeds.27 Also in these days the papal legate Fernando [de
Palacios], bishop of Lugo, who was in Slaný with Konrad, archbishop of Prague,
ordered the destruction of a box on the altar containing the body of Christ and
ordered that communion be given to common people with only one species.28
Indeed, it is said that he burned the sacrament of the Lord Christ, blessed by the
Hussite priests, and ordered the burning to death of one of the priests who was
unwilling to denounce the lay chalice, as if he were a most wicked Antichrist.
Next, in those days the king, leaving Slaný, arrived through Hrádek with his riders
in Žebrák, then to Tocník with only a few to see the treasures left behind after the
death of his late brother King Václav. Then he rode to Karlštejn and then to the
Monastery of Zbraslav. From there he went to Nový Hrad, and arrived in Prague,
wheeling round in a circle. From here he was led with his men to Vyšehrad, where
the clergy with relics came out to welcome him and accompanied him to Vyšeh-
rad. There he stayed for some time. He gathered peasants and ordered the digging
of moats around Zbraslav where he intended to station his troops.
Starvation in Prague Castle

Likewise, in those days the Germans from Lusatia and troops from other nations,
who were guarding Prague Castle and Hradčany, because the Praguers and Tábo-
rites were not allowing provisions to be supplied to them, suffered great hunger
[377] and were forced to eat horse meat and leaves from the grapevine. Some of
them, and especially the Czechs, finding a suitable time, left the castle and were
98
fleeing to the town of Prague. Others cut the veins of their horses and drove them
away so that they would not die in the castle, in order that they would not be of any
use to the Táborites. Had not the royalists of Vyšehrad once sent them bread and
other necessities, when they had driven away the sentinels of the Praguers, they
would have been forced to run away or surrender the castle to the Praguers. But
the aforementioned Praguers and Táborites at that time, by firing from catapults
erected in Pohořelec, were inflicting great damage on houses in Hradčany. How-
ever, the artillery in the Prague Castle and Hradčany destroyed these catapults.
Táborites burn captured monks

Next, on the feast of Corpus Christi, that is, on 6 June, the Táborites burned to
death two monks from Břevnov who refused to accept the Utraquist communion,
together with one priest and one German whom they captured near Hradčany.
Then on 12 June, while still on the battlefield, they burned to death near the walls
of Hradčany, so the story goes, four monks from Aula Regia who refused to accept
the Utraquist communion and to take off their cowls.
Sigismund supplies provisions to Prague Castle

and the ensuing battle
The same day towards evening the Hungarian king with many thousands of cav-
alry and wagons loaded with food and other provisions marched up to support
those who were in the castle and in Hradčany. The Táborites with the people of
Prague and those from Žatec and Louny, learning this, drew up battle lines and
arranged wagons and rushed to encounter the king. In the meantime, bread and
other provisions and gunpowder were supplied to the people in the castle, and sev-
eral hundred horses were transferred from Prague Castle to the royal army because
of a lack of fodder. When these things were done, the king with his people turned
back to return from where he had come. The Táborites with their allies pursued
him with flails, crossbows, and other weapons and were not allowing him to leave
in peace. Under attack, one royal unit turned back; the two sides met, a skirmish
broke out, and many from both sides fell [378]. More than 30 are buried at that
spot. Many royalists were wounded and taken away on wagons, and later were
buried near a certain church.
Praguers and Táborites retreat from Prague Castle

Next, on 14 June, the people of Prague, together with the people of Tábor and
others, were camped in front of Prague Castle and Hradčany. Noting that the
castle had already been stocked with provisions and that it would be difficult
to prevent supplies coming from all sides, they walked away from the field and
set fire to the monasteries of St. Anne [Mary Magdalene] and St. Thomas and
the house of the sub-chamberlain, together with many other houses.29 Then the
99
Táborites moved into the New Town and, concluding an agreement with the peo-
ple of Prague, they elected 12 captains: 4 from the New Town, 4 from the Old
Town, 4 from the Táborites and other newcomers, who would have control over
the 12 keys to the gates and towers, and prepare and oversee all things pertaining
to war. It was also decided that wives, whose men had left the town, and also sons
and daughters whose parents had left, should also leave, from both the New Town
and the Old Town, as they were suspected of betrayal, except for those who were
found loyal enough.
Táborites in Prague
Also, when the people of Prague had a second meeting with the Táborites and the
other arrivals, it was agreed upon unanimously that both the citizens of Prague and
the new arrivals should promote and defend all articles of the law of God and his
truth, that they should stamp out all public mortal sins that themselves or others
in the town might commit, that they should not have pity on the adversaries of
the truth, and that the new arrivals should join the people of Prague in guarding
the gates and towers of the city. Moreover, the aforementioned captains were to
exhibit all due diligence in all things relevant to the common good and for the
defense of the truth, and carry out all the aforementioned tasks faithfully, about
all and sundry of which lists were drawn up, both on the part of the inhabitants
of Prague and the newcomers. When all of these matters had been disposed of,
the Táborites moved into the Old Town of Prague with their horses and wagons.
They occupied royal houses and other houses abandoned by their owners, and
caused a lot of damage to the buildings every day. The women from Tábor [379]
remained in the Monastery of St. Ambrose in the New Town, breaking apart the
structures of the buildings in the monastery. Then by the unanimous consent of all,
allied together, as has been described, certain persons from both the inhabitants
of Prague and the newcomers were selected, who should see to it that those who
still did not take communion in the Utraquist fashion were driven out of town,
regardless of their status or gender. Therefore these men, chosen in this way, were
in session in the town hall almost every day, and they were calling forward all
those who had been denounced and placed under suspicion to them; and those
who were found out not to be taking the Utraquist communion were led out of the
town by constables under the standard of Lord Čeněk unfurled on a long pole, and
the municipality occupied their houses and properties.30 Moreover, some of the
Germans in particular, although they had already accepted the truth, and had taken
communion in the Utraquist manner or were promising to do so, were still ban-
ished from the city because some of them had full cellars.31 And so, in the exodus,
whether voluntary or involuntary, of the owners of many homes, various liquors,
grains, and other things for sustenance, which had been procured for sale at the
arrival of the king of Hungary and other guests to Prague, were abandoned, which
the community of Prague was placing at the disposal of the Táborites and other
newcomers. It was decided to serve various drinks on tap for low prices. One pint
100
of malmsey was on tap for 3 groschen; French wine was served for 11 pieces of
money; Austrian wine for 4 pieces of money; local [wine?] for 2 pieces of money;
good old beer for 1 piece of money.32 Because of this, some of the brothers and
sisters got drunk frequently with these beverages that they were not used to, and
that they drank immoderately.
Then, on 21 June, fruit trees were cut down in the archbishop’s garden by the
municipality of Prague and the Táborites so that their enemies could not hide
under them, and the same day the convent of St. Mary Magdalene, together with
many small houses in the Lesser Town, was burned down [380].
Oldřich of Rožmberk disavows the lay chalice

Next, on 23 June during the vigil of St. John Baptist, Lord Oldřich of Rožmberk,
at that time still a friend of the truth, on the order of the Roman king Sigismund, as
it is believed, with numerous troops of cavalry and infantry, taking in his services
Krajíř with his German, and especially Austrian, mercenaries, surrounded in force
the mountain of Hradiště near Ústí, which was controlled by the Táborites.33 He
hoped that he would be able to overwhelm the Táborites, who were not many at
that time, so that his goods would not be despoiled by their raids and destruction
by fire. He also had in his army priests who were displaying the sacrament of the
blood of the Lord Christ in the tents and were giving the Utraquist communion to
his courtiers.
Moreover, it happened that when he went with a small entourage to the Castle
of Žebrák to meet the king, overwhelmed by fear, he disavowed the Utraquist com-
munion, as it is believed, and received absolution from the pope’s legate Fernando
[de Palacios], the bishop of Lugo, together with certain other barons and nobles of
the kingdom. This was a great scandal for many of the supporters of the truth of
the lay chalice, and to the peril and harm of his own soul.
And so, returning to his army, he ordered that the sacrament be removed from
the altars34 and forebade any of his men to receive the Utraquist communion, thus
unwittingly revealing the inconstancy that the lameness of his feet demonstrated
clearly.35 For this, he did not escape the revenge of God. Mikuláš of Hus, one
of the captains of the Táborites, sensing trouble for the brothers and sisters on
Hradiště Mountain, immediately marched out from Prague on 25 June, at night-
time, with the other Táborites who were there, taking with him almost 350 cavalry
to help his brothers and sisters. When on 30 June he was approaching the mountain
with a small band, at dawn [381], with the knowledge of the brothers and sisters
on the mountain, the Táborite brothers ran down with a loud shout and attacked
their enemies with impunity, together with the aforementioned Mikuláš of Hus.
Their enemies were terrified, as God had sent fear on them, and after only little
resistance they turned back and ran away, leaving behind much equipment, despite
the fact that there were 20 of them for every Táborite. The Táborites followed
them and killed many of them, wounding and capturing others. Thus, praising
God for the victory he gave them, they took large spoils in gold, silver, money,
101
clothing, cups, silver belts, expensive vestments, cannons, hutches, tents, and no
small amount of drinks and other provisions, and with great joy entered Hradiště,
distributing the booty and giving to everyone from the spoils they had taken what-
ever they needed. They also took one catapult, left behind by their enemies, to the
mountain, with the other one having been destroyed. Therefore Lord Rožmberk,
being very much humiliated, and wishing to be avenged on the score of the Tábo-
rites, ordered the exile of all Utraquist priests in the towns belonging to his lands,
that is, in Příběnice and Chustník, in Helffmburk, in Krumlov, in Rožmberk, and
Nový Hrad, and furthermore attempted to force them to denounce the Utraquist
communion. But he by no means achieved this since God was preserving those
priests in constant adherence to his truth. Nevertheless, the lord of Rožmberk did
torture to death two of them in the Castle of Helffmberk, and by approximately the
middle of the year, like a tyrannical persecutor of the acknowledged truth, he was
filling the others with the bread of sorrow and the water of anguish.36 This was not
sufficient to satisfy his cruelty, and he kept heaping up evil upon evil. He forbade
and stopped the people from receiving or taking of communion in the Utraquist
manner in his lands, on account of which, as will be made clear in what follows, he
suffered many damages to his properties from the Táborites, who repeatedly and
by various means were seizing and laying waste to his goods.
Hussites intervene in Hradec Králové

At the same time the venerable Lord Aleš of Vřesov, an unabashed champion of
the truth and of the law of Christ, along with Beneš of Mokrovousy and [382]
Jiřík of Chvalkovice who were also defenders of the Utraquist communion and
other true doctrines, learned that in Hradec and in the surrounding area there were
monks and priests opposed to the law of God who were grievously oppressing
true Christians and cruelly forcing the faithful to renounce the truth.37 These bar-
ons were also motivated by a deep sorrow over the shameful rape of both young
and married women violently perpetrated by those enemies of the truth, some of
whom were domestic while others were foreign. With the approval of God, they
hoped, they gathered together from the area a large company of peasants and min-
ers on the high and strong mountain of Kunětice above Pardubice. They intended
to put an end to these aforementioned wicked deeds and to set free the truth of the
Utraquist communion. They were joined by a priest from Hradec named Ambrož
whom Queen Sophia and her officials had recently expelled. He had been living
in Prague but he set out to join this group paying no heed to the dangers of travel.
His preaching in that place and his celebration of the sacrament of the holy body
and blood of Christ in both species turned the minds of those who were sorrowful
and weeping to joy and celebration.
Finally, on the Wednesday after the feast of St. John the Baptist [24 June], the
priest ordered that ladders be brought and they set out marching with the Lords
Aleš, Beneš, and Jiřík and all the gathered company, and pretended that their
objective was Podlažice. As night fell spies reported to the city of Hradec that the
102
movement was in the direction of Podlažice.38 The people of Hradec were made
to feel secure by this, and did not guard the city as diligently as they usually did
that night. And so at nighttime, Ambrož in command, with his multitude, directed
their course to Hradec and, approaching the city around dawn, threw themselves
up against the walls with their ladders. There were only a few defenders to offer
resistance, the rest of the city was in confusion, and so the attackers were able to
secure the battlements in a short time. When morning came, that is the morning
of 26 June, some of the defenders fled to the castle [383], and others to the towers
above the gates, and thus the attackers were now the masters of the town, to the
great joy and exultation of the friends and partisans of the truth. After some of the
adversaries of the truth had been captured, and those who had fled to the castle and
the towers surrendered themselves, they led them out of the city, and the friends
and supporters of the law of God were fortifying the city, and elected the afore-
mentioned Lord Aleš, along with Lords Beneš and Jiřík, as captains. They also
divided among themselves the goods of those who had been expelled, distributing
their homes to those who had proven their mettle in holding fast to the law of
Christ, and the town was carefully guarded both day and night.
The king, hearing this, was very much disturbed and all his people with him.
Therefore, the barons of the kingdom, with more than 10,000 selected soldiers
of Bohemia and Moravia, a most elegant multitude, set out on the order of the
king to surround the town. They encamped in the fields about half a mile from
the town. They dared to get no closer on account of the danger, and they forged a
letter saying that the city of Prague had made a truce with the king, which would
be in effect until a particular date, and encouraged the people of Hradec to do the
same. The people of Hradec, thus deceived, made a truce with the royalists for
as long as they did not have a response from Prague.39 But the people of Hradec,
when they learned of their perfidy, renounced the aforementioned deceitful terms
of peace, and therefore were guarding the city even more diligently and vigilantly,
and strengthening it with provisions.
Notes
1 This was Fernando Martínez de Palacios, who was bishop of Lugo, in northwest Spain, between
1418 and 1434 and who possessed legatine jurisdiction on behalf of Pope Martin V. Manuel
Risco, ed., España sagrado: Teatro geográphico-histórico de la Iglesia de España, Vol. 41, De la
Santa Iglesia de Lugo (Madrid: En la Oficina de la Viuda é Hyo de Marin, 1798), pp. 132–5.
2 ‘Scribes and pharisees’ is a frequent term (more than 50 references) in the synoptic gospels of the
New Testament characterizing groups in conflict with Christ. Ellis Rivkin, ‘Scribes, Pharisees,
Lawyers, Hypocrites: A Study in Synonymity,’ Hebrew Union College Annual 49 (1978), pp.
135–42.
3 Jan Krása, was a Prague burger, reported to have been a councilor in the New Town several times
in the period between 1390 and 1413. He held the house called ‘U Věnečků’ (at the wreaths) in
the New Town Square from 1382. František Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z
Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u Domažlic (Prague: Svoboda, 1979), p. 335. This
explains why he is sometimes referred to as ‘Krása Venecník.’ I have never seen any evidence to
support the contention that Krása had been a civil councilor.
103
4 The text of Martin V’s crusade bull Omnium plasmatoris domini, dated 1 March 1420, is in Thomas
A. Fudge, The Crusade Against Heretics in Bohemia, 1418–1437: Sources and Documents for the
Hussite Crusade (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), pp. 49–52. Wrocław was a prominent Silesian city
boasting economic might, a regional center, and a strong mercantile and financial hub. Moreover,
it maintained close ties with the royal house. After Prague, Wrocław was possibly the second most
important city in the kingdom.
5 This group of royalists included the Grand Master of the Hospitallers of St. John in Strakonice,
Jindřich of Hradec, who was fatally wounded in the battle. Frederick G. Heymann, John Žižka
and the Hussite Revolution (New York: Russell & Russell, 1969), pp. 93–4.
6 Markold was an important Táborite priest from the small town of Zbraslavice located south
of Kutná Hora. He accompanied the Hussite delegation to the Council in Basel in 1433 and
participated in the Battle of Lipany in 1434 where he was killed. František Šimek, ed., Staré
letopisy české (Prague: Nákladem historického spolku a společnosti Husova musea, 1937), p. 67.
7 Located between Písek and Strakonice in southwest Bohemia.
8 The Sárkanyrend (in Latin Societatis draconistrarum), or the Order of the Dragon, was established
in 1408 by Sigismund with the aim of protecting the Hungarian royal house. The order had as its
symbol a circular dragon with its tail circling its neck. On the dragon’s back was the red cross
of St. George. See Eberhart Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser
Sigmunds, ed. Wilhelm Altmann (Berlin: R. Gaertners Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1893), p. 138 for
an elaboration of the order’s functions. Windecke used a pfälzer dialect. The foundation statutes
of the order (Latin), dated 13 December 1408, have been edited in György Fejér, ed., Codex
diplomaticus Hungariae, vol. 10, pt. 4 (Buda: typis typogr: Regiae Universitatis Hungaricae,
1841), pp. 682–94. See also John Jefferson, The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad:
The Ottoman–Christian Conflict from 1438–1444 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 131–4. Originally,
there were only 24 members. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p.
337. The biblical reference to the red dragon is Revelation 12:3.
9 Jan Želivský was among the most important preachers in Prague during the events described
in the chronicle. David R. Holeton, ‘Revelation and Revolution in Late Medieval Bohemia,’
Communio Viatorum 36, no. 1 (1994), pp. 29–45.
10 The text of (K) ends here. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish Library, MS Thott
688 2°, p. 30.
11 At this time, Vyšehrad was not considered an independent town as part of Prague.
12 Burgrave was a medieval term signifying the governor or ruler of a castle.
13 The text can be found in Fudge, The Crusade Against Heretics in Bohemia, pp. 60–3. A prominent
signatory, Čeněk of Vartemberk, to underscore his resolve, returned to Sigismund the Order of the
Dragon awarded to him. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 338.
14 Hynek Krušina is better associated with Lichtenburg, a castle situated ten miles south of Pardubice.
Kumburk Castle was an early fourteenth-century foundation located 55 miles northeast of Prague.
Hynek had supported the reform movement since 1415 and his name was included among those
protesting to the Council of Constance over the death of Jan Hus. According to Josef Bujnoch,
ed., Die Hussiten: Die Chronik des Laurentius von Březová 1414–1421 (Graz: Verlag Styria,
1988), p. 307 he separated from the Orebites after 1425 and died around 1454. Třebechovice was
a small town at the foot of the mountain called Oreb. This stood a few miles east of the important
eastern Bohemian town of Hradec Králové. Like Tábor, the name Oreb (or Horeb) is derived
from Scripture. In the case of the latter, Oreb was the mountain of God where the famous story
of Moses and the burning bush occurred (Exodus 3:1–6). In some of the Hebrew Bible narratives
(J and P) the mountain is called Sinai while in other narratives (E and D) it is called Horeb. The
Hussites, known as Orebites, have been studied by J.B. Čapek, ‘K vývoji a problematice bratrstva
Orebského,’ Jihočeský sborník historický 35 (1966), pp. 92–109; and J.B. Čapek, ‘Hnutí orebské
a jeho vztahy k Táboru,’ Jihočeský sborník historický 40 (Supplement, 1971), pp. 68–72.
15 The Church of St. Apollinaris was established by Charles IV in 1362 and the Gothic construction
was completed by 1390.
104
16 Václav of Leštno, also of Dubá, was one of the two imperial knights assigned to escort Jan Hus
to Constance in 1414. While Jan of Chlum became a supporter of the Hussite movement, Václav
of Dubá remained a fervent royalist. Following his coronation, Sigismund appointed the latter as
chamberlain with authority over royal towns and castles.
17 This was a Benedictine monastery in the New Town, established in 1347, which observed a Slavic
rite. It was later known as the Emmaus Monastery, also Na Slovanech, or sometimes simply
Slovany. Jan Petr and Sáva Šabouk, eds., Z tradic slovanské kultury v Cechách: Sázava a Emauzy
v dějinách české kultury (Prague: Universita Karlova, 1975). The monastic church was dedicated
to saints Jerome, Cyril, Methodius, Vojtěch (Adalbert), and Prokop (Procopius).
18 Hynek of Kolštejn was a diplomat, conservative Hussite, and provincial administrator who was
involved in many campaigns between 1420 and 1426. He was murdered in Prague in 1427.
19 The castle dates to the fourteenth century and is best associated with the coercion of the suffragan
bishop of Prague into consecrating an indeterminate number of postulants to holy orders in 1417
as recorded later in the chapter. Ledeč is situated on the Sázava River 55 miles southeast of
Prague and 40 miles northeast of Tábor.
20 These red crosses are more likely to have been crusader crosses rather than an indication of
Sigismund’s Order of the Dragon. For fifteenth-century depictions of such crosses in the Hussite
context see the Jena Codex, Prague, KNM MS IV B 24, fol. 56r and Johannes Hartlieb, Liber de
arte bellica germanicus, Vienna, ÖNB MS 3062, fol. 147v.
21 This gate stood at the northeastern part of the New Town near the Vltava River close to where the
Church of St. Peter’s stood during the Hussite period. The island mentioned by the chronicler is
unnamed though he may have had Stvanice in mind. In the late Middle Ages, there may have been
other islands in the vicinity that have now disappeared.
22 Břevnov was the oldest Benedictine house in Bohemia having been founded in 993. It was located
west of Prague on the road between Prague Castle and White Mountain.
23 Master Petr was probably a priest of Louny, and may actually have been Vavřinec of Březová’s
vicar in this parish. Louny records refer to an ‘Old Peter,’ who may have been an elder Hussite
priest in the region. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 340.
24 Founded in 1121, the Apostolic Gate was a Benedictine house of some renown and wealth in the
fifteenth century. It was located between Louny and Slaný on the Ohře River near what is now the
town of Postoloprty.
25 Strahov Monastery and Pohořelec were situated about a quarter of a mile southwest of the castle.
Laurence has noted above that Hussites had set ablaze that Praemonstratensian monastery two to
three weeks earlier. Throughout the crusade period, both sides attempted to cut off supply lines
intended for the other. These included strategic planning from a military point of view. Roads
were blockaded, suppliers were isolated, food and strategic goods were impounded at the point
of transport, diverted, or confiscated before reaching their intended destination. These measures
were in addition to the trade ban imposed on Hussites. The work of Alexandra Kaar is important
on this latter initiative. Alexandra Kaar, Wirtschaft, Krieg und Seelenheil: Papst Martin V., Kaiser
Sigismund und das Handelsverbot gegen die Hussiten in Böhmen (Vienna and Cologne: Böhlau
Verlag, forthcoming, 2020).
26 The Labe is the Czech name for the Elbe River.
27 Probably parallels comments found elsewhere in the chronicle where Laurence does write
explicitly about violence and atrocity.
28 The box or pyx likely contained the sacrament consecrated by Hussites, which the bishop found
both illegitimate and objectionable.
29 The correction is evident in the fifteenth-century Czech translation.
30 Čeněk’s standard was earlier taken down and placed on the pillory where it remained for more
than a year. See Goll, FRB, vol. 5, p. 367 and 483. It is unclear how the banner is being used
here.
31 Around 1,400 Germans were expelled from the city and their houses and possessions were
requisitioned. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 341.
105
32 The currency is not specified. Malmsey or Malvasia was a popular medieval wine. Haris Kalligas,
‘Monemvasia, Seventh-Fifteenth Centuries,’ in Angelika E. Laiou, ed., The Economic History of
Byzantium: From the Seventh Through the Fifteenth Century (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks,
2002), pp. 879–97. Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 311 noted that Malwasia was a port city on the
southeastern coast of the Peloponnese. He believes the reference provides proof that there was a
trade in Greek wine that presumably arrived by sea via Trieste or Venice and thereafter to Central
Europe. The word pinta indicates about a half liter so in this sense it corresponds with the English
pint. On the Lower Rhine, in the vernacular, this indicates a pub with beer.
33 John Klassen, ‘The Public and Domestic Faces of Ulrich of Rozmberk,’ Sixteenth Century
Journal 31, no. 3 (2000), pp. 699–718.
34 The text of (K) recommences here. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish Library,
MS Thott 688 2°, p. 31. The gap is about 5,000 words of missing text.
35 Hussites referred to Oldřich of Rožmberk derogatorily as ‘the lame devil’ on account of his
affliction. Noted in Otakar Odložilík, The Hussite King: Bohemia in European Affairs, 1440–
1471 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1965), p. 28.
36 Among the victims of Oldřich of Rožmberk’s machinations, who may have been starved to
death, was Jan Jesenice, who had previously been Hus’s attorney and had remained faithful to the
Hussite cause. There are only scattered references and comments in English. The main source is
Jiří Kejř, Husitský pravník: M. Jan z Jesenice (Prague: ČSAV, 1965).
37 The city of Hradec Králové was a center of Hussite activity and an important ally of Prague and
associated with the Orebites of eastern Bohemia throughout the 1420s and 1430s.
38 Podlažice was a Benedictine house founded in the early thirteenth century and it lay southeast of
Chrudim. This is the monastery where the famous ‘Devil’s Bible’ (Codex Gigas) was produced
between 1238 and 1245. That codex is now at Stockholm, National Library of Sweden, MS A
148 and physically (92 x 50 x 22 cm and weighing 75 kilos/165 pounds) is the largest surviving
illuminated medieval manuscript. Zdeněk Uhlíř, et al., Codex Gigas—The Devil’s Bible: The
Secrets of the World’s Largest Book, trans., Kateřina Millerová and Sean Mark Miller (Prague:
National Library of the Czech Republic, 2007), esp. pp. 17–44.
39 Such deceptions were not uncommon. In 1271, the Krac des Chevaliers, a crusader fortress in
Syria, was surrendered to Baibars, the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt, after a fraudulent letter from
the Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller in Tripoli granted permission to the catellan to
surrender. Jean Mesqui and Maxime Goepp, Le Crac des Chevaliers: Historie et Architecture
(Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2018).
106
5
C RU SA DE AGAINST TH E CHALI CE,

A ND THE F OUR ARTI CLES
On 30 June, which was the Sunday after the feast day of St. Peter the apostle,
the Hungarian king Sigismund approached the fortress of Prague with a strong
army composed of both Czechs and foreigners from many different countries.
Following a celebration of the Mass he was solemnly received by the clergy in a
procession at Prague Castle with some of his more important men, with the great
bells tolling, and with hymns and songs. Meanwhile his army set up tents on the
flat ground located in the plain between Bruska and Ovenec and extending to the
garden of the wild beasts, in order to conquer Prague, which was considered a
heretical city on account of the communion of the holy chalice and other truths
of the Gospel.1 From one day to the next, many hosts from different parts of the
world, duchies, provinces, and regions, were streaming to this place in the fields in
support of the papal crusade that had been unjustly called for against the Czechs
and especially those who supported the lay chalice [384], for the purpose of con-
quering the famous and magnificent city of Prague and thus annihilating and put-
ting an end to the lay chalice. By this they hoped to obtain indulgences from their
guilt and punishment. This is what their priests had, albeit falsely, promised them
in order to stir them up as much as possible to wipe out all the faithful Czechs of
both genders.2
Therefore in this army, whose numbers were growing above 150,000 men in
arms, there were archbishops, bishops, the patriarch of Aquileia, a number of doc-
tors of theology and other prelates, dukes, and secular princes, approximately 40
in all, margraves, counts, barons and nobles, knights with their servants, towns-
people from various cities, and peasants.3 They occupied the entire plain of the
aforementioned fields and their extravagant tents were situated so that it appeared
there were three great cities. From these numerous nations, these were the peo-
ples, ethnicities, and languages: Bohemians and Moravians, Hungarians, Croats,
Dalmatians, Bulgarians, Wallachians, Szekelys, Huns, Tassyans, Ruthenians, Rus-
sians, Slavonians, Prussians, Serbs, Thuringians, Styrians, Misnians, Bavarians,
Saxons, Austrians, Franconians, Frenchmen, Englishmen, those of Brabant and
Westphalia, Dutch, Swiss, Lusatians, Swabians, Carinthians, Aragonese, Span-
iards, Poles, Rhineland Germans, and very many others.4
107
Every day they stood on the top of the hill above the river, opposite the Monastery
of the Holy Cross and the Church of St. Valentine and howled like dogs across the
river to the city: ‘Ha, Ha, Hus, Hus, Heretic, Heretic!’ If perchance a Czech fell into
their hands and was not quickly set free by the other Czechs camped in the fields,
that person was immediately and without mercy burned as a heretic, even if he or
she had never partaken in communion in the Utraquist manner. Quite frequently
they were engaged in military skirmishes with the Praguers on the sandy ground
below the Bruska and in the archbishop’s garden, and were receiving great damages
in terms of both their properties and their bodies. Many times five or ten Praguers,
wearing only a coat, and well armed with flails, put to flight a large number of sol-
diers [385] fitted with the best quality weapons and armor, falling upon them and
often beating many of them to death on the ground. Finally, the crusaders managed
neither to break through the barriers of the mills across from the Monastery of the
Holy Cross nor burn those mills down even though they tried to do so often.5 They
always returned, either defeated or in confusion, and accomplishing nothing.
Now that the king of Hungary, Sigismund, had thus taken to the field in power
against the city of Prague, as noted previously, with his army of both Czechs and
foreigners, he began to plot to fortify the hill close to the gallows, which was
called Vítkov Hill, with his soldiers so as to make it a third fortress and thereby
cut off the city of Prague so that no free access for provisions would be given to
the city.6 Anticipating this, Jan Žižka, the captain of the Táborites, without delay,
ordered the erecting of two bulwarks in the form of a building with a small trench
dug around them and enclosed by a wall of mud and stones. Indeed, through this
bulwark, the Lord almighty brought about the salvation of the city of Prague in a
miraculous way, because the enemies who suffered defeat at this spot did not again
attempt to invade the town with hostile intent, as shall be shown in what follows.
Crusaders and martyrs in Bohemia

On the Saturday after the feast day of St. Prokop, that is to say on 6 July, the duke
of Austria rode with a strong army through Miličína to Prague to join the armies
of King Sigismund.7 About 60 of his men turned off at Arnoštovice and arrested
the local priest, Master Václav, a man loved by both God and the people, who
had been betrayed by certain Czech priests, together with his vicar, on account
of his support of the Utraquist communion. They were both placed on a single
horse and carried off to the army of the duke in the village of Bystřice. There they
were removed from the horse and presented to the duke as contumacious heretics.
Throughout almost the whole of the night they led the frightened men from the
duke to the bishop and back, just as Jesus was led back and forth from Caiphas
to Pilate.8 They intimidated and threatened them with fire unless they were to
renounce the aforementioned Utraquist communion and do penance. Master
Václav answered them with humility saying, ‘This is the gospel and the practice
[386] of the early church, and it is written here in your own Mass book. Delete
this part of the Scripture, or repress this Gospel.’9 One of the warriors standing
108
there with an iron glove on his hand was not afraid to strike the aforementioned
Master Václav in the jaw, whereupon blood immediately gushed heavily from his
nose. After they had tortured him and his companions many times, they went to
sleep there. When morning came, which was Sunday, they put this Master Václav,
together with his vicar and three old peasants as well as four children who were
standing firmly for the truth, one of whom was aged 7, the other 8, another 10,
and the last of them 11, all together on a pile of wood overlooking the fish pond in
the aforementioned village, in a seated position. The people who gathered around
appealed to them, saying that they might still renounce their faith if they wished
to live. In reply, Master Václav, like a true shepherd of his sheep, answered saying,
‘Far be it from us to do what you suggest. No, we would rather die, not one, but
a hundred deaths before we would deny the manifestly clear truth of the gospel.’
Immediately the executioners set fire to the bottom of the stack of wood. The
children, who sat in the arms of Master Václav like young apprentices, and were
embraced by him, singing a hymn to God, died quickly. The others died much
slower, so that Master Václav was the last to hand over his spirit to God, crowned
with martyrdom along with the others allied to him, as it is piously believed. So,
we miserable ones, what shall we do? The uneducated, peasants and children rise
up and obtain heaven through the crown of martyrdom. Truly we who are living
in temptation approach every day nearer to eternal damnation; may God who lives
and reigns, blessed through all ages, deign to rescue us from this fate.
At the same time, Vojtěch, a parish priest in the village of Chelčice, which is
located near the town of Vodňany, since this man feared God, and agreed with
them in nothing but support for the lay chalice, shocked by the pillaging and vio-
lence committed by the Táborites, was captured by Hrzek, an official from Tuřov, a
town in the same area, solely on account of the lay chalice. Together with another
priest he was brought to the town of České Budějovice and presented to the city
as heretics, and both were immediately thrown into the tower [387]. After perhaps
three weeks of refusing to renounce the chalice they were burned to death outside
the town. All honor be yours, O Lord, for allowing to endure to the end those who
fear you and who do not shrink back from all kinds of torture.
Then, on 13 July, that is to say, on the feast day of St. Margaret, a group of soldiers
from the army advanced onto the Hospital Field, and attacked the city in order to
determine how the Praguers were defending themselves.10 When they approached
the city, the bells of the town hall rang out, and a crowd of the Praguers rushed
toward them. Failing to maintain any semblance of order, not restraining themselves,
and against the will of their commanders, they attacked the large force of cavalry
even though they were outnumbered. Having become involved in the fight, the peo-
ple of Prague, seeing the strength of the crusaders, fled, with some of them killed
and many more wounded. Then, when a large force arrived from the city, the ene-
mies retreated and withdrew across the Vltava from where they had come. Four
peasants killed one knight from their number and while they stood quarrelling over
his weapons, others from his company came rushing up quickly and immediately
mortally wounded these four peasants on the same spot and then retreated.
109
Heretics versus crusaders in the battle for Prague

On the following day [14 July], that is on the Sunday immediately after the
feast day of St. Margaret, around the fourth hour of the evening, the entire
army of the king stood ready in order that some of them in their many thou-
sands would storm and conquer the wooden battlement that had been erected
by Žižka on the mountain near the gallows. After this had been accomplished,
the remaining army, according to the command of their captains, was to invade
the city of Prague at three points. From the fortress of Prague [Hradčany], a
force of 16,000 would attack the house of the duke of Saxony. From Vyšehrad
they would push ahead into the New Town, and from the Hospital Field they
would break into the Old Town. When these plans were laid, several thousand
horsemen advanced onto the Hospital Field while the king waited with three
large armies on the far side of the Vltava in order to watch the outcome of the
endeavour [388].11 Those from Meißen climbed the mountain with their own
troops and the 7,000 or 8,000 cavalry allied to them, in force and with trumpets
blowing, and launched an assault on the aforementioned wooden battlement,
successfully crossing the moat and taking the watchtower in the vineyard.
When they wanted to scale the walls made from mud and stone, two women,
with one girl and perhaps 26 men who had remained temporarily in the bul-
wark, offered brave resistance with stones and spears and were repulsing the
attackers, despite having neither shells nor gunpowder. One of these women,
even though she was unarmed, surpassed even the courage of the men, refusing
to yield a single step, saying that it was wrong for a faithful Christian to yield
to an Antichrist. Fighting with great zeal, she was killed and breathed her last.
Then Žižka came to their defense, and he himself would have been killed had
his own men not come with flails and rescued him from the hands of his ene-
mies. Just as practically the entire city was terrified at the prospect of its doom,
and the citizens were pouring out tears and prayers with their small children,
counting on heaven alone to aid them, a priest approached with the sacrament
of the body of Christ. Behind him were about 50 archers and a number of
peasants, unarmed except for flails. When the enemies saw the sacrament and
heard the little bell, together with the loud cries of the people, laid low by pow-
erful fear, they turned their backs, fleeing in haste, everyone trying to get in
front of those before them. Many were unable to keep their balance against the
onslaught and fell from the high rocks and broke their necks, and many more
were killed by their pursuers. Within an hour more than 300 of them were slain
while others were mortally wounded or captured.12
Triumph and celebration of the Hussites

After this happened, the king returned to his camp together with his entire
army, full of rage, disgust, lamentation, and grief. The soldiers of Prague gath-
ered on the Hospital Field and there knelt and gave thanks to God, singing the
110
Te Deum Laudamus with loud voices, since God, and not their own power, had
miraculously given them victory over their enemies, although they were few.13
And so with songs and hymns, they entered the city dancing. The mourning of
the women, girls, and small children, all of whom the enemies of the truth were
meaning to viciously slaughter without mercy, as obstinate heretics, and the chil-
dren of heretics, was changed by the lyre into the joy [389] of rapture and exul-
tation, and they were praising the mercy of God, who had delivered them in his
power from the hands of their cruel enemies. On the following day and ever since
that time the children of Prague ran through all the streets of the town singing a
new song that the priest [Jan] Čapek composed in the common language.14
Children, let us sing to God

give him honor and praise
with all the elders.
For Germans, Misnians, Hungarians,

Swabians, also Austrians,
[and] Czech traitors
he grieved, frightened, even
scattered [them] away from little children
one here, another there,
for the consolation of his faithful beloved.
Dear Father, receive praise

from faithful Czechs!
Let us praise God with joy
as the Scripture commands all of us.
Activities of the radical priest Koranda

On the following Monday, following the heaven-sent victory over the enemies,
[Václav] Koranda [of Plzeň], a priest of peculiar and unsound mind, together
with some nuns from Plzeň, entered the holy Church of St. Michael in the Old
Town quite presumptuously mounted on a horse. Having no respect for the sac-
rament of the body of Christ that was exposed upon the altar, he ordered his
companions to destroy all of the benches used by the priests as well as the laity,
saying they were more useful for the protection and fortification of the new
bulwark that had been raised on Vítkov.15 As it turned out, this scandalous deed
had been undertaken not for the reinforcement of the bulwark at all, but merely
to satisfy his ill will and deep hatred that he was inwardly nursing against this
church and its ministers, because only a few of the planks were actually carried
onto the hill, whereas most of them were burned by the Táborite sisters at St.
Ambrose.
111
Elevation of the chalice

Next, following this wonderful victory over the enemies, the captain Žižka imme-
diately the next day called together a large number of women, girls, and laypeople
from Prague. He then undertook a strong reinforcement of the frequently men-
tioned bulwark with a larger number of wider and deeper trenches as well as many
walls and a number of wooden battlements, as one can indeed see.16 Some people
called this mountain and this place Žižka, after the name of the founder. Others
called it the ‘Place of the Battle’ because here the Germans had been defeated. A
third group named it, more appropriately, ‘the Mountain of the Chalice’ or simply
‘Chalice.’ This was on account of the fact that the enemies of the chalice were laid
low there by those who were fighting with God’s support for the chalice [390]. In
order to distinguish themselves these people wore a red and white chalice on their
clothes, armor, and standard.17
Retribution and negotiation

Then, when the Germans and the mercenaries saw that they had been miserably
defeated by a band of peasants, they blamed the Czechs allied to them and said that
they had been betrayed in confusion by them, that is, by the Czechs. Had the king not
intervened, they would have laid each other on the ground that same day. Right after
this, on the following day, they burned down surrounding villages and fortifications
everywhere as revenge for their fallen comrades. They savagely threw the women and
children, whom they were able to seize, into the fire, like heathens. In doing this they
earned the punishment of eternal fire for themselves, unless they repented , but for
those they burned it represented a great joy and their eternal reward.
Following the aforementioned, unexpected defeat of the Germans, the city of
Prague had peace from frequent hostile attacks. The Germans no longer shouted,
‘Hus, Hus, Heretic, Heretic’ but instead they reflected peacefully every day about
how they might leave the country of Bohemia and return to their own homeland.
So the barons of the kingdom, on behalf of the king, considering this, entered
into a series of negotiations with the citizens of Prague from the other side of the
bridge. They wanted the city to accept terms of peace with the king in order that
they might escape with honor from the foreign armies and also so that the entire
country would not be destroyed. The negotiators for the city replied that it was
impossible to ratify any treaty unless they had the agreement of the other cities to
which they were allied. However, for their honor and for the honor of the entire
kingdom they asked for a public audience with the king for the magistrates and the
priests so that, in four languages, that is, Czech, German, Hungarian, and Latin,
they might clearly and openly present the truth of the Four Articles for which the
Praguers had fought with their supporters against the king, speaking from the
Scriptures to the whole army, and thus show their innocence, and remove the seri-
ous and malicious infamy by which they were stained throughout the whole king-
dom from the hearts of their enemies, and, if there were need of this, to respond
112
to all the objections made against them by the king’s doctors of theology. The city
managed to accomplish this, as mentioned previously, promised by the delegation
and the nobles with letters and seals.18 However, the barons, complaining, were
speaking deceitfully, and said that it would not be right [391] to give dukes to the
city as hostages while the magistrates went to the fortress [Hradčany], but that it
must be sufficient for the city to take barons and knights in their place. Although
the community of Prague agreed to this, the aforementioned lords made no fur-
ther negotiations about the promised audience. On account of this, the Masters of
Prague, having compiled the Four Articles, along with arguments for validity, in
Latin, German, and Czech, dispatched them to the army in the following form.19
The Four Articles of Prague

We, the burgomaster of the citizens, councilors and public officials and the whole
community of the city of Prague, the capital of the Czech kingdom, in our own name
and the name of all the faithful of this kingdom, have insisted upon the following. Let
it be known to all the faithful of Christ that the Christian faithful in the Kingdom of
Bohemia insist upon and, God willing, intend to continue on insisting upon the fol-
lowing articles, either in death or in life, insofar as it is possible for them.
First: That the word of God should be preached by the priests of the Lord in
a civil manner throughout the Czech kingdom, freely and without interference,
according to the words of the Savior himself in the last chapter of St. Mark [16:15]:
Go out into the world and preach the Gospel to all creation. And likewise in the
final chapter of St. Matthew [28:19–20]. According to the words of the apostle
Paul, the word of God is not bound, but it should be proclaimed so that the word of
God may be promoted and made clear everywhere, according to the third chapter
of the second letter to the Thessalonians [3:1]. In addition, the fourteenth chapter
of the first letter to the Corinthians [14:39] says that no one should be prevented
from speaking in tongues in the Church of God.20
Second: That the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist should be ministered freely
in both species, that is, with bread and wine, to all the faithful of Christ who are not
prevented by any mortal sin, according to what the Savior said and instituted, when he
said: ‘Take and eat! This is my body; and take this, and drink of it, all of you; for this
is my blood, the blood of the new covenant, which will be poured for many,’ according
to Matthew 26[:26–8], Mark 14[:22–24], and Luke 22[:17–19], where he gives this
command to the apostles, saying: ‘Do this.’ Finally, the gloss between the lines says:
‘Take this and give it to others in memory of me’ [392]. In John 6[:53–6] the Saviour
commands all the faithful to receive this sacrament, saying:
Amen, amen, I say to you, if you do not eat the body of the Son of God, and
drink his blood, you will not have any life in yourselves. Whoever eats my
body and drinks my blood, has eternal life. For my body is true food and my
blood is true drink. Whoever eats my body and drinks my blood, resides in
me and I in him.
113
Likewise, in the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11 [11:28]: ‘Moreo-

ver a man should examine himself, and eat of this bread and drink of this cup.’
This is also supported by the canon of Pope Gelasius, in De consecratione,
distinction II:21
We find moreover that some, having received only a part of Christ’s body,
abstain from the chalice of his holy blood; those who without doubt were
brought up in the bondage of some superstition. Let them either receive the
whole sacrament, or abstain from them wholly, because there can be no sepa-
ration of one self-contained ministry without serious sacrilege.
The Carthaginian council is in agreement with this and it is set down in Canon
26, question. 6, Is qui.22 And in the canon of St. Gregory’s common Easter
preaching, where it is written De consecratione distinctione II Quid sit.23 And in
the canon of St. Augustine in the section Dum frangitur and in his other canon
Quia passus.24 Likewise, in the canon of St. Jerome on the prophet Zephaniah,
and it is also set down in part one question one Sacerdotes.25 The same thing
is taught by St. Dionysius in the book Concerning the Church Hierarchy in the
chapter on the sacrament, and by the martyr Cyprian in ‘Letter 37 Concerning
the Lapsed.’26 Likewise, by St. Ambrose in his books on the sacraments, and
it is set down in distinction II regarding consecration.27 Likewise, Origen in
his sixteenth homily on Numbers and Augustine in his first book De symbolo
and the same in his Lenten sermon.28 Likewise, Ambrose in his hymn: ‘Let the
angelic host exult,’ and in the books of the Tripartite History, and likewise Bede
in his homily on chapter 1 of John’s Gospel, and Pope Leo in his Lenten sermon
that begins: ‘As I am about to preach to you..’29 Likewise, Fulgentius’s ‘Con-
cerning the Divine Office,’ in the book whose prologue begins thus: ‘Those
things which come in the course of a year …’ Likewise, Remigius writing on
1 Corinthians 10:[16]: ‘The cup we bless … ’30 Likewise, Thomas, section 4
q. 48, and again the same in part 3 q. 76, and q. 73 article 2, q. 82 article 3.
Likewise, Innocent, in his book on the sacraments, in his Summa, chapter 39.31
Likewise, Paschasius [393] in his book on the sacraments chapters 10, 14, and
20.32 Likewise, Lyra, on Proverbs 9[:5]: ‘come, eat my bread’; and the same in
his writing on 1 Corinthians. Likewise, Guilhelmus of Monte Laudino in his
books on the sacraments. Likewise, Albertus Magnus in his tract ‘On the office
of the mass.’ The writings and testimonies of these men we leave to the reader
for the sake of brevity.33
Third: that the secular dominion over riches and worldly goods, which the
clergy holds, contrary to the teaching of Christ, to the prejudice of their office
and the harm of the secular arm, be taken away and removed from it, and that the
clergy itself be brought back to the apostolic life that Christ lived with his apos-
tles, according to the saying of our Savior in Matthew 10:[9]: ‘And the Lord Jesus,
gathering twelve of his disciples, sent them out, commanding them and saying:
“Do not possess gold and silver and do not carry money in your belts.”’ Again,
114
Matthew 20:[25–7]: ‘The princes of the peoples lord it over them, and those who
are greater exercise power over them. It will not be so with you.’ Likewise, in Luke
20 [sic 22:25–7]:
The kings of the peoples lord it over them, and those who have power over
the people are called great. But it will not be so with you. Rather, if anyone
is greater among you, let him become less, and if anyone is the ruler among
you, let him become the servant.
The same is written in Mark 10[:42–5]. And regarding the same matter, in 1
Peter 5:[2–3]: ‘There should be no rulers among the clergy, but they should be
informed by the will of the flock.’
Likewise, 1 Timothy 6:[8]: ‘Having food and clothing, let us be contented with
this.’ And 1 Corinthians says [11:1]: ‘Be imitators of me, brothers, just as I am of
Christ.’ And Philippians 3:[17]: ‘Be imitators of me, brothers, and observe those
who walk thus, as if you have our form.’ By this is meant the apostolic way of
life: Gold and silver is not mine, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles 3[:6].
It is also written in Numbers 18[:20]: ‘The Lord said to Aaron: “You will not pos-
sess anything in their country, and you will not have your portion among them.
Because I am your portion and your inheritance in the midst of the children of
Israel.”’ Likewise, in Numbers 26[:62], Deuteronomy 10[:9], 12[:9,12], 14[:29],
18[:1], 21[:1–23], and Ezekiel 44[:28], where it is said: ‘But there will be no
inheritance for them, I am their inheritance; and you will not give them possession
in Israel. Because I am their possession.’ Likewise, St. Paul writes, in the final
chapter of 1 Timothy [6:17]: ‘But you, man of God, reject this, that is, becoming
rich, and greedy.’ The Ordinary Gloss adds:34
There is nothing so cruel and so harmful [394] as when a man of the church,
and namely one who is in a high position, cares about the riches of this age:
because such a man is an obstacle not only to himself, but also to all others
for whom he is a bad example.
Therefore he says: Avoid these things.35 Similarly, Augustine, Jerome, and

Ambrose agree, and it is set down in Canon 12 [sic] question I in the chapter on
the clergy.36 This is corroborated in the following chapters and in the third book,
which deals with the lifestyle and uprightness of the clergy, and in the chapter on
brotherhood.37 Likewise, in the letter from St. Bernard to Eugenius, nor are many
other testimonies lacking in the Scriptures.38
Fourth: that all mortal sins, and particularly those committed publicly, along
with other offences against the law of God, shall be righteously and reasonably
prohibited and stamped out regardless of the status of those who commit them, by
those who possess the power to do so. Whoever commits these sins, is deserving
of death, and not only those who commit them, but those who are in agreement
with those doing them [Romans 1:32]. Among the people there is fornication,
115
feasting, adultery, stealing, robbing, murders, lies, perjury, all useless, deceitful,
and superstitious arts, confiscation of property, and usury. Among the clergy there
is simony, heresy, the exacting of payment for baptizing, confirmation, confession,
for the sacrament of the body of the Lord, for chrism, for weddings, for taxes on
30 masses, or for selling or buying other masses, for saying the office for the dead
or for prayers, for vigils, for anniversary offices for souls, and for other things,
such as preaching, for funerals, for [the ringing of] bells, for blessing churches,
altars, or chapels, for prebends, for benefices, and for prelateship, for office, for
indulgences, and for other innumerable heresies, which arise from these and pol-
lute the Church of Christ. The clergy also engages in godless and unjust conduct,
such as immodest concubinage, along with the propagation of sons and daughters
out of wedlock, and other fornications, wrath, discord, arguments, frivolous law-
suits, and the harassment and despoliation of ordinary people for sport, greedy
theft from offertories, sensationalism, and the promotion of innumerable illusions
through false promises that deceive the simple-minded.39 These practices ought
to be despised by whoever is held to be a faithful servant of Christ and true son
[395] of the Mother Church, stamped out both in himself and in others, and hated
and abhorred as the Devil himself, keeping in mind, however, his rank and the
condition of his vocation.
Should anyone ascribe any immodesties and excesses whatsoever to us beyond
this pious and holy intention of ours, let that person be considered by faithful
Christians as a faithless individual and false witness, because there is nothing else
in our hearts except that we wish with all our might and insofar as we may be able
to please our Lord Jesus Christ, and to faithfully follow and fulfill his law and
precepts and these four orthodox points of doctrine. It will be fitting to resist to the
death, with the power deservedly rendered to us by the secular arm, as a tyrant and
a most cruel Antichrist, any wicked man opposed to this position, and whoever
attacks us on this score, and wishes to avert us from this intention, against the will
of God, and persecutes us in defending the truth of the Gospel, to which everyone
is obliged by duty according to the vocation of the Gospel. Should anyone from
among us commit something aberrant or scandalous, because our intention is to
oppress all sins that might occur, then we insist that it is contrary to our wishes.
Should any person or church seem to be harmed by us, either with respect to
properties or lives, then either inevitable necessity or the contents of the law and
our own appropriate self-defense against tyrannical violence excuses us. However,
we bear witness that if there should seem to anyone to be any appearance of error
on our part in all these matters, we shall always show ourselves willing to be
instructed by the Holy Scripture. Given in the year of our Lord 1421 [sic].40
Fire in the crusader camp and summary executions

Next, on 19 July, the tents of the enemies were burned, and with a strong wind
blowing, many of the tents were burned very rapidly along with their contents.
Then on the feast day of St. Mary Magdalene [22 July], the Táborites, along with
116
the army of the Praguers, considering the terrible burnings of innocent Czechs by
the Germans, marched on the town hall and demanded that those imprisoned there
be handed over to them so that they could be burned. The councilors were una-
ble to resist them, and so they handed over the captives, albeit unwillingly, since
they had come over to the side [396] of the truth. Sixteen of these prisoners were
burned in barrels outside the town, within sight of the Germans. Only one monk
was spared, since he had promised to give the communion of the body and blood
of the Lord to the faithful.
Secret coronation of King Sigismund in Prague Castle

Also, on 28 July, that is on the Sunday after the feast day of St. James, at 12
o’clock, King Sigismund was crowned king of Bohemia in Prague Castle with
some of the nobles and leaders of Prague absent, and he at that time granted new
knighthoods to many men.41 These, however, had not done any knightly deeds for
the common good before. And so they were called by ordinary people not true
knights but painted ones.
Sigismund plunders the castle treasury and the crusaders depart

Then, on the same day as the improper coronation of King Sigismund took place,
and on the following day, when he had received from the Church of Prague and the
Monastery of St. George heads, hands, monstrances, and other precious items of
gold and silver, he ordered that these be broken to pieces and gave sums of money
for them, and promised that he would get better ones made, when God would have
granted peace and rest to the kingdom. Which sin is the more serious, that of those
who destroyed wooden images, or that of those who destroyed silver images?42 On
30 July, the third day after Sigismund’s coronation, the entire army burned their
camps and left the field. They spoke shamelessly against the king as a friend of
heretics and a betrayer of trust.43
Continued violence and the departure of Sigismund from Prague

Likewise, after all the royal troops had retreated from the fields, the Praguers
fearlessly besieged small castles close to the town, and forced the rebels to
believe as they believed. They also brought unhindered to the town many spoils:
cows, pigs, and other properties. But the king occupied the castles of Prague
and Vyšehrad with the intention of defending them. After he had [397] expelled
from there women who had run away from Prague with the hope that they would
be safe there and would be able to return with honor to their properties and
houses, he himself retreated to Kutná Hora. Staying there for some time, he
organized many gatherings of lords for the defense of the land, in order to keep
the peace in all regions of the Czech kingdom. These were called landfríd [peace
of the land].44
117
Prague and Tábor agree on 12 articles

Also, on 5 August, the Táborite priests with their captains submitted to the Prague
community the 12 articles listed below, hoping that the aforementioned commu-
nity would agree to them, protect them and defend them; otherwise, if they did
not agree with them, they did not wish to remain with them in Prague any longer.
To these articles the New Town agreed immediately, without duly consulting the
masters. But the Old Town asked to be given time to deliberate on them with the
masters, which was granted. Master Peter of England in the presence of the coun-
cilors and the elders went through all the articles one by one, telling them how
each of the articles either could or could not be agreed to theologically, with the
consciences of all the members of the community intact.45 These are the articles:
We, the Táborites and the entire community of newcomers staying in the city
offer to you, the people of Prague the following articles. To begin with, we ask
that the agreement in writing between you and ourselves be maintained and
observed in its entirety by each side:
Likewise, that these articles, which the commanders, councilors and the com-
munity have agreed to, and that have been announced in sermons by preach-
ers for some time be maintained and observed on pain of penalties already
made publicly known.
Likewise, that known sinners, adulterers, adulteresses, male and female for-
nicators, pimps and whores, both open and in secret, idle people of either sex,
robbers, and all adversaries of God, blasphemers, and slanderers, whatever
their order or station may not be tolerated without punishment [398].
Likewise, that according to the established penalties there is to be no drinking
in pubs of any drink whatever and no selling of drinks on the streets.46
Likewise, that the people not be permitted to wear ostentatious clothing, nor
permit such clothing to be worn, as is excessively expensive in the eyes of
the Lord, such as garments that have been dyed purple, clothes with fringes,
garments with inwoven pictures, garments embroidered with silver and dis-
playing tuffs or slits, silver belts, nets, and other jewelry and ornaments worn
simply for pride.47
Likewise, in the trades and in the market, there shall be no dishonesty, sto-
len goods, usury, oaths, useless items or vanities, trickery or deception, and
should any arise a fitting penalty must be applied.
Likewise, all German and pagan laws that are not in agreement with the law
of God are to be stricken.48 All government, judgment, and official action
must be in keeping with the law of God.
Likewise, priests shall be required to lead lives of good example in keeping
with their divine office and in the pattern of the apostles and prophets.
118
Likewise, university masters shall be subject to the law of God just as other
faithful Christians. They must bring their writings into agreement with the
will of God and they must keep them in the town hall in order that they may
be publicly examined for their consonance with the law of God.49
Likewise, all the income of priests shall be handed over to the common good,
and income from houses or goods or anything else, wherever priests derive
their income. All usurers must be destroyed in their homes, as well as all usu-
rious writings and priests, so that they may be supported by voluntary gifts
from the faithful.
Likewise, all enemies of the truth of God should be expelled from the com-
munity, and they should permit neither outlaws nor any other person who has
been banned to enter. These sorts of individuals have not maintained faith
with God or the people of Prague and on that account should not merit any
good will whatsoever.
Likewise, that the community should destroy and demolish heretical mon-
asteries, churches that are superfluous, as well as altars and images, whether
displayed openly or kept hidden, along with proud vestments, gold and silver
chalices, everything that is planted by the Antichrist and all idolatrous and
simoniacal depravity, which is not of God the Father of Heaven.
Therefore, beloved brethren, it is for these matters that we have exposed our-
selves to the loss of goods, property, and life, desiring to fulfill the will of
God, for many of our brothers already have shed their [399] blood for these
truths written above and have already exposed their lives to great danger.
With the help of God, we have no intention whatsoever of abandoning these
articles, and we desire that this might be true of you also, and we will assist
you, and intend to continue assisting you, for as long as we endure and sur-
vive, provided you do not neglect the articles written above.
Iconoclasm and destruction of religious houses

After these 12 articles were announced by the Táborites, the following day they
took possession of the Monastery of the Knights of the Cross in Zderaz, and
then on the fourth day attacked the Monastery of St. Clement at the bridge, in
order to demolish them.50 Then on the feast day of St. Laurence [10 August], the
Táborites with the Praguers, under the leadership of Koranda and some other
priests, took over in force the Monastery of Zbraslav. Since no one opposed
them, they took properties as spoils and set the monastery on fire and returned
with large amounts of grain, singing songs and dancing. The priests with their
armed men and laypeople, some of them carrying parts of broken icons and
paintings in their hats, and, having gotten drunk on the wine of the monastery,
around the first hour of the night, instigated, as it is rumored, by priests of
both the Old Town and the New Town, the bells were rung, and they fell upon
119
Vyšehrad with the intention of conquering it.51 They set fire to one cottage, but
they suffered great damage from their enemies that hour and were chased away
with stones.52
Changes in the city council of Prague

Similarly, despite all these events mentioned above, which were taking place with
the approval of the Táborites, the Táborites, once again, were feigning a retreat.
Therefore on 18 August, that is on the Sunday after the feast day of the Assump-
tion of the Virgin Mary, priests, prompted by the urgency of some of the commu-
nity, announced a gathering on the same day after midday at the town hall in order
to discuss some difficult matters, regarding which there was no agreement among
the elders of the community. When the gathering took place in the town hall, the
priest Jan, the preacher at the Mother of God of the Snows, with the consent of
the community that had been brought in, took the seal of the Old Town of Prague
from the councilors, and gave it to the new burgomaster and councilors, chosen
by him and the community. But after the old council was deposed in this lawless
manner, the new council, appointed by him, did not last long. This change of the
council took place, because the councilors that had been deposed did not wish to
concede [400] to the Táborites on many points. Therefore, priests who were on
the side of the Táborites chose in the place of the deposed councilors new ones
who were almost all in agreement with the Táborites, so that the Táborites, having
the councilors they wanted, would not leave Prague, since they were unwilling to
remain in Prague while the previous councilors were in power. However, despite
this, on the fifth day after the election of the new councilors from their own fac-
tion, that is, on 22 August, the Táborites left Prague. They had no other reason for
their departure, except that the masters were resistant to their rites and Scriptures.
Thereafter, during the vigil of St. Bartholomew [23 August] some of the Táborite
society occupied the mountain of Blaník, and had they not been quickly expelled
from there, they would have caused innumerable damage in that region.
Notes
1 The reference is to a game preserve established in the thirteenth century. The Bruska is a hill to
the north and northwest of Prague Castle.
2 This matches crusade rhetoric from the eleventh century onwards.
3 The patriarchate of Aquileia was an episcopal see in northern Italy situated in the Adriatic coastal
city of Aquileia. The see played a significant role in medieval ecclesiastical affairs. Ludovico
di Teck was patriarch from 1412 to 1439. It is doubtful that the number of fighters should be
taken at face value. It was likely half that. Other contemporary sources suggest 80,000. Eberhart
Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigmunds, ed. Wilhelm
Altmann (Berlin: R. Gaertners Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1893), p. 110.
4 What appears to be a random list is in fact a reflection of fifteenth-century political realities.
Josef Bujnoch, Die Hussiten: Die Chronik des Laurentius von Březová 1414–1421 (Graz: Verlag
Styria, 1988), pp. 312–14 offers an explanation. The Italians are accidently omitted from the list
and it appears that among European nations and territories only Scandinavia was not involved in
the Hussite crusade.
120
5 There were several mills along the Vltava River in the northern part of the Old Town.
6 Medieval gallows once stood along what is today Husitská Street below the Vítkov.
7 The duke of Austria, Albrecht (1397–1439), later married Sigismund’s daughter Elizabeth and
after his father-in-law’s death became king of several principalities including Hungary, Croatia,
Germany, and Bohemia.
8 On the trial of Jesus, see Matthew 26:57–67 and John 18: 1–40. S.G.F. Brandon, The Trial of
Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Stein & Day, 1968).
9 Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, pp. 314–15 finds the text unusual. ‘The call to this unusual activity is
biblical. The devouring of the scroll causes sweetness in the mouth (Ezekiel 3:3) and bitterness
in the stomach (Revelation 10:10). For Pastor Václav, into whose mouth the author puts these
words, the food of the book should probably symbolize inner appropriation and approval of the
unabridged text of the Bible.’
10 The Hospital Field (about a mile wide) stretched east of Prague in the level plain between the
northern slope of Vítkov Hill and the Vltava River along the main road from Prague leading to
Mladá Boleslav, Jičín, and other areas to the northeast. The area in front of the city wall belonged to
the hospital of the Knights with the Red Star located just north of the east end of the Charles Bridge,
which accounts for the designation ‘campum Hospitalium’ used by Laurence. The Knights with the
Red Star was a hospital order that originated in Prague in 1256 and held patronage for four parishes.
On the order and the Prague house, see Zdeňka Hledíková, ‘Řád Křížovníků s černým srdcemve
středověku,’ Sborník prací východočeských archívů 5 (1984), pp. 209–35; and James R. Palmitessa,
‘The Knights of the Cross with the Red Star and the Renewal of Ecclesiastical Property in the Pre-
White Mountain Age,’ Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 5, no. 2 (2005), pp. 361–4.
11 This may have been as much as a mile away. See the map in Frederick Heymann, John Žižka and
the Hussite Revolution (New York: Russell & Russell, 1969), p. 134.
12 The number of casualties may have been less. Germans and Hungarians, along with the leader
of the Misnan forces Heinrich of Isenburg, were among 144 dead. František Heřmanský and
Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u Domažlic (Prague:
Svoboda, 1979), p. 343.
13 A widespread and well-known Latin hymn traditionally dated to the fourth century. The title
comes from its incipit Te deum laudamus ‘We praise thee, O Lord.’
14 For a consideration of children and singing within the Hussite tradition see David R. Holeton,
‘The Place of Children in Utraquist Liturgical Song,’ Bohemian Reformation and Religious
Practice 9 (2014), pp. 111–37. Čapek was a Táborite priest, possibly ordained at Lipnice, a song
writer, responsible for the Czech Mass, known for radical preaching in Prague and southern
Bohemia especially at Klatovy. For Čapek see Zdeněk Nejedlý, Dějiny husitského zpěvu, 6 vols.
(Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1954–1956), vol. 4, pp. 226–48.
15 Benches, or pews, for the laity did not become regular features of church architecture until the
sixteenth century. The reference here is likely mainly to choir stalls or benches and the seating
provided for the clergy. Gabriel Byng, ‘“In Common for Everyone”: Shared Space and Private
Possessions in the English Parish Church Nave,’ Journal of Medieval History 45, no. 2 (2019),
pp. 231–53. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that benches were in use in parts of Europe
by the fifteenth century.
16 This suggests, if taken literally, that at least parts of the chronicle were written in the 1420s.
17 A contemporary witness to the proliferation of the chalice as a central symbol of the Hussite
movement. František Šmahel, ‘The War of Symbols: The Goose and the Chalice against the
Cross,’ Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 4 (2002), pp. 151–9.
18 There is some debate about this. The chronicle merely mentions this dispute. The Czech historian
Josef Pekař accuses Laurence of deliberate untruth but others see this accusation as certainly
wrong. When Laurence wrote his chronicle, either he did not wish to repeat what he had written
in 1421, or he did not have the manifesto in hand. From the following narrative it is apparent
that he did not know the date of publication of the Four Articles but mistakenly thought that it
was only after the battle on Vítkov Hill. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská
kronika, p. 343.
121
19 This document sets forth the guiding principles of the Hussite movement and is also the
foundational ideas all Hussites agreed upon. The elaboration was developed by Hussite theologians
at Prague University. The original dates to 3 July 1420, and the text here in the chronicle is in
essential agreement. Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution, pp. 148–63.
20 It is not clear what this implied for the Hussites. There is no evidence of glossolalia within the
Hussite movement. Christine F. Cooper-Rompato, The Gift of Tongues: Women’s Xenoglossia in
the Later Middle Ages (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010) and Sarah L.
Higley, Hildegard of Bingen’s Unknown Tongue: An Edition, Translation, and Discussion (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) are two works discussing the wider phenomena. A nuanced
reading of the Acts of the Apostles can support an understanding of the ability to speak in a
language guided by the Holy Spirit (glossolalia) but that requires translation in order to be
understood. Xenoglossia is somewhat different in that it implies either the ability to speak in Latin
without previous instruction or facility in another contemporary language without prior learning.
Cooper-Rompato, The Gift of Tongues, p. 123 calls the former ‘miraculous Latinity’ and the latter
‘miraculous vernacularity’ (p. 145).
21 D.2 de cons. c.12 Conperimus autem in Emil Friedberg, ed., Corpus iuris canonici, 2 vols.
(Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879–1881), vol. 1, col. 1318.
22 C.26 q.6 c.6 Si quis in Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici, vol. 1, col. 1037.
23 D.2 de cons. c.73 Quid sit in Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici, vol. 1, cols. 1343–4.
24 D.2 de cons. c.73 Quia passus and c.73 Dum hostia frangitur in Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici,
vol. 1, cols. 1326–7.
25 Noted at C.1 q.1 c.89 Non nocet in Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici, vol. 1, cols. 390–1.
26 De ecclesiastica hierarchia, chapter 3 in PG, vol. 3, cols. 470–1 and De divinis nominibus,
chapter 2 in PG, vol. 3, col. 883.
27 D.2 de cons. c.14 Si quocienscumque in Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici, vol. 1, col. 1319.
28 Homily 16 on Numbers, in PG, vol. 12, cols. 690–702 at col. 701, De symbolo sermo ad
catechumenos in PL, vol. 40, cols. 627–36 but no mention of the eucharist herein so the attribution
may be mistaken or else misrepresented by Laurence.
29 The Ambrosian reference is problematic but for Bede, Homily 14 see PL, vol. 94, cols. 75–6; and
for Leo, Sermon 42.1 see PL, vol. 54, col. 275.
30 Questionable attribution to Remigius but possibly Haymo of Halberstadt, Epistolam 1 ad
Corinthois, 10 in PL, vol. 117, col. 564.
31 Mysterorium evangelicae legis et sacramenti eucharistiae, book 3, chapter 12, in PL, vol. 217,
cols. 850–2.
32 De corpore et sanguine domine in PL, vol. 120, cols. 1303–6, 1316–21, and 1330–2.
33 This elaboration and admonition reveal the intended readership of the chronicle.
34 The term ‘Ordinary Gloss’ (Glossa Ordinaria) most often refers to commentaries on canon
law, codified by the fourteenth century. Corpus juris canonici emendatum et notis illustratum.
Gregorii XIII. pont. max. iussu editum (Rome: In aedibus Populi Romani, 1582), 4 vols. The term
also indicates commentaries on the Bible dating to the twelfth century. Lesley Smith, The Glossa
Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2009).
35 Epistola 1 ad Timotheum 11, 17, in PL, vol. 114, col. 632.
36 C.12 q.1–10 Omnis etas in Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici, vol.1, cols. 676–80.
37 X 3.24.2 Fraternitatem tuam, in Friedberg, ed., Corpus iuris canonici, vol. 2, col. 533. This is
Gregory IX citing Alexander III.
38 De consideratione libru quinque ad Eugenium Tertium, book 2, chapter 6, in PL, vol. 182,
col. 748.
39 On concubinage, see Roisin Cossar, ‘Clerical “Concubines” in Northern Italy During the
Fourteenth Century,’ Journal of Women’s History 23, no. 1 (2011), pp. 110–31; Janielle Werner,
‘Living in Suspicion: Priests and Female Servants in Late Medieval England,’ Journal of British
Studies 55, no. 4 (2016), pp. 658–79; and Marjorie Elizabeth Plummer, From Priest’s Whore to
Pastor’s Wife: Clerical Marriage and the Process of Reform in the Early German Reformation
(Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), pp. 11–50.
122
40 Fernando de Palacios of Lugo’s response to the Four Articles appears in František Palacký, ed.,
Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkrieges, 2 vols. (Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag,
1966), vol. 2, pp. 33–7.
41 There is a question about the proper date. Sigismund wrote a letter to England on 31 July noting
he had been crowned ‘today.’ Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika,
p. 345.
42 Laurence’s characterization of the coronation as improper (coronacionis sinistre) was widely
shared. It has little merit. The proof lies in the fact that when Sigismund finally did ascend to the
throne in 1436 there was no additional or corrective coronation. While the Hussites denied it, the
crowning of Sigismund was legitimate.
43 This was only one occasion in which Sigismund was suspected, or accused, of colluding with the
Hussites. By 1424 the king was forced, at Visegrád, Hungary, to address the ongoing allegations
that he was secretly protecting the heretics. Windecke, Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des
Zeitalters Kaiser Sigmunds, pp. 176 and 186. Other sources report similar suspicions. See
Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution, pp. 141–2.
44 Derived from the German word ‘landfrieden’ this was a term used to signify alliances between
towns of barons in particular areas for the purpose of uniting to thwart invaders or enemies to
a common cause. The most important of these in Hussite Bohemia was the Plzeň Landfríd.
This was an amalgamation of the nobility and west Bohemian towns with its hub at Plzeň.
Other important alliances were in southern Bohemia around the Rožmberk family while in
Moravia strong Catholic centers loyal to the crown included Brno, Olomouc, Znojmo, and
Jihlava. Václav of Dubá and the mintmaster Mikeš Diváček of Jemniště performed their affairs
in the administration of the royal towns that remained true to Sigismund. Václav of Dubá was
appointed the highest burgrave of Prague. ‘In an agreement with the lords, he set up the so-called
landfríd in individual regions, so that over each county he appointed a governor from the estate
in the settled county. He was to intervene in the whole state of the county, that is to say, lords,
yeomen, prelates, and royal cities, against the madness of the Wyclifites, and to pursue them until
they were uprooted, and to bring the rebels to obedience.’ This is reflected in a letter to Oldřich of
Rožmberk, 3 September 1420. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika,
p. 346.
45 Peter Payne was an English Wyclifite who sought asylum in Bohemia and remained there for
more than 40 years. He became a leading spokesman for the Hussites both on domestic as well
as international platforms. Stephen Lahey, ‘Peter Payne Explains Everything That Happens,’
in Jakoub Smrčka and Zdeněk Vybíral, eds., Jan Hus 1415 a 600 let poté [Husitský tábor,
supplementum 4] (Tábor: Husitské Museum v Táboře, 2015), pp. 129–43. He was often called
Peter English.
46 This must be contrasted with the previous narrative about the sale and consumption of alcohol
seized from the abandoned homes of Germans in June 1420.
47 This relates to the aforementioned fury of the Táborites over the fashions on display in Prague.
2014), VIII, pp. 26–46.
49 The repeated reference to the law of God is significant. Thomas A. Fudge, ‘The “Law of God”:
Reform and Religious Practice in Late Medieval Bohemia,’ in Thomas A. Fudge, Heresy and
Hussites in Late Medieval Europe (Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum, 2014), III, pp. 49–72.
50 This is the Church of Saints Peter and Paul at Zderaz (a now-defunct part of the New Town),
mentioned as early as 1125, founded in 1188 as a monastery of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre.
The members of the order were distinctive for wearing a double red cross on a black robe. The
order was one of the richest monasteries in the land and had great possessions in seven districts
in Bohemia. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 347.
51 The first hour of the day would have been around 15:30.
52 Throughout Bohemia, many churches and monasteries were looted or subjected to iconoclastic
raids by radical Hussite factions.
123
6
O R IG I NS AND TEACH I NGS OF THE

T Á B ORITES AND TH EI R SOCI AL
IM P LICATIO NS
Because there has been such frequent reference to the Táborites, it will be bene-
ficial for posterity to describe their origin, rites, and customs. This is all the more
necessary since, although referring to themselves as zealots for the law of God,
some from their number have fallen into many errors.
Their origin and the immediate reason for their organization was on account
of celebrating communion in both species in the region of Bechyně. Since
this practice was being spread on account of the activities of faithful priests
throughout Bohemia and Moravia, notwithstanding the persistent opposition
from the clerics who were opposed to it, who went about teaching that anyone
administering the sacrament according to this rite was heretical, nevertheless
day after day the most Holy Communion of the body and blood spread in an
extraordinary way among the common people who knew that this was evangel-
ical truth.
Thus it happened then in the year of the Lord 1419 that the priests, together with
their vicars, leapt in an armed band upon [the Hussites] near the Castle of Bechyně
and drove them out of their churches as erroneous and heretics. So the [Hussite]
priests with their followers climbed a large mountain at the end of a broad plain
and on the summit erected a linen tent as a chapel. Carrying out the divine rites in
this tent, the priests were most devoutly nourishing the people streaming to that
place with the sacrament of the holy Eucharist, with no obstacles to their form of
communion [401]. Following this they took down the tent and returned to their
homes. They named that mountain Tábor and thus those who were coming there
were called Táborites.1
These things having come to the attention of the population in nearby cities,
rural towns and villages, the priestly brothers in the area decided on a holiday.
They took the people already with them, together with the venerable sacrament
of the body of Christ, to Mount Tábor, with loud voices, aiming, as they were
saying, to confirm the truth and strengthen and comfort their brothers and sisters
who were there. When they were coming, the brothers and sisters ran down from
Mount Tábor with the venerable sacrament of the altar to give a prompt reception
to those who were arriving. The newcomers to the mountain were spending the
whole day not in frolic, but rather in things that concern the salvation of souls.
124
Their ministers indeed performed a three-fold task: the most learned and eloquent
among them took turns preaching the word of God to the people from early morn-
ing, divided into groups with men on one side and women and children on the
other, and particularly those things that relate to the arrogance, haughtiness, and
greed of the clergy, speaking without any reservation. Other priests sat down and
continuously heard confessions while the third group, having carried out worship,
from dawn to noon administered communion to the people with both the body
and blood of Christ, so that on the feast day of Mary Magdalene [22 July], around
42,000 men, women, and small children were counted by the priests as receiving
communion in this way.2
When all these things had thus been done, as described, they went out to
replenish their bodies to several places on that same mountain, which had
been prepared for them, and were relaxing together in brotherly love without
debauchery or drunkenness, without frivolity or licentiousness, but rather for
the purpose of the greater and stronger service of God. Here they called each
other brother and sister; the richer shared their provisions with the poor. It was
not permitted to partake of alcohol, and in this place singing, dice, games of
ball, and all other frivolous play, the sort of games befitting not elders, but little
children, was having no place of indulgence. Finally there were no conflicts
there, theft, or music of the pipes or lyre to be found, as had hitherto been cus-
tomary at the dedication of churches: but instead [402] they were of one heart
and will according to the apostolic custom. They were not interested in any-
thing else apart from the salvation of their souls and of restoring the clergy to
their original status, namely that of the early church. And so after this moderate
replenishment of the body, as just described, the priests stood up together with
the people in order to give thanks to God, and they went in procession around
Mount Tábor with the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist. Young women went
in front of the sacrament while groups of men and women followed, raising
their voices and singing hymns, insofar as it seemed fitting. When the proces-
sion ended, they said goodbye to one another with their priests, walking straight
without deviating to the right or left, lest they trample the crops, and went back
where they had come from.
More people travel to Tábor

It happened, moreover, that the numbers of people coming to Tábor notably
increased day by day as the news spread to places even farther away. In fact they
were accustomed to come not only from Písek, Vodňany, Netolice, Heřmanovice,
Ústí, Janovice, Sedlčany, Plzeň, where most had come from, but also from Prague,
Domažlice, Hradec Králové, and from many other places in Moravia, streaming
to Mount Tábor either on foot or horseback. Some had come out of their zealous
piety to take communion with others there after hearing the word of God; others,
to see the large crowds, while still others came in order to belittle what was hap-
pening and publicize it among the enemies of the truth.
125
The king and Czech barons fear revolt

For this reason, as the people arrived at Tábor from different places, King Václav
along with some of the lords who were opposed to the truth began to be distressed,
fearing that such a great congregation might elect its own king and archbishop, as
it was rumored in order to defend the law of God, and attack and lay waste their
properties, as those of their adversaries, through power that they would not be able
to resist.3 For this reason some of the nobles ordered their subjects that they should
no longer congregate on Mount Tábor under penalty of loss of life and property.
However, many peasants, along with their wives, paid either little or no attention
to the order, and, having abandoned everything they possessed, were not afraid to
climb Mount Tábor on certain holidays, allured and attracted to it just as a magnet
attracts iron [403]. According to the experienced astrologers, the cause of this was
the unusual influence in that year of the heavens and the celestial bodies, chiefly
Saturn, which inclined the minds of the common people to make this pilgrimage
and rebel against their superiors.4
Leadership and the problem of biblical interpretation

Since these things were going on, as has been described, and many of both the
nobles and common people of both genders, having given up worldliness, were
devoting themselves to the law of God, the Devil, that enemy of the salvation
of the human race, began to spread various seeds of error and heresy among the
world, among the wheat of the law of God, through the agency of some false
priestly brothers. This seemed to fulfil what was written in I Timothy 4:[1–2]:
‘Now the spirit expressly says that in the last days some will leave the faith by
listening to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons, speaking falsehood in
hypocrisy.’ In fact, during that time, since there was no ruler or king in Israel
towards whom the people had respect, everyone did what seemed right to him
or her [Judges 17:6]. Therefore, many priests of the Táborites, having gained a
considerable audience among the people, disregarded the teachings of the saintly
doctors such as Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory, and others approved by
the church. These priests interpreted the Old and New Testaments with elaborate
glosses produced from their own minds, thereby intermingling many erroneous
things with the truth, whereby they were able to easily turn the minds of the simple
to their own opinions.
Therefore, all the evils that followed can be traced to an erroneous interpreta-
tion of the Holy Scriptures. As their administrators and teachers said, it was not
appropriate to appeal to the commentaries of the doctors, who were mere humans,
when Christ, who was both divine and human, explained in the New Testament
all those things essential for the salvation of all people living as pilgrims in this
world, and how the Old Testament sheds light on the New Testament, and vice
versa. Upon this foundation they were not afraid to disseminate among the people
the articles that are presented below.
126
Articles of the Táborites

First, no writings or sayings of any doctors should be believed by the faithful, or
believed as orthodoxy, unless they are expressly contained in the canon of the
Bible, since all the books of such doctors are the wisdom of the Antichrist, and
should be, as such, rejected, destroyed, and burned [404].
Likewise, inasmuch as any man studies the liberal arts or receives degrees in
these studies, he is a deceiver and a heathen, and thus he sins against the gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Likewise, no decrees of the holy fathers or regulations of the elders, and no
other rite or tradition invented by human beings, should be observed, but are
all to be abolished and destroyed, as the teachings of the Antichrist, nowhere
in the New Testament did Christ or His apostles say that these things should
be done.
Likewise, from the above they were deducing the following; that no chrism, or
holy oil, even the water of baptism, should be preserved or consecrated. Similarly,
no chalice, pyx, ornaments, and other things accustomed to be found in a church
were to be blessed, exorcised, or consecrated. Similarly, no liturgy of the hours
should be performed, nor should the ritual of the mass, with the costume, symbol-
ism, and ritual long ago established by the church, nor should ecclesiastical songs
be used, but rather they should all be rejected and abolished as human traditions
and impediments to the law of God.5
Similarly, infants should not be baptized in water blessed and preserved for a
baptism involving exorcisms and godfathers, as is customary in baptism. Rather,
they are able to be baptized in fresh water wheresoever the parents please.
Likewise, all missal or song books, breviaries and books of the hours, all chas-
ubles and priestly robes, and all other sacramental garments used in carrying out
divine worship, monstrances and chalices, silver or golden belts, and all clothes
covered with damasks, or images of any kind: all these things are to be destroyed
or burned. It is more appropriate for the peasants to come into possession of these
sacred garments, and convert them into shirts, coats, and sleeves, than for priests
to officiate masses in them.
Likewise, hearing confession should not be mandated and observed, and sin-
ners and criminals are not bound to perform it; rather it is enough to confess to
God alone in one’s heart.
Likewise, the 40 days of fasting, fasting at the four specified times, and fasting
during vigils, being customs introduced by humans or by custom [405], are not
required to be observed by the faithful, but on these days everyone should eat
whatever he has, according to his own pleasure, or whatever may seem suitable
to him.6
Likewise, apart from Sunday no other holy days are required to be observed by
the faithful.
Likewise, any priest carrying out divine worship or celebrating Mass in the
usual rite with a tonsure and wearing a chasuble or cassock, is to be condemned
127
by the faithful like that whore about whom it is written in Revelation [17:1, 4].
Rather, Mass is to be celebrated in the fashion of Christ and the apostles, by priests
with beards and without a tonsure, in common clothing and without an altar, in
whatever place they may happen to be gathered.7 The sacrament of the body of the
Lord should be blessed in a loud voice, so that the crowd may hear, and should not
be raised up, or kept until the next day.
Likewise, priests who adhere to the Gospel cannot legitimately live in
houses given or assigned to them by the common people as a gift of alms in
perpetuity, nor are they able to have worldly goods, since they are not liable
to civil law, nor should the sacraments be accepted from those who have prop-
erty, even if they publicly concede that the law allowing them to have property
is illicit for them.
Likewise, it should not be believed that after the physical death of faithful souls
there is such a thing as purgatory, and it is foolish and useless to attempt to pray
for the souls of the dead, or exert oneself in other pious efforts on their behalf.
Likewise, any invocations and entreaties on our part of the saints who are in
the heavenly homeland for any help or intercession either verbally or mentally is
heresy and idolatry.
Likewise, no picture or other representation of those who are in heaven or in
this world should be owned under the penalty of idolatry, but any such object
should be destroyed and burned as an idol. Because as it is written in Exo-
dus 20[:4], ‘You shall not make a carved statue or any other representation for
yourself.’8
And so, from the aforementioned articles that were obstinately published to the
common people in the year of our Lord 1420, to the scandal and infamy of the
whole kingdom, a new and serious division and conflict arose among the people
and the clergy [406], who had righteously and sincerely united themselves for the
defense of the law of God. For the leaders and priests of the Táborites, following
the content of the aforementioned articles, began to reject and detest all church
rites, all provisions of the holy fathers for the service to God, as useless for the sal-
vation of the soul, because Christ and the apostles did not give examples of them,
nor did they order that they take place, and they began to obstruct and impede
repeatedly all who were observing them, quoting the last chapter of the Revelation
of St. John [22:19], which says: ‘If anyone should dare to add something to these
commandments, God will send the plagues upon him which are mentioned in this
book.’ This is because Christ established and handed down in the New Testament
everything that is needed for the salvation of all faithful people. Why then should
the faithful ones observe regulations and ceremonies not stated in the law, but
made up by people? Especially because Christ said to the scribes and Pharisees:
‘You have rendered invalid the law of God on account of your traditions’ [Matthew
15:6]. And thus, today, all those who adhere to human traditions, like the scribes
and Pharisees, render invalid the law of God. So it is fitting that they, at last,
receive the plagues mentioned in the revelation of St. John, unless they abandon
and cease these practices [Revelation 15:6–7; 16:1–21].
128
Conflict between the priests of Tábor and the priests in Prague

For this reason, the Táborite priests, giving up human traditions, went about
with beards, did not have tonsures, wore gray clothes, and performed the divine
rites without having read the liturgy of the hours, without chasuble, pyx, and
chalice, under the sky or in homes, not on a consecrated altar, but on a table,
covered with whatever linen cloth was available. They did not observe the rules
of the Mass in reciting the collects and the canon, but one out of all the priests,
bowing straight away, with knees bent along with his brothers, touching the
ground with their heads and lifting their backsides in the air, they recited the
Lord’s Prayer. Then rising, the one who was supposed to bless the sacrament
of the altar recited no more than the words of consecration over the bread and
wine in a loud, clear voice in the common language. And so, they did not bless
the body of Christ in the form of round wafers as prescribed by the church, but
they blessed the bread cut or broken off by hand any which way. They blessed
the precious blood of the Lord transformed from the wine not in a chalice, but
in any vessel made of tin, clay, iron, or wood. Having done this, they imme-
diately were nourishing the priests and ordinary people standing by with the
sacrament of the Eucharist [407].
All Táborite priests observed this way of celebrating Mass in Prague and in
other places, avoiding churches, saying that both Christ and his apostles in the
primitive church had celebrated Masses in this manner. Therefore, all those
who do not follow Christ and act in another way other than as Christ exempli-
fied, celebrating Masses in expensive chasubles, are like that whore mentioned
in the Revelation of St. John. Rather, they were reciting the words of blessing
in a loud voice and in Czech in order that the people would know that they
were receiving the sacrament and have no doubt that they were receiving the
body and the precious blood of Christ. But the masters of Prague, together
with their priests, who had stayed in Prague for that time, did the opposite to
the Táborites, abandoning all abuse, superfluity, and expensive ornaments, and
were observing the rites of the churches when officiating at masses. They were
not ceasing to censure publicly all those who would not observe these rites
and especially the rituals that are not against the Holy Scriptures or against
the holy laws, but rather promote and enhance them, and so they blessed the
sacrament of the altar in simple chasubles and tin chalices and offered it to the
common people.
This dispute and quarrel between the proud Prague clergy and the Táborites
caused harmful division among the common people, who had been in harmony
as far as the law of God is concerned, and as a result some people praised the
Táborites’ way of officiating at Mass and some the Praguers’, and were demand-
ing the sacraments from those whom they praised and not from anyone else.
For this reason our Prague sisters, called Beguines, did not want to accept the
sacrament of communion from their own priests officiating with their pomp,
unless they would first put off their vestments, which the sisters called ‘sheets,’
129
and they wanted to obstruct those who officiated in them, inasmuch as, alas,
it happened at Poříčí, that the women, with the permission of their husbands,
were not allowing priests in ornate chasubles to officiate at Mass.9 They were
calling the masters and preachers, who were trying to persuade them to observe
the ecclesiastical rite and were defending it with the Holy Scriptures, deceivers,
hypocrites, and tempters, and wanted to kill them or expel them from the city of
Prague, like rabid dogs.
Social implications of the Táborite doctrine

Therefore, this presumptuous transgression of the Táborites was the beginning of
all this evil, to the infamy and scandal [408] of the whole kingdom and indeed all
Christendom, and the great offense of all those who wish to observe the Last Sup-
per according to Christ’s instruction.10 Therefore many of our people shamefully
abandoned what they had known to be the truth.
For first of all, a common and fantastical rumor was flying all over the kingdom
and other countries, according to which, in the Kingdom of Bohemia, cobblers
and tailors were officiating at Masses, because there was no difference between a
priest and a layperson, since priests were performing the solemnities of Mass with
beards and without the tonsure and in their own clothes.11 Moreover, the Tábo-
rite priests purportedly recommended that all church treasures and ornaments be
destroyed and burned, so that thus, like it or not, their adversaries might avoid
observing their customs, which were harmful to them. For this reason, the rumor
went, that race of Saturn, praising their rites, taking by force breviaries, missals,
and hymn books, together with chalices and monstrances, from the churches or
the livings of parish priests, hacked the books to pieces or burned them; or they
might sell a book that was worth six or eight 60 groschen for 30 or 20 groschen,
or even cheaper, to whoever wanted to buy it; finally, it was supposed that they
were vilely seizing the relics of saints from monstrances and altars and dashing
them to the ground, and that, out of this same lawlessness, they took holy vest-
ments designed for divine worship and made coats and shirts from chasubles and
decorated garments, and shirts from corporals and albs, or they were ordering
some other more vile clothing, such as sleeves, to be made for themselves, which
was a great scandal, so that peasants had regal vestments under their tunics, in
which even their fathers would not have dared to go around.12
Also, the aforementioned priests were avoiding blessing the sacrament in
churches and on consecrated altars, claiming that churches or altars are not of
God but of the Devil and idols, because they are simoniacally blessed, not free
of cost and for God alone, but for mammon and iniquity, and not for the honor of
God but in the name of some saint, and therefore deserved to be destroyed. They
demolished and burned down churches wherever they could, and were violating
them in other various ways. They overturned the endowed altars, or broke their
legs and so made them useless for the divine office [409].
130
Initiative against religious houses

Likewise, they were preaching that the monasteries of monks were dens of vil-
lains and were founded in evil against the law of Christ, because Christ ordered
his disciples, and through them all priests, not to close themselves off but to go
all over the world, preaching and baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19]. Therefore, they said, all monasteries, both
financed and mendicant, should be uprooted and destroyed to the ground by the
faithful, so that brothers and monks could go all over the world preaching the Gos-
pel [Mark 16:15]. Motivated by this false conclusion, the following monasteries
were destroyed and burned down within the space of one year one after another.
Their names are written below in order:
The monasteries of monks with properties were these: Kartouzy in Prague,

in Strahov, in Břevnov, the Mother of God at the end of the bridge, Zderaz,
St. Ambrose, Zbraslav, Koruna, Milevsko, Nepomuk, Ostrov, the Apostolic
Gate, Želiv, Gredy of the monks [at Mnichovo Hradiště], Kladruby, Sedlec,
Opatovice, Vilémov, Hradiště, Osek, and Túšen.
The monasteries of the mendicant monks were these: St. Thomas, St. Clem-
ent, Botice, on Zelená Hora [Green Mountain], two in Žatec, two in Hradec
Králové, two in Úštek, one in Písek, one in Klatovy, one in Čáslav, one in
Nymburk, one near Kutná Hora.
The nunneries were these: in Lúnevice, between Louny and Žatec, St. Kath-
erine in Prague, St. Anne in the Lesser Town, St. Mary Magdalene, Chotěšov,
Doksany, in Týnice.13
These were the monasteries of financed and mendicant monks and nuns that were
destroyed. Then King Sigismund added all the estates and taxes of the same mon-
asteries to his castles in the kingdom or gave them out to nobles for their services
and help against the people of Prague. But the Praguers compelled the nuns of
their city, who remained where they were at St. Anne’s in the Old Town, to remain
in the city, taking food and drink and observing the ecclesiastical [410] rites, and
to take Utraquist communion, under the threat of the demolition of the monastery
and being expelled from the community. These nuns, though they refused at first,
subsequently without compulsion or coercion often and with devotion came to
the Sabbath feast with Christ. But two of them were inconstant, and, although
having taken the veil, forgetting their oath of chastity, they entered into marriage,
and indeed adultery with men. Moreover, they handed over the Monastery of the
Holy Spirit to the Germans, so that they could hear the word of God preached in
their language. In the monasteries of St. Francis and St. James they were forg-
ing gunpowder and cannon, and they made coins by hammering out chalices and
monstrances from the churches, so that they would have a place from which to
131
defend themselves against the enemies of the law of God. When they began to run
out of money, they paid the mercenaries with the clothes of the fugitives and with
expensive chasubles.
Liturgical innovation
In like manner, they poured out upon the ground holy chrism, oil for the sick, and
the water of the baptistery and the water used for asperges, calling them useless
inventions of human beings, and destroyed the vessels that had contained these
things or defecated in them.14 Henceforth they did not anoint anyone after baptism
with chrism, nor did they anoint the sick with the oil of extreme unction, but they
baptized in flowing water, or water brought from anywhere, having dismissed the
godfathers and the church rites, saying nothing more than: ‘Peter or John, I baptize
you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.’ Immediately they
were giving communion in both species to the baptized infant, however he might
be indisposed, without chrism.
Similarly, they were railing against making verbal confessions to priests, saying
that it was sufficient to confess venial sins to God alone, and to confess mortal
sins publicly to all the brothers and sisters. If any of the brothers or sisters had
sinned against anyone, he or she might be reconciled with that person in front of
everyone, begging for pardon, and then, kneeling, the brothers and sisters should
pray vehemently for the person making confession in this manner, and finally the
person should receive punishment appropriate to his guilt according to the deci-
sion of the priests.15
Doctrine of purgatory denied

Also, together with the Waldensians, they rejected the idea of purgatory for souls
after this life, saying that there are only two ways, one to hell and one to the heav-
enly kingdom, because those leaving this world in mortal sin are led to eternal
damnation. But God, in this life, before the day of death, torments and purifies
sufficiently those who are guilty of venial sins with tribulations or whatever other
manner of pains, so that after this life there is nothing to be further repaired. The
souls of such people, set free from their bodies, soon enter into eternal rest. There-
fore it is useless to pray for the dead, say masses, or sing vigils, and the greedy
clergy made up all these things, because they seek illicit compensation with their
masses and prayers [411].
Desecration of images, churches, and clerical possessions

Likewise, they inveighed strongly in their daily sermons to the people against all
images, both those depicting the crucified Christ, and those depicting the saints,
encouraging the people to throw them out of the churches, since they were mute,
132
inanimate idols, and smash them, or burn them up in a whirlwind of fire, because
it is written in Exodus 20:[2–4]:
I am the Lord your God who took you out of the country of Egypt, out from
the house of slavery.16 You shall not have other gods, you will not make any
carved image for yourself or any likeness, of what is in heaven above or on
earth below.
For this reason the Táborites, but also with them many Praguers, smashed, slashed,
and burned pictures in all churches wherever they could find them or poked out
their eyes and cut off their noses, and left them like hideous monsters, to their
great dishonor and scandal, saying blasphemously: ‘If you are God or his saint,
then defend yourself and we will believe in you.’ They pierced pictures painted on
walls with spears and halberds, or throwing mud at them, and were shamefully
defacing them. At this time some very expensive altar pieces were smashed in
front of the town hall and burned at St. Ambrose by the Táborites. There was tem-
porarily no carved sculpture in any church, but in every church on the main altar
there was an arch made from stone, in which the body of Christ was exhibited in
a monstrance for adoration by the faithful [412].
In like manner, based on the same erroneous understanding of fundamental
doctrine, they were denying all cults of the saints, saying: what is Peter or Paul,
or any other saint? Were they not men, as we also are, and were they not saved by
the aid of God alone, by invoking him, without the invocation or intercession of
the saints? They were not fasting on the vigil of any saint, no matter how great,
besides Christ, nor did they wish to celebrate any feast day besides the Sabbath
day, since all such practices were instituted not by God, but by human beings. For
this reason, on Fridays and in the four sacred times and vigils of the saints, they
were greedily partaking of meat, to the scandal and ruin of many, fasting on no
day, except when their priests were ordering them to fast. Then it was not allowed
to eat or drink at all on that day, and some of them abstained until evening, and
some even to the next day. In addition, certain presumptuous women from among
their number were nourished with the sacrament of the Eucharist twice in the
same day, that is, for breakfast and dinner, and they were not allowing their small
children and infants to eat, nor to be nursed at their breasts to sustain their bodies,
like the hunger of the Ninevites, unless they first wailed and shed abundant tears.17
Likewise, since they were denying the cult of the saints, they said that tall
churches that were not dedicated to God alone, but to the name of some saint or
other, were cursed and simoniacal and that they were to be destroyed and burned
down along with the residences of the parish priests. This was because the apos-
tles neither consecrated churches in this way, nor did they have opulent homes
of their own, tithes, and financing for churches; but rather, going out throughout
the world, content with alms, they faithfully preached the word of God. Therefore
they burned down innumerable churches in the kingdom and houses of priests, or
133
destroyed them in whatever other way, so that the parish priests and their vicars,
unable to tend to their own sheep, ended up wandering with them, and they were
also prohibiting anyone to take the sacrament from priests with property. It hap-
pened that for many miles around, where the Táborites were in power, there was
no church with a resident administrator, because all of them were fearful and ran
away. Therefore many people died without viaticum and the font of baptism.
Similarly, they rejected the holy doctors accepted by the church, who approved of
the ecclesiastical rites in their writings, as worthless, saying [413]: How have Augus-
tine and Jerome and the other doctors benefited the church? Rather, in approving of
church ceremonies, they caused more harm than benefit to the church of God. They
also said that Jerome’s translation of the Bible was a travesty. Likewise, they were
also attacking the masters of Prague, the ecclesiastical rites and the defenders of the
ecclesiastical observances handed down by the Fathers, saying: What are the fists
of the masters good for when they confusedly spend their days in human wisdom
alone?18 Therefore they turned the hearts of many to hating the masters.
Leaders of the new heresy

Likewise, not content with tarnishing the one-time famous name of the Czech
kingdom with the aforementioned evils, they added thereto the worst deeds imag-
inable, twisting the meaning of the prophetic writings and Holy Scriptures to
their own foolish understanding, and announced to the people that the kingdom
of Christ was being restored now, during these days, presenting many and vari-
ous articles, some heretical, others misleading and many more of them downright
scandalous.19 The principal author, publisher, and defender of these articles was
one young priest from Moravia, Martin, called Loquis, a young man of subtle
intelligence20 and revered in memory beyond all measure. He was called Loquis
because of his faculty of speaking, since he was pronouncing fearlessly, not the
opinions of the doctors of the church, but his own opinions.21 His principal accom-
plices in this heresy were Master Jan of Jičín, Markolt, a bachelor of arts from
Prague University, Koranda, and other Táborite priests mentioned earlier. All of
them had great respect for a certain Václav, the cupbearer in Prague, who excelled
in knowledge of the Bible more than anyone, and who interpreted the New Tes-
tament through the Old Testament and the Old Testament through the New Testa-
ment.22 The things that they were openly teaching as doctrine are written below.
Articles of the Táborite priests

First, that at the end of this age Christ will come secretly like a thief, in his second
coming, to restore his kingdom, for which we pray: ‘Let your kingdom come!’ [2
Peter 3:10]. In his coming there will be no time for mercy, but only for revenge
and retribution with fire and sword. Therefore all adversaries of the law of Christ
deserve to perish with seven final plagues, which the faithful are called forth to
bring about.
134
Likewise, in this time of vengeance, Christ is not to be imitated in his sweet-

ness and mercy towards those sinners [414], but in his zeal and anger and just
retribution.
Likewise, during this time of vengeance every faithful person, even a
priest, who holds back his physical sword from the blood of the enemies of
the law of Christ, is cursed; rather, he ought to wash and sanctify his hands
in their blood.23
Likewise, during this time of vengeance anyone who has heard the word of
Christ preached, where he says: ‘In that time let all those who are in Judea flee to
the mountains’ [Mark 13:14], and who will not have come out of cities, villages,
and castles to the physical mountains where the Táborites or their brothers have
lately congregated, sins mortally against the commandment of Christ and will
perish in his sin. Because at this time no one can be saved from the plagues of the
Lord, unless he comes to join the faithful on the mountains.
Likewise, in this time of vengeance all cities, villages, and castles should be
deserted, destroyed, and burned down, because neither the Lord God nor anyone
else will enter them now.
Likewise, during that time of vengeance the Táborite brethren are angels sent to
lead all the faithful from the cities, villages, and castles to the mountains like Lot
from Sodom. The brothers with those who adhere to them are that body to which,
no matter where it might be, even the eagles will congregate about whom it has
also been said: ‘Any place where your foot shall have left a trace, is now, and will
be, yours’ [Deuteronomy 11:24; Joshua 1:3]. For they are the army sent by God
all over the world to take away all stumbling blocks from the kingdom of Christ,
which is the church militant, and to uproot evil from among the faithful ones, and
to take revenge and to inflict plagues upon the nations of the enemies of the law of
Christ and their cities, villages, and castles.
Likewise, in all Christendom at this time of vengeance only five physical towns
will be left to which the faithful of the Lord should flee and be saved, and all others
shall be destroyed and come to ruin like Sodom.
Likewise, one of two spouses, either husband or wife, the other spouse being
unwilling, having left behind both their partner and their children and all other
relatives, is able to and ought to flee to the aforementioned mountains, or to the
aforementioned five towns [415].24
Likewise, the material properties of the enemies of the law of Christ should be
confiscated, taken away, and laid waste, destroyed or burned by the faithful.
Likewise, at the end of this culmination of the age, Christ descending from the
heavens will come openly in his own person and will be seen by the eyes of flesh,
to assume his kingdom in this world, and he will make ready the great feast and
supper of the lamb, like a wedding for his spouse, the church, here on these phys-
ical mountains. Christ the king will enter, to see the guests reclining at table, and
all those who do not have wedding clothes, he will send into the outer darkness.25
Just as in the time of Noah all those who were outside the Ark were swallowed in
the water of the flood, so at that time all evildoers, who are not on the mountains,
135
will be swallowed up in an instant, and so Christ will throw all stumbling blocks
out of his kingdom.
Likewise, in this second coming of Christ, prior to the day of judgment, kings,
princes, and all church prelates will cease to exist, and there will be no interest or
collector in the kingdom thus restored, since the children of God will trample upon
the necks of kings, and all the kingdoms under the skies will be subordinated to
them, as the Scripture says in Wisdom 7 [sic 6:1–11]. Therefore the chosen ones
will suffer no further persecution but will bring about retribution.
Likewise, in this restored kingdom there will be no sins, scandals, abomination,
or lies, but all will be chosen children of God. All the sufferings of Christ and of
all his members will cease.
Likewise, in the church, or in the restored kingdom, women will give birth to
their children without pain and they will be born without original sin, as it is writ-
ten in Isaiah chapter 66 [sic 65:23]: ‘They will give birth without distress,’ and 1
John 5[:18]. Likewise, children born in this kingdom, if they be of this kingdom,
will never die, because there will be no more death, as it is written in Revelation
21[:4].
Likewise, the glory of this kingdom thus renewed in this way before the resur-
rection of the dead will be greater than that of the early church.
Likewise, the sun of human intelligence will not give light to people in the
renewed kingdom, because no one will teach his fellow, but all will submit to the
teaching of God [416].
Likewise, they were teaching a doctrine most contrary to the faith, namely, that
on this way, that is, in the restored kingdom, the most perfect law of grace, after
which there shall be no other human rule, will become null and void in fact and
enforcement.
Likewise, the provision of the apostle Paul about going to church will not be
fulfilled after this reformation, nor should it be carried out, since there will be
no churches remaining, as it is written in Revelation 21[:22]. The omnipotent
Lord certainly is the temple of the church. Because just as faith and hope will be
destroyed, so also will the temples.
Likewise, in his second coming Christ will come on the clouds of heaven in
great grandeur with his angels and all those who have died in Christ, who will rise
in their bodily form and will come with him as the first ones to judge the living
and the dead. Then all the chosen ones, who will be left alive at that point, will be
taken up in their bodies from all corners of the earth, along with those risen from
the dead, and will be taken in the clouds to meet Christ in the air, as the apostle
says [1 Thessalonians 4:17]. They were saying that this would happen in a short
time, within a few years, so that some of us would still be alive to see the saints
of God rising up again, and among them Master Jan Hus, because the Lord God
will shorten this time of revenge, hastening the conclusion of the age on account
of the chosen ones.26
Likewise, these chosen ones who will be thus left behind while still living, will
be restored to a state of innocence like Adam in paradise, like Enoch and Elijah,
136
and they will be without all hunger or thirst and without all physical and spiritual
sufferings. Women will reproduce children and grandchildren in the flesh, here in
the lands and in the mountains, through holy marriage and immaculate intercourse
without any pain or distress, and without any stain of original sin. Nor will there
be need of baptism in the river, because they will be baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Nor will there be the sacrament of the holy Eucharist, because they will hence-
forth be fed in the mode of the angels, not in the memory of the passion of Christ
but of his victory.
Foundations of the Táborite heresy

Furthermore, to verify the aforementioned articles, they were bringing in the
sacred Scriptures, interpreting them according to their own intuition. I have taken
care to collect a small part of them for posterity, so that it would be obvious how
crazy heads misled simple people [417].27 First, that these authoritative passages,
the first of which is written in the tenth chapter of Revelation [10:7], namely, that
in the day of the seventh angel, when he starts to blow the horn, the mystery of
God will be completed, as he has announced through his servants the prophets;
and the second of which is written in the twelfth chapter of Daniel [12:7]: When
the dispersion of the holy people is realized, all these things, which are true, will
come to pass. Second, that, similarly, when all the passions of Christ predicted by
the Holy Spirit through the prophets will have come to pass, then, and not before,
the latter-day glories that have been foretold will become apparent to the whole
house of God. Third, that the words of the Old and New covenant and the words of
prophets and holy apostles, in whatsoever manner they are presented, are literally
true and may be adduced as truths. Fourth, likewise, that nothing should be added
to the words of God, nor should anything be subtracted from them. Having laid
out these assumptions in this way, I have presented the intellectual position that is
the basis of nearly all my declaration. Already now, in the culmination of the age,
on the day that is called the Day of the Lord, Christ has come, so that, having con-
quered the house that wearies him, he may bring about consummation in it, and so
that, renewing the church, he may set up this praise in the world, and he has come
to assume his kingdom in this world and to cast out all stumbling blocks, and not
to permit any of those who commit wrongdoings, or anything polluted, to enter it,
nor anything bringing about lies and abomination.
About the end of time

By the end of time I understand what Christ predicted in Matthew 24[:1–31],
which he also mentions in chapter 13[:49–50] of the same Gospel, and about
which it is said in Isaiah chapter 10[:23]: ‘For the Lord God of hosts will bring
about the conclusion of time and the hastening of things’; which the prophet
Jeremiah also asserts [30:11]: ‘I will bring about the conclusion of time among
all races of people, throughout which I have scattered you, but I will rebuke you
137
in judgment, so that you may not see yourself as innocent’ [418]. Likewise, in
Jeremiah 30[:15]: ‘Because they have abandoned God, they will be swallowed
up.’ Again, Isaiah 1[:28]: ‘However, only the sins of some will be taken away, and
they will be made saints among the peoples,’ whence it is written: ‘His tongue
of fire devouring,’ in Isaiah 3 [sic 5:24]; in Isaiah 1[:24], ‘He shall destroy the
wicked and the sinners’; and in Zephaniah 3[:19]: ‘Behold, I will slay all those
who afflict you.’
I understand ‘age’ as the apostle takes it in Hebrews 9[:26], saying thus: ‘Now
moreover, toward the end of the ages’; hinting that there are many ages, he says
that already certain things have been brought to completion. This is also how it
is taken in Matthew 12[:32], where he says: ‘A sin against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven in this age,’ whose culmination he likewise predicts in this pas-
sage: ‘Thus, he said, it will be, in the end of the age.’ Suggesting that there will
be another, he adds: ‘Nor will such a sin be forgiven in the age to come’ [12:32].
Again, another age is spoken of in Luke 20[:35], where he says: ‘Those moreover,
who are held worthy of that age’; he does not say ‘the age to come,’ but ‘that age.’
Thus they go so far as to posit and distinguish between many ages, holding that
there is a difference between ‘age’ and ‘world.’ For when a very noticeable change
comes about in humanity, then the age is brought to an end. Therefore I identify
the end of the age with the changing of the good into better and the extermination
of the wicked, since it is written in Jeremiah 30[:11]: ‘I will bring about consum-
mation among all peoples, but I will not bring it about among you.’
Regarding the Day of the Lord

I identify the Day of the Lord with the day of vengeance, about which it is spoken
in Isaiah 63[:4]: ‘The day of vengeance is in my heart’; ‘The year of my retribution
is at hand.’ And 61[:1–2]: ‘The Holy Spirit has sent me, to announce an acceptable
year and day of vengeance,’ regarding which it is written also in Luke 4[:19]. In 1
Thessalonians 5[:2]: ‘That day will come like a thief in the night.’ And in 1 Cor-
inthians 3[:13]: ‘And it will appear in fire.’ Indeed, the apostle has predicted, in 2
Thessalonians 2[:3], in what manner the rapture will come beforehand; regarding
which it is also written in Zechariah 14[:1–2].
Concerning the coming of Christ

Regarding the day on which Christ comes, there are a multitude of references in
Sacred Scripture. According to Habakkuk 2[:3]: ‘And he comes eating and drink-
ing, and he is called a glutton and a drunkard’; and Luke 7[:34]: ‘For he comes
on a spotless path, and the holy sing psalms and the praises of God are in their
throats’; Psalm 100[:2]: ‘And there is a song [419] for them’; Psalm 150[:6]: ‘Like
a voice of consecrated solemnity and the joy of the heart, like one who goes forth
with a flute’; Isaiah 3 [sic] and Psalm 100. ‘And they will understand, for in the
final days you will understand the designs of the Lord’; Jeremiah 23[:20] and
138
30[:24]: ‘For he has already been marked out’; Isaiah 29[:11] and Daniel 12[:4]:
‘In the opening of the seventh seal’; 1 John [Revelation 8:1]: ‘It has been opened.’
For now Christ, coming in innocence, will walk about in the midst of his house
and do works of mercy. No less, however, does he also render just judgments, not
recognizing the wicked, for, when any wicked man knocks, not knowing how to
open the door to the wicked, he says thus: ‘I do not know you,’ as it is written in
Matthew 25[:12]. According to Isaiah 44[:25] and 1 Corinthians 1[:19–20]: ‘Now
he pursues those priests who dragged him out of the holy of holies. Now, with the
proud eye of majesty, he begins to refuse the bread of wisdom, which he turns
back, making their wisdom into stupidity.’ To the heart of the greedy one that is
still not satisfied, now he refuses his sacraments. The spotless ones, which are the
priests, who do not own property and are pure from the smallest particle of greed,
sitting with God, already now minister to Christ. He already intends to rid his
house of the one who is the source of pride. Now he who speaks unjust words is
not able to reconcile his arguments with the authority of Scripture. For ‘the vessel
that will have been fashioned against you, will not be laid out,’ according to Isaiah
54[:17]. Therefore, what remains, except that he should cut down sinners in the
early morning and to rid the city of God of all who bring about injustice, and that
they be harassed in the evening and not survive in the morning? For ‘this is the
portion of those, who have laid us waste, and the lot of those who are despoiling
us,’ as it is written in Isaiah 17[:14]. This is confirmed in Psalm 101[:1], namely
this passage: ‘I will sing your mercy and your judgment, Lord!’ The signs of his
coming are laid out, where it is said, as it is written in Isaiah 30[:27–8]:
I will understand and I will sing out, when you come to me on your spotless
path. Now the children sing songs, and some understand the deep secrets. For the
name of the Lord comes from far off, with fury that is burning and heavy to bear.
His lips are full of indignation, and his tongue is like a voracious fire; his spirit is
like a raging torrent, to annihilate the peoples up to the neck, as well as the bridle
of error, that is, heretical dogmas, which was imposed in the jaws of the peoples.
For ‘the Lord has indignation over all peoples, and his fury over all their wrong-
doing [420] cuts them down and gives them over to death,’ as it says in Isaiah 38
[sic 33:10–12]. For, according to Isaiah 33[:14],
Now I will rise up, says the Lord, now I will be exalted, now I will be raised
up, and you will receive my anger, you will bring forth my stalk. Your spirit,
like a fire, will devour you and the people will be like the ash from a fire, and
the thorns, gathered together, will be burned up in the fire. Therefore the sin-
ners in Zion have repented, and fear takes over the hypocrites.
Ezekiel 3[:9] speaks of ‘those who are a house that wearies the Lord.’ For ‘he
comes, a harsh conqueror, leaping forth into the midst of the land of destruction,
and in a single moment a famous nation will perish, that is, the heavenly status of
139
the priests will be quickly and suddenly destroyed,’ according to Wisdom 18[:15]:
‘He will traverse the heaven in a great assault,’ as it is written in 2 Peter 3[:10]; and
in Joel 3[:16]: ‘The heavens and the earth will be shaken.’
I am cognizant of the praise of the church that is implied concerning these
events: first, that it will be brought together; second, that it will be made clean;
third, that it will be spread; fourth, that it will be made peaceful; fifth, that it will
be established as equal to the glory of the early church; sixth, that it will be more
glorious than it has ever been. All the saints in their prayer are urged by Isaiah to
implore that all these things may be done for the church by the Lord God: ‘You
who remember God, do not be silent, and do not render silence to God, until he
makes secure and establishes Jerusalem as an object of praise on the earth,’ as it is
written in Isaiah 62[:6–7]. Zephaniah explains where on the earth he means, when
he says: ‘I will place them in a position of praise and honor in the whole land of
their disorder,’ according to Zephaniah 3[:19].
About the unity of the church

‘I have other sheep,’ says Christ, ‘which are not of this flock, and it is fitting for me
to lead them to me, and they will hear my voice,’ as it is written in John 10[:16].28
‘For he will send his angels and they will gather the elect from the four winds.’ In
Matthew 24[:31], it is written:
For behold, I will gather them from all lands, to which I scattered them in my
fury and wrath and my great indignation, and I will lead them back to that
place, and I will make them live in security, and they will be as my people,
and I will be as their god, and I will give to them one heart and one way, so
that they may fear me in all days, and it will be well for them and their chil-
dren after them, and I will hammer out for them an eternal covenant.
Reading these things, note them well. As it is written in Jeremiah 32[:37–41]:
And I will not cease to benefit them, and I will put the fear of me into their
hearts, so that they will not turn away from me, and I will rejoice in them when
I will have done well by them, and I will establish them in this land in truth.
‘They will see29 eye to eye, when the Lord will have transformed the captivity of
Zion,’ according to Isaiah 22 [sic] [421]. ‘For behold, the days will come and they
will not say: “The Lord lives, who led us out of these lands,” but “The Lord lives,
who led us out of the whole earth,”’ according to Jeremiah 16[:14], 23[:7–8], and
31[:7–8]. ‘For when I will have been made holy among you, indeed I will raise
you up from out of all the lands,’ as it is written in Ezekiel 36[:23–4]. This con-
gregation and gathering together will most certainly come to pass, since Christ
has said that it will be. Among the church thus gathered together, all things will be
fulfilled according to the good words of the Holy Spirit, which have been touched
140
by the authority of the prophet Jeremiah, which authority must be fulfilled in truth,
because it has revealed to us that, when fathers die, still children will take their
places, yet always we interpret the Scriptures according to the intent of the Holy
Spirit. ‘The Lord will gather together his own, though they will have been scat-
tered to the ends of heaven,’ as it is written in Deuteronomy 20 [sic 30:4].
Regarding the purification of the church

‘For, in addition, Christ will thoroughly purify his land,’ as it is written in Mat-
thew 3[:12]. ‘Every branch bearing fruit in Christ, when the wicked branches are
pruned, the Father will purify, so that it may bear yet more fruit,’ according to John
15[:2]. As it is written in Ezekiel 36[:25]:
Behold, his favor will go so far as this, that, when the wicked perish, and the Lord
is coming, the vineyard will be entrusted to those who bear fruit. Indeed pure
water will be poured out over the elect, and they will be purified of all iniquities.
‘Those who have proved their faith, just as gold is tested in fire, will appear pure
on the day of revelation,’ as we read in 1 Peter 1[:7]. For all the children of Levi
will be purified, and he will strain them like gold and silver, and therefore they
will be pure, offering their sacrifice in justice, and then the sacrifice of Judah and
Jerusalem will be pleasing, as at the end of the age and in ancient times. Again he
performs meritorious works. Again it is said, according to Isaiah 1[:25–8]:
I will turn my hand to you, and I will boil your slag to pure metal, and I will
take away all your impurity, and I will restore your judges, as they were for-
merly, and your councilors, as in ancient times. Then you will be called a just
polity, a faithful city. Zion will be brought back in judgment, and they will
lead her back in justice. He will stamp out the wicked and the sinners, and
those who have left him, the Lord, will be swallowed up.
‘Behold, I will cut down all those who have afflicted you,’ as it is stated in Zeph-
aniah 3[:19].
Concerning the multiplication of the church

‘For when they have been purified, they will bear more fruit,’ according to John
15[:2]. ‘The wedding vows will be fulfilled for those reclining at table’ [422]
according to Matthew 22[:10], because the crippled and the deaf, who will hear
the voice of the Lord on that day, will be gathered together. Whence Jeremiah
31[:8–9], as it is written in Isaiah 49[:20–1] and 60 [sic]:
Behold, I will lead them out from the land of the eagle, and I will gather them
together from the ends of the earth, and among them will be the blind and
141
the crippled, the pregnant and those in childbirth, a great gathering of those
coming back here, and they will come with weeping, and in prayers I will lead
them back through the torrents of the waters, onto the right path.
For they will be called sons of barrenness: my space is constricted, make a
space for me where I may live. And their mother will say in her heart: ‘Who
bore these ones for me, when I am sterile and unable to give birth, a refugee
and captive; who will nourish them, when I am poor and desolate? And where
will they reside?’
‘And since, when he will lead his children into the land which their fathers pos-
sessed, blessing them, he will make them greater in number, than their fathers
were before them,’ according to Deuteronomy 30[:5].
About the peace of the church

‘Rising up, Jesus will command the winds and the sea, and there will be a great
tranquility on that day,’ according to Matthew 8[:26]. The elect will have peace
with God, who will no longer grow angry with them, just as it is written:
In the moment of my indignation I concealed my face for a while from you

and in my eternal mercy, I am merciful towards you. Thus the Lord, your
redeemer, has said. Just as in the days of Noah, to whom I swore that I would
never again lead the waters of the flood over the lands, thus I have sworn, that
I will not grow angry with you or rebuke you.
And below: ‘My mercy will not leave you, the covenant of my peace will not be
shaken, they will have peace with men. For kings will minister to them, and that
race which will not submit to them, will perish,’ according to Isaiah 60[:12]. ‘The
tax-collector will leave you alone, the taxes will cease,’ according to Isaiah 14[:4].
They will not be obstructed by the wise men of this world, as they are now, since
they are wretched vessels of fraud, who arrange their thoughts for the destruction
of the meek in their lying speech, when the poor man will pronounce judgment,
regarding which it is written in Isaiah 32[:7]. ‘Then they will no longer be as they
are, and they will pronounce judgment on every tongue resisting them,’ according
to Isaiah 54[:10]. ‘For the pompous will be snatched away from their midst, and
the poor common people will be left among them,’ according to Zephaniah 3[:11–
12]. In Isaiah 60[:17]: ‘The Lord says, I will give peace as your punishment.’ ‘For
the most recent saints are the feet which must be directed to the way of peace,’ as
it is written in Luke 1[:79]. ‘And in their borders God will establish peace,’ in the
words of Psalm 147[:14]. No land will be given as a footstool to those feet that
are wearing shoes, since it was denied to their elders to stretch out their legs over
Idumea [423], where the prodigal son, when he returned to his father, wore shoes.
For this reason it is said in Isaiah 54[:13]: ‘I will give an abundance of peace to
your sons.’
142
Regarding glory equal to that of the early church

‘For in addition, the days of the saints will be renewed, as in the beginning, so also
at the beginning. The saints will be the heirs of the early church, just as from the
beginning,’ according to Ecclesiastes 36[:13]. ‘They will be, just as they were,
since they had not been banished,’ it is written in Zechariah 10[:6]. ‘They will
turn back to their country,’ says Jeremiah 23[:3]. ‘They will be sown and they
will grow and inhabit the mountains, as in the beginning,’ according to Ezekiel
36[:11]. ‘Once again they will be built up and fitted with tamborines and they
will go out in a chorus of rejoicers,’ according to Jeremiah 31[:4] and Zechariah
10[?]. ‘For these most recent ones have done this in a single hour and they have
been made equal to those bearing the weight of the day and the heat,’ according
to Matthew 20[:12].
Concerning the greater glory of the final house

‘When all stumbling blocks have been cast out from the kingdom of Christ, and all
wrongdoers, after the day dawns and the light-bearer arises in their hearts, then the
just will shine out, like the sun,’ according to Matthew 13[:41]. Again, in Isaiah
60[:19]: ‘The sun of human intelligence will not shine more brightly than they.’
‘But they themselves will be as the light of the peoples,’ according to Isaiah 44
[sic 49:6]. ‘Now they will all rejoice, seeing the rod of vengeance, and themselves
bringing about vengeance,’ as it is written in Luke 19[:7]. For ‘those who trampled
upon the church for forty-two months,’ as written in Revelation 11[:2], will be as
a stumbling block for the feet, that is, for the holy ones in the final days. Even the
apostles were disgraced like filth on account of these very things, as if condemned
to death, and ‘their perverted children will adore their footprints,’ according to
Isaiah 60[:14]. ‘For now they will be made firm, and they will be as an object of
praise on the earth,’ as it is written in Isaiah 62[:7]. ‘And this in the land of their
confusion,’ it is written in Zephaniah 3[:19]. ‘Now their sadness will be turned
into joy,’ according to John 16[:20]. All these facts, together with those that were
adduced before, show that the glory of the final house will be greater than that
of the first house, in accordance with Haggai 2[:9]. ‘They make it known, that
they will be presented with greater gifts, than they had at the outset,’ according to
Ezekiel 36[:11]. This will come about in truth, after all the passions of Christ will
have been brought to fulfillment; this is what the apostle proclaims in his example,
saying, in 1 Corinthians 13 [sic 12:21]: ‘It is not possible for the head to say to the
feet … ’; if one of the members glories in itself, let all the others rejoice as well. I
do not deny that this is the meaning of this analogy, that one may understand it to
be about this body, in which there are indeed the relative dignities of the various
conditions, and in which the more contemptible are to be set up for judgment. To
whom honor is owed in this body [424], let honor be given; however, St. Paul also
understands this about those holy ones of the final days, in calling them ‘feet,’ so
that they also may receive this land as their inheritance, whence it is written, ‘I will
143
give the land to you30 and your offspring, and the whole land of Canaan, the land
of your wandering, I will give to your eternal possession, and I will be their God,’
according to Genesis 27 [sic 17:8], and likewise Daniel 7[:27]: ‘Let the kingdom
which is beneath the whole sky, be given to the holy race.’31
Violence in the service of religion

The aforementioned heretical errors and scandalous doctrines wormed their way
into the hearts of many, not only the Táborites but also the Praguers, and espe-
cially the many sisters who are commonly called Beguines. Those so infected, as
if having thenceforth forgotten all justice, humility, mercy, and patience within
themselves, not like human beings endowed with reason, but like insensate beasts,
rabid dogs, and roaring lions, ferociously attacked everyone who was unwilling
to agree with the aforementioned arguments, harassing them with looting, fire,
and various means of torture and affront. These events were such that the onetime
glorious Czech kingdom was presented to all nations as a spectacle and eternal
proverb. Never before had eye seen or ear heard, nor had it arisen in the human
heart, the manner of things that happened [I Corinthians 2:9] and were perpe-
trated after the publication of the aforementioned noxious doctrines by the Czech
people, who were saying that they had armed themselves for the liberation of the
law of God against all the servants of the Antichrist. So they persecuted in various
manners all those who did not agree with them, or who contradicted the afore-
mentioned delusional teaching, by robbing the poor and harassing the peasants
without mercy, not sparing priests, monks, mendicant friars, and neither churches
nor houses, but putting aside the fear of God, the Táborites tore to pieces, demol-
ished, burned down, and reduced to nothing whatever they could get their hands
on. There is no pen that could describe these atrocities, so many and so great, or
what tremendous destruction the enemy at that time wrought in the sanctuary.32
So the enemies of the church gained ground, strengthened in their wrongdoing,
torturing, and persecuting the Lord’s faithful and His people by fire, by the sword,
and with flails [425], like the lieutenants of Nero, having given free rein to greed
and cruelty. O how many cities, towns, villages, and castles, together with their
inhabitants, the whirlwind of fire consumed! On the one hand, King Sigismund,
the open persecutor of the truth, and, on the other hand, the Táborites, with even
greater cruelty, reduced the noble and fruitful land of the Czechs to almost noth-
ing. Not only did they burn churches and monasteries, but also, in their atrocity,
people, both lay and clergy.33
Conquest of towns by the Táborites and execution of their

inhabitants
Having taken Prachatice, a town near the border with Bavaria, by force, the bloody
hands of the Táborites slaughtered like pigs 135 people on the streets, with flails
and swords. Having locked 85 of them in a sacristy and having piled up and set on
144
fire straw and various other kindling, they burned them without mercy. It did not
help them that, kneeling, clasping their hands and raising them towards the skies,
they begged sincerely for their attackers to give them, in their wretchedness, time
for repentance, and that they would do anything they ordered. They did the same
to the Germans in Bystřice, and the town of Vodňany saw its faithful priests who
used to sacramentally nourish the people with the Utraquist communion, being
thrown into a burning kiln of lime as if by executioners and burned up. Also,
while conquering the fortress of Říčany, they captured 11 priests who promised to
convert to the Táborite faith. They locked them in a room in the house of a certain
peasant and incinerated them in an explosion of fire.
Murder of a bishop and Hussite rationale for this action

Likewise, in conquering the Castle of Příběnice under the command of the priest
Václav Koranda, having captured there the monk Hermann, bishop of Nicopolis,
who had ordained nearly all the Táborite priests in Lipnice, they drowned him in
the river together with two other priests.34 Nor did it profit the bishop that he was
begging them, weeping, with tears flowing, to spare his life, and saying that he was
willing to ordain to the priesthood as many as they should like, and that he would
join them, adhering to all of their teachings. His pleas fell on deaf ears, because
the Táborites said that according to the aforementioned heretical arguments this
was a time only for vengeance, and not for sparing, or doing any work of mercy
towards enemies of the law of God, either clergy or lay, but rather that all should be
cruelly eradicated from the renewed kingdom of Christ as enemies of God [426].
Their priests were not immune from this unprecedented criminality, and some
of them agreed to the slaughter of the innocent by some of their brethren. Some
of them went so far as to ride clothed in mail with bows and lances like knights,
killing by fire and the sword those who did not agree with them, saying that they
were supposed, as it is written, to wash their hands in the blood of sinners. There-
fore, if someone killed 10 or 20 sinners and washed their hands in the blood of the
slain, that person could immediately proceed without confession to receiving the
sacrament, since the more enemies of the law of God someone kills, the greater
the reward, and the more glorious the crown he may expect to receive from God.
For this reason, the blind and ignorant people, following blind leaders, should
be very much afraid lest they fall into the pit of eternal damnation, never to
emerge. Encouraged by what was mentioned above, they committed unheard of
and tyrannical cruelties, worse than any beast of the forest, who indeed would
be shocked at their methods. Often they were seen with their hands still stained
with blood receiving the sacrament at the altar—may they not allow themselves
to appear thus at the day of judgment! Great fear of the Táborites fell upon the
inhabitants of the kingdom who did not know what to do or to which side to give
allegiance.35 What happened was that many people, both those of noble birth and
peasants, forsaking their possessions, joined the Táborites. Some did so because
they were attracted to their law, which they arrived at through false interpretations
145
of the Scriptures. Some were forced by fear, and some wanted merely to plunder
the countryside, and become servants of the iniquity of Mammon. Some, hav-
ing called their neighbors, used to say: ‘Take your houses away from mine here,
neighbors, because I want to set it on fire immediately and take refuge on Mount
Tábor or in the five towns, in order to save my soul!’ While one man was setting
his house on fire, sometimes the entire village burned down. The lamentations of
the poor could be heard, women sitting and crying with their small children, not
having anything to eat or drink or anywhere to stay and lay their heads in rest.
Whoever had seen such misery would not have been able to hold back tears, unless
he had a heart of stone, and would say:
This is not the law of God, which orders the naked to be clothed, the hungry
to be fed, the thirsty to be given drink, but a diabolic law that robs the clothed
of their garments and wastes the bread and drink of the hungry and thirsty by
burning it [427].
Hussite strategy for controlling parishes

There was another vile practice among the Táborites: their numbers did not
decrease, but quite to the contrary, they increased, because they took prisoner
all parish priests who were feeding their sheep faithfully in their parishes with
the word of God and the Utraquist communion, violently spiriting them away
from their properties or their churches during Mass, tearing their vestments from
their bodies, and taking them bound to Hradiště Tábor, so that thus the people,
deprived of faithful priests, would be compelled to come to them more quickly.
All the priests in the country who did not wish to accept the Táborite heresies
became fearful, and therefore faithful priests and parish priests who were giving
the Utraquist communion fled Prague, while the unfaithful and enemies of the
aforementioned communion, who did not agree with the heretical opinions of the
Táborites, fled to Kutná Hora, to Litoměřice, to Kouřim, to Nymburk, to Kolín,
to Německý Brod, to České Budějovice, and to other towns that had walls. As a
result, in České Budějovice there were so many new priests and monks arriving
that, contributing only one groschen each to the municipality, they contributed ten
sexagenae [or kops] of groschen to the defense of the town.36 In Prague, all of the
enemies of the communion of the chalice, both the doctors of law, theology, medi-
cine, and masters of arts, as well as prelates, parish priests, and monks left in large
numbers. The exceptions were the parish priest of St. Michael’s, Master Křišt’an,
and one canon of St. Apollinaris, Lord Petr, who remained in Prague.37 Therefore,
the priests who arrived in Prague occupied the churches of all those parish priests
who had fled. Thus, in the country there was not a priest to be seen for many miles
around who would minister to the people with the sacraments.
Indeed, the Táborite cavalry and infantry with their priests were circling around
the kingdom from place to place, burning up both the bodies and properties of
their enemies, who did not accept their doctrines. Their castles and fortifications,
146
although they had appeared to be impregnable, were taken by force in a short time,
about which more [will be said] later. A priest always marched in front of them
with the venerable sacrament of the body of Christ [428] in a wooden monstrance
on a pole held high.38 This priest, along with their attendant priests, were spurring
on the armed serfs and peasants in their tunics to glorious battle, saying: ‘The
Lord will hand over to you every place where your feet touch the ground’ [Deu-
teronomy 1:36]. Because it is written in the book of Psalms [37:10–11]: ‘In just a
short time there will be no sinners. You will be looking for them but you will not
find them: but the meek ones inherit the earth and will delight in an abundance of
peace.’ The peasants, who were joyfully murdering people like dogs more cruelly
than any beast of the forest, saying that they were fulfilling in this way the will of
God in eradicating these people from the earth, and that they were angels of God,
knights sent to avenge the wrong that had been done to Christ and the holy mar-
tyrs, and that thus the chaff was to be separated from the wheat with a thresher and
a winnowing fan and cast out from the threshing-floor of Christ’s church [Luke
3:17] and destroyed—they called these the meek and their brothers. If any one of
their brothers had been killed by their enemies, they quickly buried him with joy
wherever they happened to be, saying that he had died fighting for the cause of
God, and that he had entered heaven without any time in purgatory after this life,
which they did not believe in, and that soon he would come with the other brothers
to render judgment on the enemies of the law of God and to purify his land.39
Sigismund’s political efforts and Hussite resistance

But the king did not have troops at that time and, like a fool, was going around
aimlessly through Kutná Hora, Čáslav, Kolín, Nymburk, Litoměřice, and the other
cities that had accepted him as king, riding first to one town, then to another,
taking with him his own queen and the queen of his dead brother Václav.40 He
accused the people of Prague of not wanting to come to a peaceful, safe and calm
audience with him, which he was prepared to organize, and that they were look-
ing for reasons to accept someone else as king and wanted to rob him of his
inheritance. For this reason, he wrote letters to the pope and to all princes asking
them to assist him against the heretics and against those who occupied his king-
dom, since they were strong against him. Nevertheless, however, he stirred up the
noblemen of the Czech kingdom and the Margraviate of Moravia to write letters
to the Praguers to try to convince them to accept a calm and peaceful audience,
which the king was willing to grant them, and that they would be able to arrive and
leave safely [429], and meanwhile to accept and confirm terms of peace agreed
to by both sides. But although the masters of Prague had always been prepared to
appear at an audience with the king, which the king had hitherto denied, however
the Praguers themselves, fearing treachery on the part of the king, did not want to
accept the audience that they had been so interested in before. This was because
they had learned from reliable sources that the papal legate [Fernando de Palacios
of Lugo] had persuaded the king to promise much to the people of Prague but not
147
to fulfil or honor anything, since no one is bound to honor promises to heretics,

and thus, having made a truce with the Praguers and their allies until the middle of
Lent, he would be able to recruit troops and to attack all of them in force and cast
them out from the land of the living.41 When this became known to the Praguers,
they wrote a petition, together with masters and noblemen, asking them both to
intervene and ask the king to order his prelates, doctors, and masters, to grant to
the burgomasters and the municipality of Prague, in place of a hearing, solid argu-
ments from Scripture against the Four Articles, because the Prague masters had
submitted to them the aforementioned Four Articles, well supported by arguments
and Scripture, and indeed had sent them publicly to the entire royal army. We are
still waiting for an answer to this day.
Eucharistic heresy
Also, at that time, the Devil, who was not sleeping, discerning the license and
perversity that was then prevailing, was able to sow the seeds of whatever doc-
trine anyone happened to favor, and came forth in the form of a more harm-
ful and long-hidden error, like a cloaked heresy, which was destructive for the
whole Christian religion. This heresy taught, namely, that in the forms of bread
and wine, the sacrament of the Eucharist, legitimately blessed by a priest, there
is not present the true body of the Lord or his true blood, but that after consecra-
tion by a priest only the bread and wine are blessed, which should be eaten and
drunk by the faithful in memory of the passion of Christ. This was supposedly
because during the last supper Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, taking bread,
and giving thanks, blessed and broke the bread saying [Luke 22:19]: ‘This is
my body, which will be given up for you.’ Allegedly, in using the word ‘this’ in
this particular passage, Christ did not indicate the bread or his body in the form
of bread, but he indicated his own body with his still-mortal finger, standing in
front of his disciples, and said: ‘This is my body’; because this body was owed to
the salvation of all. When he added: ‘Take this and share it among yourselves,’
he gave them the bread that he had blessed so that whenever they [430], in a sim-
ilar manner, blessed and ate bread, they would pay tribute to his memory. They
were saying similar things about the chalice, like fools dreaming, saying that
through the word ‘this’ he indicated his blood, which was to be poured out on
the wood of the cross, and not the wine, or the blood in the form of wine, since,
as they were asserting, his blood was not contained there in the wine. Many men
and women, especially in the regions of Žatec, Plzeň, and Prague, were wretch-
edly infected with this damnable, blind, and heretical doctrine that is contrary to
all of Scripture. These were people who had previously been taking communion
daily with great devotion, reverence, and shedding of tears, for they considered
it to be the real sacrament of the Eucharist. After this noxious teaching spread,
these people, running to take the Sacrament as if it were merely earthly bread,
without any reverence or piety, were saying to the priest: ‘Give me the sacra-
ment,’ understanding this to mean the holy bread and wine, and not the body
148
and blood of the Lord. When the priest said: ‘Are you asking me to give you
the body of Christ in the form of bread and his blood in the form of wine?’ they
said, nodding their heads, ‘You heard well what I am asking for, the sacrament
of the altar.’ Nor were they willing to genuflect or make gestures of reverence
and adoration, as before, in the presence of the sacrament, and Christ, and God,
truly contained in the sacrament. Therefore, some of them, when they saw the
sacrament of bread and wine raised up during Mass or displayed in a monstrance
or carried during a procession, cast their eyes to the ground and scowled and
some of them spat, grumbling at the faithful people who were kneeling before
the venerable sacrament, and thus venerating and adoring their God in the sacra-
ment. What was even worse than all their malice, wherever and whenever they
could steal the blessed sacrament from monstrances or from pyxes, they threw it
away so that it could not be worshiped.
Origin and influence of the Pikart heresy

In their number there was one Zykmund, a landlord residing in Řepany near Hra-
dec, with many free men and peasants of both genders, who were unwilling to
accept any sound instruction from the masters, but, disgracing themselves, and
behaving as though they were without reason, they lost their minds, and were
saying that all masters and priests who said that under the form of bread and
wine was the true body and blood of Christ, were false leaders and seducers, and
that no faithful person [431] should believe them. The beginning and root of this
confounded heresy came to the Czech kingdom from some people called Pikarts,
who came to Prague in the year of our Lord 1418. They numbered about 40 men
with wives and children, and they came saying that they were going to be banished
by their prelates on account of the law of God, and that they had heard that the
truth of the Gospel was afforded the greatest freedom in the Czech kingdom, and
therefore, they said, they came to the Czech kingdom. For this reason, they were
accepted with joy by the Praguers and furnished with provisions. Also, the queen
[Sophia] with the king’s court often visited these people in their dwellings for
consolation and contributed mercifully, together with other rich people, to their
needs. But they rarely attended Mass, nor were they seen taking communion in
the Utraquist manner, and they did not have their own priest, but only a certain
man who knew Latin and who read little books for them in their language.42 So
these rapacious wolves lay hidden in sheep’s clothing. Therefore while the afore-
mentioned Zykmund and his servants and free men announced their heresy in
public and defended it persistently, when God granted it, it was discovered that
he had been seduced to that error and heresy, along with others, by the Pikarts.
And so, when some Pikarts died in Prague, and others, stricken by fear, left, no
one knew where they had gone, but nevertheless they left the infectious seed of
their doctrines among the Czechs, who even today are found to be entangled in
the aforementioned heresy; and so God, in his grace, deigned to quickly remove
them from our territory.43
149
Notes
1 In Christian tradition, this was the name of the site associated with the transfiguration of Christ
(Matthew 17:1–8, Mark 9:2–8, and Luke 9:28–36) situated about 11 miles west of the Sea of
Galilee. In the Hebrew Bible, this is where the Israelite army fought the Canaanites (Judges 4:6).
By the fifteenth century, this becomes the eponymous center of radical Hussite religious practice.
2 This may refer to events in 1419 rather than, as the narrative suggests, 1421.
3 This is an example of how Laurence does not follow a strict chronological pattern. We have
already learned that King Václav died on p. 346 (in the Goll edition) yet here on p. 402 he is
presented as alive.
4 Around 700 BCE, the Greek poet Hesiod composed his Theogony, which set forth the origins
and descent of the gods. Believing a legend that he would be overthrown by his own sons, Saturn
devoured each of his five sons, Demeter, Hestia, Hera, Hades, and Poseidon, as soon as they were
born in order to thwart the prophecy. To prevent the death of the sixth son, Saturn’s wife hid Zeus
and gave Saturn a stone she had wrapped in linens. Saturn promptly devoured the stone, believing
it was his son.
5 The liturgy or books of the hours are referred to four times in the chronicle. Twice this practice
comes under the withering critique of the Táborites as a useless exercise without biblical sanction.
The conservatives continued to advocate the practice. This is a collection of prayers, readings,
and hymns marking out the hours of the day. By the later Middle Ages a collection of these
materials called a breviary emerged and became widely adopted. There were different hours in
an individual book with the most important being the Hours of the Virgin. See Roger S. Wieck,
Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours in Medieval Art and Life, second edition (New York: George
Braziller, 2001).
6 The four seasons, derived from Quattuor tempora, ever since the Middle Ages had been
established as fast days during four discrete times of the year. These included during the first week
of Lent, in the week after Pentecost, after the exaltation of the Holy Cross (14 September), and
after the Feast of St. Lucy (13 December). Fasting occurred on the relevant Wednesday, Friday,
and Saturday. In the Middle Ages, Vigil days were normally held before the great feasts of the
liturgical year on Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, and the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul
(29 June). Josef Bujnoch, Die Hussiten: Die Chronik des Laurentius von Březová 1414–1421
(Graz: Verlag Styria, 1988), p. 321. Otherwise known as Ember Days.
7 On medieval beards, see Thomas A. Fudge, ‘Picturing the Death and Life of Jan Hus in the
Iconography of Early Modern Europe,’ Kosmas: Czechoslovak and Central European Journal
23, no. 1 (2009), pp. 3–4, with references; and Giovanni Pierio Valeriano, Pro sacerdotum barbis
(Rome: Apud Caluum, 1531), with important passages on A2, B3–B3v; and the more accessible
Giovanni Pierio Valeriano, Pro sacerdotum barbis Ad clarissimum Cardinalem Hippolytus
Medicem, Declamatio (Frankfurt: Erasmus Kämpffer, 1613), pp. 1–16.
8 All of this indicates the clear and powerful commitment to the stripping of medieval religion and
the iconoclastic nature of Táborite reductionism.
9 On Beguines, see Jennifer Kolpacoff Deane, ‘Did Beguines Have a Late-Medieval Crisis?
Historical Models and Historiographical Martyrs,’ Early Modern Women 8 (2013), pp. 275–88;
and Jennifer Kolpacoff Deane, ‘“Beguines” Reconsidered: Historiographical Problems and
New Directions,’ Monastic Matrix (August 2008), available at https://monasticmatrix.osu.edu/
commentaria/beguines-reconsidered-historiographical-problems-and-new-directions.
10 This sentence is consonant with Prologue 2 (Licet michi contemplanti) and indeed the strength
and appeal of Táborite religion filled the chronicler with gloom.
11 As early as 1415, the Prague theologian Ondřej of Brod warned against deviating from orthodox
eucharistic theology and practice by ignoring the decision of the Council of Constance concerning
Utraquism. Brod warned that human arrogance would assert itself sooner or later and begin to
argue that laity were no different than clergy. ‘I am afraid that human folly might get so far, that
even the laity or non-ordained clerics or even women might dare to serve mass, because they
150
could say: “How are we different from priests?”’ Ondřej of Brod, Contra communicationem plebis
sub utraque specie in Hermann Hardt, ed., Magnum oecumenicum constantiense concilium, 3
vols. (Frankfurt and Leipzig: C. Genschii, Helmestadi, 1699–1742), vol. 3, cols. 392–415; and
Jakoubek’s rejoinder De communione plebis sub utraque specie, contra Brodam follows in Hardt,
Magnum oecumenicum constantiense concilium, vol. 3, cols. 416–585. The relevant point from
Brod is quoted in the latter text, col. 524.
12 Pope Martin V later issued a bill declaring that no Christian should purchase church valuables
seized by Hussites from churches and religious houses. Augustin Theiner, ed., Vetera monumenta
historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia (Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1859), vol. 2, p. 209.
13 Many of these religious houses belonged to the Benedictine, Praemonstratensian, and Cistercian
orders and some had foundations in the eleventh century.
14 This refers to consecrated water used for baptism by immersion and holy water used for sprinkling.
Baptism was not always by immersion and reference in medieval sources to reserving water for
asperges is rare. Juan de Torquemada defended the use of holy water in his Tractatus quidam de
aqua benedicta (Rome: Stephan Plannck, 1491). I am grateful to Tom Izbicki for the reference.
15 It is remarkable that for all the reduction of medieval religion, staunch appeals to the authority of
Scripture, the eschewing of councils, creeds, and confessions of the early church, together with
the church fathers, the Táborites retained the authority of clerics as determinative and also did not
take issue with the doctrine of the Trinity, which is generally a post-New Testament development.
16 Religiously oriented visual images remained controversial. See William R. Cook, ‘The Question
of Images and the Hussite Movement in Prague,’ Cristianesimo nella storia 3 (October 1982), pp.
329–42; and Milena Bartlová, ‘Understanding Hussite Iconoclasm,’ Bohemian Reformation and
Religious Practice 7 (2009), pp. 115–26.
17 An allusion to the city of Ninevah whose wickedness was renown in biblical texts and in the
writings of Herodotus and Aristotle.
18 Laurence uses the Czech words ‘mistři fistři’ (mistrzi fistrzi).
19 At this stage Laurence represents that some of the leading Táborite priests were defenders and
convinced promoters of chiliastic ideas that had initially arisen during the Hussite period likely as
a result of the penetration of Waldensian theology into Bohemia that occurred in the fourteenth
century. According to this hermeneutic, they developed a biblically based idea of chiliasm, which
included notions of the end of the world but preceded by the consummation of history and the
judgment of the world. This was, in turn, preceded by an interregnum, or millennial period of
salvation during which time evil was suspended and ceased to exist. These ideas were predicated
upon a particular reading of Revelation 20:1–10. At the beginning of this period of time, an
initial resurrection occurs (Revelation 20:4), wherein martyrs and confessors are raised and they
reign together with Christ for a thousand years. Once this era concludes, Satan is liberated from
captivity and sets about to seduce the nations from the four corners of the earth (Revelation 20:7–
8). Following this, there is the final conflict waged between the church and Satan. On account
of divine intervention, the latter is defeated forever. Only then does the general resurrection and
the judgment (Revelation 20:11–15) occur and the new heaven and the new earth inaugurated
(Revelation 21:1–22:5). During this millennial kingdom, and here the terminology is informed
by Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, which is understood symbolically as an indeterminate period that
is not subject to human calculation, the idea of a great period of silence and tranquility lies at
the root of Táborite doctrine. The new age commencing with the advent of Christ occurs in two
discrete stages. First, the secret coming of Christ announces a time of vengeance and retribution
that occurs with fire and sword. In this cataclysmic event, all of the enemies of the law of God
are slated for destruction. Then, in the second stage, Christ appears visibly. When this occurs, all
earthly kings, princes, and prelates will cease. The elect of God still remaining on the earth will
witness the resurrection of the saints, along with Jan Hus. The state of innocence associated with
Adam, Enoch, and Elijah is reintroduced. As a result there is no longer any trace of sin and in
consequence there is no need for baptism, the eucharist, the sacramental system, and by extension
the church is also rendered obsolete. The practical program of Táborite chiliasm is presented
151
by Laurence of Březová twice in the chronicle. The first instance occurs here in the following
articles and then again later in Chapter 9 where he presents a 72-article list of propositions.
This summary follows Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, pp. 324–5, and the best studies include Robert
Kalivoda, Revolution und Ideologie: Der Hussitismus, trans. Heide Thorwart (Cologne: Böhlau
Verlag, 1976); but see also Robert Kalivoda, Husitské myšlení (Prague: Filosofia, 1997), pp.
28–73; and Howard Kaminsky, ‘Chiliasm and the Hussite Revolution,’ Church History 26 (March
1957), pp. 43–71.
20 (B) Prague, NK MS XI D 8 breaks off here at the bottom of fol. 52v.
21 Martin Loquis (i.e., the ‘chatterer’), also known as Martinek Húska, is a shadowy actor on the
Hussite stage. His moniker appears to suggest he was verbose. Little more is known than what
appears in this chronicle. Ostensibly from Moravia, but it is not known from which part, he
may have studied at the university in Prague. Bujnoch thinks he may have been one of Hus’s
students and was attracted to Wyclifism. He possessed an extraordinary knowledge of the Bible
and authored a number of writings. Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 325. See also Thomas A. Fudge,
Medieval Religion and Its Anxieties: History and Mystery in the Other Middle Ages (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 183–202.
22 Laurence uses the Latin word pincerna. Elsewhere Václav is referred to as a tavern keeper;
perhaps a bartender in the modern sense. Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 343, 351, 352; J.F. Niermeyer, Mediae
Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden: Brill, 1960–1964), fasc. 9, p. 797.
23 Four times in the chronicle Laurence refers to sanctifying one’s hands in the blood of God’s
enemies. This is a motif found often in the literature of the Hussite movement.
24 John Klassen, ‘Women and Religious Reform in Late Medieval Bohemia,’ Renaissance and
Reformation n.s. 5, no. 4 (1981), pp. 207–8.
25 The phrase ‘tenebras exteriores’ parallels Matthew 22:12–14.
26 The expectation of seeing Hus at the time of the eschaton is noted elsewhere. Jan Příbram, ‘On
the Lives of the Táborite Priests,’ in Jaroslav Boubín, ed., Jan z Příbramě: Život kněží Táborských
(Příbram: Státní okresní archiv Příbram a Okresní muzeum Příbram, 2000), p. 50.
27 This comment supports the mood and outlook reflected in Prologue 2 of this chronicle.
28 Hus elaborated on this idea. See Thomas A. Fudge, Jan Hus Between Time and Eternity:
Reconsidering a Medieval Heretic (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2016), pp. 141–63.
29 (B) Prague, NK MS XI D 8 resumes here on fol. 56r after the manuscript mutilation noted in the
introduction. There are about 2,160 words missing.
30 The text of (K) terminates here. Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek/Royal Danish Library, MS
Thott 688 2°, p. 68, hence the remaining 33,000 words of the chronicle as known from other
manuscript source are missing.
31 From the beginning of Chapter 6 to this point, some scholars regard this as an extensive and
indeed independent work on the origin, name, ideology, and influence of the Táborites. Bujnoch
asserts that the historian Josef Pekař considered this section to have been originally a separate
work of the author. He goes on to suggest that it might be called the ‘Táborite tractate’ within the
chronicle. Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, pp. 320–1. The preceding text commencing with the words ‘I
understand “age” as the apostle takes it’ up to this point (about 1,900 words) was excluded from
the fifteenth-century Czech translation. Goll, FRB, vol. 5, pp. 418–24. Presumably the translator
was uninterested in this dossier.
32 The prose is one-sided and hyperbolic. Laurence exaggerates and appears to lay the blame for
all the damages on the Táborites. He would certainly have known that many churches as well as
the royal treasury had been confiscated and sold off by men like Oldřich of Rožmberk and even
Sigismund had plundered the riches of the kingdom. The latter fact was recorded by Laurence in
his coverage of the national assembly in Čáslav in 1421.
33 Again, the tenor of this passage reflects the ethos of Prologue 2 of the chronicle.
34 Hermann Schwab of Mindelheim in the Lužnice River. According to the Old Czech Annals: ‘The
Táborites found priest Hermann the bishop (H. a good man, who was parish priest in Miličín),
152
and they drowned him. This bishop used to ordain many Táborite priests in Lipnice, being forced
by Lord Čeněk and then he rebelled against them (L. saying that “I have ordained all these
scoundrels”).’ František Palacký, ed., Scriptores rerum bohemicarum (Prague: J.S.P., 1829), vol.
3, pp. 42–3. On the ordinations at Lipnice, see Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, pp.
242–3, which were engineered by Čeněk of Vartemberk and this was accomplished by kidnapping
the Augustinian Hermann in 1417, who was forced to accept Hussites into holy orders. Hermann
was an Augustinian monk opposed to the program of Jan Hus who served on an archiepiscopal
commission in 1410 that examined Hus’s works and took part in his condemnation in 1412. He
later became vicar general of the Augustinians and took the title bishop of Nicopolis. There were
several locales with this name (three in Bulgaria, one in Palestine, one in Cappadocia, and yet
another situated on the Bosphorus), though it is unclear to which Hermann was associated. He
was also named auxiliary bishop of Prague. David Gutierrez, The Augustinians in the Middle
Ages, trans. Thomas Martin (Villanova: Augustinian Historical Institute, 1983), vol. 1, pt. 2, p.
148. Peter Lombard anticipated the opposite phenomena wherein simoniacs or heretics might
force ordination on faithful Catholics. Sentences, bk. 4 D. 25 c.7. Giulio Silano, trans., Peter
Lombard: The Sentences, 4 vols. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007–2010).
I am grateful to Tom Izbicki for pointing out that while Raymond of Peñafort discusses what
happens if a bishop compels someone to accept ordination, there is no apparent commentary on
the opposite situation. It is possible the medieval canonists did not conceive of the situation that
occurred in Hussite Bohemia. I am presently researching the legal and theological implications
of coerced ordination.
35 Especially as it pertains to the nobility, many of those who favored either the Catholic or Hussite
faith sometimes found their social interests and aristocratic values more compelling than their
theological ideas of religious preferences. Robert Novotný, ‘Die Konfessionalität des böhmischen
und mährischen Adels in der Zeit der Regierung Sigismunds von Luxemburg,’ in Karel Hruza and
Alexandra Kaar, eds., Kaiser Sigismund (1368–1437): Zur Herrschaftspraxis eines europäischen
Monarchen (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2012), pp. 57–74.
36 Sixty kopa or sexagenae equals one groschen.
37 Křišt’an of Prachatice (c.1367–1439) was a Hussite, albeit a very conservative one who continued
to use Latin in divine worship, adopted the lay chalice, opposed infant communion, retained
liturgical formality, and eschewed the radical doctrines of Tábor and Jan Želivský. Petr of
Kroměříž was a canon who joined the Hussites. The other canons along with the provost left
Prague thereby dissolving the chapter of St. Apollinaris.
38 This was an increasingly common feature and occasionally different Hussite factions confronted
each other in this manner. For example, in 1423 Praguers and Táborites met ‘ark against ark’
at Strachův Dvůr. Thomas A. Fudge, The Crusade Against Hussites in Bohemia, 1418–1437:
Sources and Documents for the Hussite Crusades (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002), pp. 166–7.
39 This is an example among many in the chronicle testifying to the glorification of martyrdom that
was prized by Hussites, especially those of the radical persuasion.
40 The latter is Sophia of Wittelsbach, the queen dowager. See Božena Kopičková, Česká královna
Žofie: Ve znamení kalicha a kříže (Prague: Vyšehrad, 2018); and John M. Klassen, Warring
Maidens, Captive Wives, and Hussite Queens: Women and Men at War and at Peace in Fifteenth-
Century Bohemia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), pp. 226–36.
41 This is an allusion to a papal injunction articulated by Innocent III in a 1208 circular letter: ‘There
is no obligation to keep faith with the one who does not keep faith with God.’ Letter 26, in PL,
vol. 215, col. 1357. On a minor point of interest, in most of the manuscripts as well as in the Goll
edition (FRB, vol. 5, p. 429), the variant et of the Prague manuscript (P) seems preferred over the
subsequent poterit (‘and he may’). Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 327.
42 Unknown individual but possibly Franz Bibfeldt, a lay preacher from Worms, and shadowy
acquaintance of Gilles Mersault.
43 The text that follows now shifts back to resume the narrative where it digressed at the end of
Chapter 5 to consider the origins and development of Tábor.
153
7
HU SSITES DEFEAT THE KI NG

AT VYŠ EHR AD
Also, in the same year, that is 1420, when the Táborites left Prague on 22 August
and caused incalculable damage to both secular and ecclesiastical properties, espe-
cially on the lands of the lord of Rožmberk, the people of Prague, finding them-
selves alone, like orphans, without the help of others, on the Sunday after the feast
day of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, which was 15 September, surrounded the
Castle of Vyšehrad, along with their mercenaries, and set up camp with their tents
and hutches, commonly called budi, around the Church of St. Pancras [Pankrác].
They did not permit the bringing of any provisions to Vyšehrad, but they opened
the road to the town of Prague [432]. Fortifying this place, they slept secure. They
put up two catapults on the opposite side of town behind the choir of St. Mary in
Botice, which, however, a wily burgomaster of Vyšehrad destroyed by firing on
Botice from cannon located in the circular chapel of St. Margaret. However, the
Praguers inflicted great damage on Vyšehrad with the cannon that they had placed,
after they broke through the Green Wall, in the little church of Zelený. This being
the situation, they sent letters to Lord Hynek Krušina and to Lord Viktorin Boček
and to the Táborites, asking them to come to Prague and assist them in conquering
the Castle of Vyšehrad. As it happened, the aforementioned Lord Krušina with his
brother, along with Lord Viktorin Boček and with the Orebites arrived in Prague
without delay. The Táborites did not come. Then, at the same time that the Praguers
were besieging Vyšehrad, on the Friday [27 September] before the feast day of St.
Václav, one man and five women were killed on the Old Town square by heavy
cannon firing from Prague Castle.1 Among these was one woman who was preg-
nant, whose child, having rolled out of his mother’s womb, still alive, was baptized.
The Praguers elected the aforementioned Lord Krušina as their captain. He,
together with Lord Boček and his vassals, encamped with their hutches in the
valley of the vineyards on the hill going up from Psáře and facing St. Pancras. The
Prague community of both genders visited them every day with the sacrament of
the body of the Lord, in a monstrance elevated on a wooden pole, and by digging
moats from St. Pancras down to the lords’ tents to the little stream of Psáře, they
excellently fortified Lord Žávis, who was besieging the place with some soldiers
from Louny and some from Žatec, camped under the mountain, down the hill
from St. Charles. The inhabitants of Vyšehrad were surrounded on all sides, so
154
that it was not possible to bring provisions through the countryside to them on any
road, neither in wagons nor on foot. For this cause, the people of Vyšehrad, very
frightened, sent a message to King Sigismund, asking him to provide them with
sustenance, because soon they would run out of provisions and they were not well
stocked with supplies. The king promised from the bottom of his heart [433] to
supply them with an abundance of provisions and to chase the Praguers from the
battlefield. Nevertheless, in actual fact he did nothing to help defend Vyšehrad for
five weeks.2 For this reason, the inhabitants of Vyšehrad were forced to eat horses
for almost three weeks. But on the feast day of St. Francis [4 October], with his
Hungarian mercenaries, he cruelly burned down 24 villages with many women and
children in the region of Boleslav, in order to terrorize the people. Then on 10 Octo-
ber he captured near the town some wagons belonging to the people of Žatec. But
immediately on 14 October, when he was approaching Žatec, through the right-
eous judgment of God he sustained great damage to the Hungarians. Rebuffed by
these losses, when he had returned to Louny and Slaný and thence to Litoměřice,
he was harassed endlessly by a great number of messengers asking him to supply
his mercenaries in Vyšehrad without delay with provisions, since they were now
eating nothing except meat from their horses. They had filled their hungry stom-
achs with horses instead of with proper meat for over three weeks, valuing the
favor of the king more than the health of their own bodies.3 They continued relent-
lessly begging him to help them, saying that otherwise they would have to abandon
the castle in disarray. He first responded that they should sustain themselves just a
little while longer, that he had sent for reinforcements, and that in a short time he
intended, whether the Praguers liked it or not, to send by means of the Vltava River
around the island below Vyšehrad sufficient supplies in abundance.4
So he took many boats in Litoměřice and carted them on wagons to Beroun, and
he arrived merrily with his host, arranging and ordering the many wagons loaded
with provisions.5 But this was no secret to the people of Prague, who immediately
closed the Vltava River with iron-sheathed pillars and chains above the island
below Vyšehrad, so that no boat could descend freely without being ripped apart,
and, of course, they also fortified the island, on which they erected two log cabins,
which are commonly called sruby. They built a structure in the form of a bridge
out of bundles of wood on each side of the island, over which one could walk from
the Emmaus Monastery to the island and then over the rest of the Vltava River to
Podolí beneath Vyšehrad. They dug moats from there to St. Pancras [434], so that
they surrounded Vyšehrad like a net blocking all access, obstructing roads and
paths to it, so that there was no safe access to it or departure from it.
Negotiations on the Four Articles, the fate of

Vyšehrad, and the wrath of the king
Also, at the same time, Mikuláš of Hus arrived with 40 horses, representing the
Táborites, to help the people of Prague. They handed over to him the aforemen-
tioned island below Vyšehrad to defend.
155
Likewise, at the same time, the community of both the nobles and the vas-
sals of Hradec gathered together and agreed that they should act as intermediar-
ies between the king and the Praguers so that the Czech kingdom would not be
thus shamefully laid waste. They chose from themselves skilled men, knights,
and pages, who, working diligently, visited both the king and the Praguers. They
requested of the king that he give the Praguers a safe and peaceful hearing on the
Four Articles, which had been looked forward to for a long time. This audience,
which would have been holy and profitable for all of the kingdom, was refused,
and the king affirmed that he would give no such audience, until the Praguers first
left the battlefield on which they had surrounded Vyšehrad, his stronghold. When
the messengers, the ambassadors of the municipality of Hradec, arrived in Prague
and told the community what the intention of the king was, and when they had
fully understood that they would be able to make no progress with him, having
therefore deliberated, and with the consent of the municipality of Prague, they sent
their own messenger with letters to the king at Beroun. The contents of the letters
were as follows: the Praguers had finally come to the conclusion that he, the king,
should provide a safe and peaceful hearing, and that meanwhile he should yield
Vyšehrad and deliver it into their trustworthy hands, represented by the commu-
nity of Hradec. And if, after the masters of Prague had debated with the opposing
faction in this audience, supported by sound arguments from Scripture, it should
have been decided by wise and learned men, in whom it was appropriate to place
their implicit trust, that the Prague masters were in possession of the truth in their
Four Articles, then from that time on he [Sigismund] should not interfere with
their practices, but he should aid and defend them, and give a reliable guarantee
that he himself would accept the doctrines of the Prague masters; in return [435],
he would then be able to take possession of Vyšehrad. If, on the other hand, the
opposing faction proved able to provide more cogent arguments from Scripture
against the aforementioned articles, then from that time on the masters with the
Praguers would be obliged to abandon their doctrines, as outlined in the articles,
and to hold fast to the way of truth, along with the king. When the messenger had
brought these matters and many other issues pertaining to peace and concord in a
letter to the king in Beroun, after reading the letter, he was full of fury, and burst
forth cursing the people of Hradec, and abused the messenger multiple times.
Had not those people present convinced him otherwise, he might have ordered
the messenger to be beheaded. He said: ‘I will shit into their mouths sooner than
hand over Vyšehrad to them. Let those peasants rather hand over to me the town
of Hradec which they acquired through trickery!’6 So the messenger, just as he
had left, thus empty-handed he returned to Prague, bearing the curse of the king.
On 20 October when the king realized that all of his supply lines for bringing
provisions to Vyšehrad were blocked, both by the river and by land; he dismissed
his boats and rode with the food supplies from Karlštejn through the mountains
opposite Vyšehrad to the fortress of Prague. He ordered the burning of many
villages, including the village of Zlíchov, as well as the wine presses in the vine-
yards. He did this so that the mercenaries in Vyšehrad, upon seeing the fire, which
156
burned fiercely, would take heart in the imminent hope that they would soon
finally be relieved. At the same time the mercenaries, terrified, yielded up to the
king Kněžov and another fortress near Beroun, and the king burned them, along
with a priest whom he found in Kněžov, and ordered the peasants whom he had
captured to be brought to Beroun. But the king himself went from the fortress of
Prague by horse to Mělník and thereafter to Nymburk and then on to Kutná Hora
and Čáslav. From here he sent for a host of armed troops.
Desperate measures in the castle

By this time Jan Všemberk [of Boskovice] and the other captains in the Castle of
Vyšehrad realized that the king was delaying too long in coming to their rescue
with supplies, and that many of the inhabitants of Vyšehrad had become emaci-
ated as if they were fasting.7 They had even run out of horse meat, and they were
walking around pale like corpses; others were dying of hunger. On the feast day
of Saints Simon and Jude [28 October] they held a congenial meeting with Lord
Krušina and the other barons and the captains of the Prague army in a place [436]
halfway between Vyšehrad and the Church of St. Pancras. While this conference
was underway, a glorious rainbow appeared in the sky. Some of the masters and
bachelors of the liberal arts were sitting on the top of Kavel Hill, looking out
over the Vltava River, awaiting the favorable result of the meeting. They were dis-
cussing a variety of subjects when this rainbow, such a rainbow as we had never
seen before, appeared. Its arc arose practically at our feet in the Vltava River and
extended over the city to a spot near St. Pancras’s Church where the soldiers were
camped, waiting for the discussion to end. As it was, the circle of the rainbow was
not closed only in the area between that church and the hill upon which we were
seated. This space was not larger than about one-quarter of the entire circle of the
rainbow. Various members of our company gave different opinions concerning
the meaning of the rainbow, and eventually we all sat back down merrily, having
determined that this glorious round rainbow represented the Prague forces acquir-
ing the Castle of Vysehrad within a short time.8 This is exactly what occurred, as
we shall tell later. By the will of God, an agreement was reached between the par-
ties in this conference to the effect that if the king would not have sent sufficient
supplies before the fifteenth hour on the first [day] of November, the feast of All
Saints, then the Castle of Vyšehrad would be handed over to the citizens of Prague
honorably and in good faith.9 The letter regarding this concord was completed and
its tenor is indicated in the following words.
Letter of surrender by the garrison at Vyšehrad

We, Jan [Všemberk] Boskovice of Brandýs, commander, a. b. c. d. etc., and all
the community of knights, and all others at Vyšehrad, presently under siege,
announce by this letter to all those who will see it or hear it read, that we have
come to an agreement with the noble Lords Hynek Krušina of Lichtenburk,
157
Viktorin of Kunštat and Poděbrady, Hynek of Kolštejn and Valdštejn, Prokop

of Ústí, Jan of Lichtenburk, and the esteemed Lord Mikuláš of Hus, cautious
burgomasters and aldermen, together with the municipality of the great [437]
and New Town of Prague, as well as with all the community of knights who
have been encamped, or are now encamped before Vyšehrad and in front of us
or anywhere around Vyšehrad, besieging us. If by next Thursday [31 October]
we have not received help from the knights by supplying us with provisions, in
substantial quantities or support, it will not be considered as if we receive as
little as 20 to 30 measures [or bags] of provisions. In such a case we, Jan Bosk-
ovice and we a. b. c. d. etc., and all the others named above, have promised
and are promising by true Christian faith under threat of forfeiting faith and
honor, without any deceit, various excuses or other tricks, that immediately on
Friday, tomorrow at the outset of the fifteenth hour [9:00 a.m.] we shall hand
over without any delay or resistance the aforementioned Castle Vyšehrad,
where we are besieged, and surrender to Lord Hynek Krušina, the other lords
and municipalities mentioned above, together with all guns and gunpowder
and other fire weapons except our personal firearms. We promise to observe
a truce with them and not to leave our positions before the aforementioned fif-
teenth hour, unless King Sigismund arrives with his forces. In that case, we
would assist him from our side. If we do not fulfill this and did not hand over
this castle, where we are under siege, then we demonstrate with this letter that
we should forfeit personal faith and honor, and we wish that no one should
ever trust any of us forever, and that we are to be regarded as not having faith
and honor. As a testimony, we named above, on behalf of ourselves and the
entire community of knights, as well as others who are besieged with us, have
attached our own seals to this letter, with full knowledge, voluntarily, and
without any coercion. Submitted, under the state of siege of our Castle Vyšeh-
rad, in the year 1420 since the birth of the Lord, on Monday the day of Saints
Simon and Jude [28 October], apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.10
Objections of Mikuláš of Hus and the election of a Táborite bishop

Even though this agreement was the beginning of all the good fortune that fol-
lowed, it displeased Mikuláš of Hus and he therefore retreated from the island with
his Táborites to the city of Prague. Prevailed upon by entreaties [438], however,
he led his men over to the Church of St. Pancras, leaving Lord Hynek of Kolštejn
to guard the island.11
Because the Táborite people at Hradiště did not want to be without spiritual
leadership, they unanimously elected in September 1420 Mikuláš of Pelhřimov,
a priest and a bachelor of the arts, as their bishop or elder, so that all their priests
would defer to him, and none would preach to the people the Word of God unless
it had first been approved by the bishop they had elected; and the bishop, along
with other priests, should faithfully distribute the communal money according to
the need of any given brother, as he finds it appropriate.12
158
Likewise, in the same year, Žižka, with his Táborite host, took possession for the
second time of Vodňany, a city that had been unwilling to consent to the excesses
of the Táborites, with the aid of certain inhabitants of the city, and, having cap-
tured two priests along with 28 laypersons, he cruelly burned all of them, despite
the fact that they all accepted the Utraquist communion. Also, in the same year,
the city of Soběslav was burned down after it was invaded by the Táborites, many
of whom, however, were killed or wounded by the inhabitants. Likewise, in the
same year, the forces of Lord Oldřich of Rožmberk gained the city of Kamenice,
through the betrayal of the citizens, and, when the Táborites fled to the fortress, he
burned the city to the ground; for this lord had suffered incalculable damages from
the Táborites through their burning and plundering of the villages on his property.
Also, on the Friday [10 October] after the feast day of St. Dionysius, the king, with
his armed hosts, approached the city of Žatec in order to attack it, and, after he had
attacked one of its suburbs and taken heavy losses, he retreated with shame. Like-
wise, on the Saturday [12 October] after the feast day of St. Dionysius, the hosts
of Lord Oldřich of Rožmberk, Lord Švamberk, and other lords from the vicin-
ity of Plzeň, together with the aforementioned Chotěšov, were engaged in combat
with Žižka and his Táborites around the fortress of Bor, near Horažďovice; and
although there were heavy losses on both sides, with many killed, wounded, and
taken prisoner, the lords had the worst of the battle, and Žižka gained the field.
Finally, in the same year, despite the fact that, during the summer, the Táborite
priests had publicly taught that the peasants and other vassals were not obligated
to pay tithes or other taxes to their lords, because in the restored kingdom there
will be no tax collectors, nevertheless, around the feast day of St. Gall [16 Octo-
ber], the lords were collecting their taxes from the peasants and all who had sworn
fealty to them even more strictly than before.13
Sigismund finally prepares to defend Vyšehrad

On the day before the feast day of All Saints [31 October], the king arrived
at the New Castle [Nový Hrad] early in the morning with his forces. How-
ever, he was afraid of attacking the Praguers that day, and expected that fur-
ther reinforcements would arrive from the Moravian barons. Around evening
these reinforcements likewise arrived at the New Town and rested in the
woods in full armor through the night, in order that the next day they would
be prepared to drive the Praguers and their allies from the battlefield. During
the night the king sent a message to his mercenaries in the castle [Hradčany]
of Prague, with orders to be armed early the next morning and to come down
from the fortress and attack the tower or the house of the duke of Saxony,
and, if possible, to burn them down. For at the same time, with the large
force [439] that had come to reinforce him that evening, he intended to drive
the Praguers from the field. But God always opposes the proud and bestows
his grace on the humble [James 4:6]. The messenger and the letter fell into
the hands of the Praguers, who, forewarned by the content of this message,
159
were now fully aware of the plans of the king. The captains of the Praguers
therefore vigilantly made plans of where to allocate their whole army the
next morning, where each was to stand with his men and stalwartly repulse
the enemy attack.
Then it transpired that the king, when the fifteenth hour had passed [about
7:00 a.m.], together with his army consisting of 16,000 or 20,000 well-armed
men, approached from the New Castle the place where the army of the Praguers
was located. Standing on the top of a hill where the road comes down in the
direction of St. Pancras’s Church, he, moving out a little towards the battlefield,
drew his sword and brandished it in the air. This was the signal to the Vyšehrad
garrison that they should emerge from the castle and attack the enemy, since
they would be able to see that Sigismund had come with a large army and was
prepared to attack the Praguers. But the king, by God’s will, had failed to arrive
before the hour specified by the agreement, and thus the captains of Vyšehrad
closed the gates of the castle and did not permit anyone to go out from Vyšeh-
rad to attack the Praguers, even though many of them, especially the Germans,
wished to do so.
Crushing defeat of the royalists by the Hussite armies

When the nobles in the king’s army saw that the troops from the garrison of Vyšeh-
rad did not intend to come to his aid, and that the Praguers were well fortified with
their moats, they advised the king to wait to launch his attack, if he wished to
avoid serious damage to his army. But the king said: ‘Far be it from me to do this,
for it is wholly fitting that I fight these peasants today.’ Then Lord Jindřich of
Plumlov addressed the king with great courtesy saying: ‘Know, my King and my
Lord, that you will incur a great loss today and be forced to retreat in disorder, for
I very much fear the flails of these peasants.’ But the king said to him: ‘I know that
you Moravians are cowards and not loyal to me.’ The aforementioned Lord Jindřich
and the other Moravian barons then quickly dismounted and said: ‘Look, we are
prepared to go wherever you send us, and we shall be in whatever place you, O
king, are not’ [440]. Then the king assigned them to the most dangerous post of
all and ordered them to advance through the lower part of the field alongside the
fishponds and marshes and launch an attack on the Praguers, while the Hungarians
he ordered to go down from the higher ground on the road, and simultaneously
attack the enemy. So the troops took up this formation and bravely attacked the
Praguers in their trenches. Initially the Praguers were terrified and put to flight,
crowding around the Church of St. Pancrác. Seeing this, Lord Krušina shouted out
in a loud voice:
Good brethren, return to your places and be brave today as soldiers in the
battle of Christ. This is not our war, this is God’s fight we are waging. For
you will see our Lord God deliver all of these enemies of ours and of his into
our hands.
160
Even before he had finished what he was saying someone shouted: ‘The e nemies
are running away!’ Hearing this, they all rushed forward in force and drove
their enemies back from their entrenchments and turned them to flight. Then the
Praguers, together with their barons, chased after them, and the peasants cruelly
killed many with their flails, some in the marshes and in the fishponds, and more
running away in all directions through the vineyards and the fields, taking no pris-
oners, even though some surrendered and promised to observe the law of God the
rest of their lives. The armored barons fought valiantly during the battle and took
many prisoners, at great personal risk, and saved many from the battle flails of
the brethren. Lord Jindřich of Plumlov was mortally wounded and taken prisoner.
He was carried into the churchyard of St. Pancras where he made confession and
died, desiring to receive Utraquist communion. In like manner Lord Jindřich of
Lefl died lying in his tent after confessing and receiving Utraquist communion.14
Few of the Moravian barons who opposed the Utraquist communion survived.
Here Lord Jindřich of Plumlov, the supreme captain of Moravia at that time, who,
for his bride’s sake, joined the king with 2,000 men, Jaroslav of Veseli, Vok
of Holštýn, Hyněk of Maleňovice, Albrecht of Chotěnov, Vilém called Zajíc of
Židlochovice, Petr of Šternberk [441], Racek of Rýzmberk, Václav of Clukov,
Jindřich Lefl, lord of Bechyně, Aleš Krk Soběšín, Janek the secretary, and many
other Bohemian and Moravian barons and knights were butchered like pigs and
immediately stripped of all their armor as well as their clothing down to their
underwear.15 What person, unless he were even crueller than a heathen, could
walk through these fields and vineyards and view the dead bodies of these most
brave men without compassion? What Czech, unless he were a madman, could
see these gentlemanly and rugged warriors, these handsome and curly-haired
young men, without a heavy heart full of lament? Especially since many of them,
on the orders of the priests, were left lying unburied throughout the fields and
vineyards to become food for wolves, dogs, and birds of the air, and to terrify
whoever should see them?16 They were buried, however, during the night in the
trenches by certain pious and faithful men. There were reckoned to be about 400
well-armed men killed, according to one count, not counting those who were
wounded, or those who were killed in [Německý] Brod and on the way, so that it
was commonly being said that about 500 of the king’s men were killed, and that
there were hardly 30 Praguers who perished in that battle.17 One of those who
was rather notable was Ješek, son of Ješek the goldsmith who earned the belt of
knighthood with Krušina, along with Bocko and Mikuláš of Hus, and many others
who fought vigorously. There was on this day a strong and extremely cold wind
that disadvantaged the knights in armor more than the foot soldiers in their tunics.
There appeared also in the sky a pillar in the form of a multicolored rainbow, and
many people saw it and wondered what it meant.18
At the time of the battle the mercenaries came down from the castle in Prague
[Hradčany] and attacked the house of the duke of Saxony. But when they saw
that their assault had little effect, they burned a few houses down in the Lesser
Town and retired to the castle from which they had descended. The king, as has
161
been said, stood on the top of a hill during the battle. When he witnessed the
pathetic destruction of his men, he was struck with terror, and he fled in tears with
his retinue. After getting the wounded on carts, he moved out of the New [442]
Town, arranged a route, left behind the New Castle, and took the shortest route
to [Německý] Brod. There he buried one of the Hungarian barons and returned to
Kutná Hora with great sorrow. He wanted to cover up the extent of the casualties
suffered by the soldiers in his army, and so he reported that more Praguers had
been killed than royalists. Therefore, on that day and on the day after, the king and
the queen placed green wreaths on their heads and feigned joy about the slaughter
of the enemies, which was not in their hearts.19
Surrender of Vyšehrad and its destruction

Also, on the feast day of All Saints [1 November], the royalists handed over Vyšeh-
rad to the Praguers according to the agreement in the letter. The Praguers, lending
them wagons, accompanied them with their possessions joyfully to Kouřim, and
some to the New Castle, thanking them for fulfilling their promise. The same day
in the afternoon the common people violently entered Vyšehrad and invaded the
churches, and with a great ruckus, broke and dashed to pieces pictures, altars,
organs, chairs, and other decorations.
Similarly, on the Saturday after All Saints’ Day [2 November], poor and rich
alike scaled the walls of Vyšehrad and atrociously damaged the houses of the can-
ons and the churches, together with the wall facing Prague. Throughout the entire
day they were carrying whatever they had been able to seize into the city. So there
was a great multitude of people carrying things, such as there is accustomed to
be when relics are displayed, when the people were going up to Vyšehrad and
coming down again; thus, they were gradually destroying more and more of the
garrison, not even sparing the royal fortress—in fact, they destroyed it almost
completely.
Victorious procession and royal atrocities

Likewise, on the Sunday after the feast day of All Saints [3 November], almost
the entire community of Prague formed a procession with two Eucharistic hosts,
consisting of both women and men, the men in their ranks following their priest
carrying the body of Christ under the canopy of heaven, which was prepared for
the reception of King Sigismund, and the women following the men and their
own priest, likewise carrying the Eucharist, under the canopy of heaven, which
was prepared for the queen. When they arrived at the place of their victory they
gave thanks to God and sang the Te Deum before returning to Prague [443]. Also,
on the Tuesday after All Saints’ Day [5 November], the king began to mercilessly
burn down the estates of Lord Viktorin Boček, who was with the Praguers, as well
as those of his brother Hynek of Poděbrady, who was in the service of the king,
and those of the knight Puška, and robbed the poor in those areas. Young Boček,
162
seeing this, and breaking with the king, joined the Praguers for the defense of
the truth. So he who had previously been a persecutor of the Utraquist commun-
ion became its vigorous defender and promoter. The Hungarians from Nymburk
caused incalculable damage to him by burning down his estates, and they not
only robbed poor people, but raped young girls and women, defiling them before
killing them. Likewise, fearing that Prague Castle, lacking provisions, might be
besieged by the Praguers, just as Vyšehrad had been, on the Saturday before St.
Martin’s Day [9 November], the king obtained abundant provisions for Prague
Castle by robbing villages and towns. For these acts he gained no favor among the
poor, but rather curses and reproaches.
Notes
1 The distance would be about one quarter of a mile (400 meters) as the crow flies. It is possible that
late medieval cannons or weapons such as the Trebuchet could fire a projectile that distance. See
Bert S. Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics
(Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997).
2 Procrastination was a fatal element in Sigismund’s dealings with the Hussites. Many times he was
consequentially disadvantaged by inexplicable delays. Some of these are difficult to characterize
as other than dillydallying.
3 In medieval Europe, horse was eaten only in dire circumstances (i.e., famine or siege). Canon law
forbade consumption. This is seen in the eighth-century Irish Collectio Canonorum Hibernensis,
which imposed penance of three and a half years on those who consumed horsemeat. Rob
Meens, ‘Eating Animals in the Early Middle Ages: Classifying the Animal World and Building
Group Identities,’ in Angela N.H. Creager and William Chester Jordan, eds., The Animal/Human
Boundary: Historical Perspectives (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2002), pp.
3–28.
4 ‘Close to the right bank of the Vltava and south of Vyšehrad. It is still approximately six-tenths of
a mile long and narrow, opposite the left bank about a one mile long island, also parallel and close
to the right bank to the north projecting into the river peninsula (about a quarter of a mile long)
… The one described by Laurence can therefore not be identified with any of the present-day
islands.’ Josef Bujnoch, ed., Die Hussiten: Die Chronik des Laurentius von Březová 1414–1421
(Graz: Verlag Styria, 1988), p. 328.
5 This is a distance of about 50 miles.
6 This refers to the nocturnal takeover orchestrated by Priest Ambrož four months earlier, in late
June, noted above, wherein the townspeople of Hradec Králové were lulled into a false sense
of security only to be surprised by Hussites who captured the town in a predawn blitzkrieg
coup-d’état.
7 Moravian baron and able commander devoted to the king but also an honorable man.
8 De iride seu de iride et speculo is a short scientific treatise by the thirteenth-century English
bishop Robert Grosseteste that discusses rainbows. Amelia Carolina Sparavigna, ‘On the
Rainbow, a Grosseteste’s Treatise on Optics,’ International Journal of Sciences 2, no. 9 (2013),
pp. 108–113. The subject fascinated medievals.
9 I follow Bujnoch here in the assessment that the beginning of the fifteenth hour should be
placed at 7:30 a.m. Since the first hour of the day was calculated as beginning about 30 minutes
after sunset on the previous day, following the Italian calendar that had been introduced by
the Luxembourgs in Bohemia, the approximate time for the fifteenth hour at the beginning
of November should fall roughly between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on the following day. In
consequence, the handover of Vyšehrad was scheduled to occur on the morning of All Saints’
Day. Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 328.
163
10 This text was written in the Czech language of the fifteenth century and the chronicler saw
no reason (as with several other texts) to translate it into Latin. The letters A.B.C.D. after
the names and positions of the main signatories is rather odd. Noted also by Bujnoch, Die
Hussiten, p. 329.
11 The following text, down to the next heading, is found only in the Chronicon universitatis
Pragensis (P) but while included by Goll is missing from the Höfler edition (p. 420).
12 For Mikuláš, see Thomas A. Fudge, ‘Crime, Punishment and Pacifism in the Thought of Bishop
Mikuláš of Pelhřimov,’ in Thomas A. Fudge, Heresy and Hussites in Late Medieval Europe
(Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum, 2014), XI, pp. 69–103; and the many references in Howard
Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967),
passim. He was among the foremost theologians at Tábor. His most important writings include
a chronicle, a confession, and a commentary on the Apocalypse. The first two have been edited
and published: ‘Cronica causam sacerdotum thaboriensium continens et magistrorum pragensium
eiusdem impugnationes,’ in Konstantin Höfler, ed., Geschichtsschreiber der husitischen Bewegung
in Böhmen, 3 vols. (Vienna: Aus der Kaiserl. Königl. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1856–1866), vol.
2, pp. 475–820; and Amedeo Molnár and Romolo Cegna, eds., Confessio Taboritarum (Rome:
Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 1983). The latter remains in manuscript: Vienna, ÖNB
MS 4520, consisting of about 300 folios. Like others of the radical leadership, Bishop Mikuláš
was incarcerated after 1452 and his last days are obscure. It has been suggested that in an escape
attempt from the Castle of Poděbrady he may have suffered severe injuries leading to his death in
1459. František Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň
o vítězství u Domažlic (Prague: Svoboda, 1979), p. 356. The evidence is murky.
13 This indicates the failure of aspects of the social experiment at Tábor wherein eschatological
expectation precluded production and the community now faced economic hardship. Thomas A.
Fudge, ‘“Neither Mine Nor Thine”: Communist Experiments in Hussite Bohemia,’ in Thomas A.
Fudge, Heresy and Hussites in Late Medieval Europe (Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum, 2014), VIII,
pp. 26–46.
14 He had been a friend of Jan Hus and gave the exiled priest sanctuary in his Castle of Krakovec
in 1414. He was a royal chamberlain and a member of the royal council under Václav IV.
Matthew Spinka, John Hus: A Biography (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968),
pp. 271–3.
15 There are two textual issues. The first has to do with numbers. The second with the puzzling
reference to the Moravian captain’s wife. All of the Latin manuscripts note that Jindřich came to
the king with 2,000 men on account of his wife. The old Czech text says he came with two knights
again with reference to his wife. Without doubt the Czech misread the Latin ‘duobus militibus’
(two soldiers) for ‘duobus milibus’ (2,000 soldiers). I agree with Bujnoch who thinks the former
is rather implausible. The question about the number of soldiers who accompanied Lord Jindřich
cannot reasonably be related to his wife. Tomek tries to resolve the conundrum by suggesting
that the reason for the inconsistency in the pro sponsa sua (for or on account of) his bride is the
conjecture, as was also translated: pro sponsione (which is palaeographically possible, assuming
that ion is indicated by a truncation mark and the final e has been reinterpreted by a copyist
as) sua or pro sponsu (grammatically formed, but uncommon and not occupied) suo. Bujnoch,
Die Hussiten, p. 330. Alternatively, one might read sponsione sua rather than sponsu suo, i.e.,
‘according to your promise,’ which may be a better reading. This makes sense in the context of a
quasi-feudal obligation, commitment, or promise, which would have resonated with Sigismund.
Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, pp. 356–7. Racek of Rýzmberk
was the man responsible for the murder of the Hussite priest Jan Nákvasa in November 1419 as
noted above.
16 The extent of wolves in fifteenth-century Bohemia is apparent. A. Pluskowski, ‘Where
Are the Wolves? Investigating the Scarcity of European Grey Wolf (Canis lupus lupus)
Remains in Medieval Archaeological Contexts and its Implications,’ International Journal of
Osteoarchaeology 16, no. 4 (2006), pp. 279–95.
164
17 Despite his bluster about the grossly exaggerated (and unsubstantiated) number of casualties on
the Hussite side killed at Vyšehrad, Sigismund admitted he had sustained a serious blow. In a 4
November letter to Oldřich of Rožmberk, the king apologized for being unable to fulfill certain
commitments because he had lost so many troops. František Palacký, ed., Archiv český (Prague:
Krongberg and Řivnáče, 1840), vol. 1, pp. 15–16.
18 This might be compared with the rainbow seen on 28 October that the chronicler interpreted as a
positive omen for the Hussite cause.
19 An account of the defeat at Vyšehrad from a royalist perspective is Eberhart Windecke,
Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigmunds, ed. Wilhelm Altmann (Berlin:
R. Gaertners Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1893), pp. 134–6.
165
8
JAN ŽIŽKA AND P OLI TI CAL

UPHEAVAL
In the same year of the Lord 1420, on the Tuesday following the feast day of St.
Martin, which was 12 November, the Táborites, who were then in control of the
town of Písek, began to be aggrieved at their neighbors in Prachatice, who were
committing affronts against those who were holding to the law of God. For after
the burning and partial breach of the city wall, which had been constructed earlier
by the Táborites when they arrived there [April 1420], after they left, some of their
adversaries, who had fled at the sight of the Táborites, returned to Prague, and
these, when the houses of the city had been somewhat rebuilt, and the wall had
been totally repaired, began to viciously persecute all of those who received the
Utraquist communion. They captured some of them and forced them to renounce
their faith; they confiscated the properties of others and expelled them from the
town; and, what was worse, two or three of those who held to the law of God
were burned, though innocent of any crime. Among those burned was one cleric,
Ondřej of Vejrov, a former sexton in the church in Prachatice, whom they arrested
while he was working in his field and burned him in a whirlwind of fire as punish-
ment for destroying religious pictures [444].
For this reason, Žižka, the captain of the Táborites, on the same day set out on
a journey with the brethren, with the body of the Lord preceding them, with the
intention of taking Prachatice. When the townspeople learned of this, they shut the
gates and climbed up on the walls in preparation for defense. When Žižka arrived,
he addressed the people at first in a conciliatory manner: ‘Open the gates and let us
enter the city in peace, with the blessed sacrament of the body of Christ, together
with our priests. We promise that no harm will come to either you or your belong-
ings.’ But the people of Prachatice replied, like blasphemers: ‘We do not need your
body of Christ or your priests. We already have the body of Christ and priests who
suit us.’ Upon hearing this, Žižka replied in a loud voice: ‘I swear by God today, that
if I take your city by force, I will not permit anyone to remain alive, but I will order
all within, however many there may be, to be slaughtered.’ Immediately, he gave the
sign to his brethren to assault the town from all sides. They quickly set up ladders
against the walls in many places and forced their way in over the walls. The Tábo-
rite artillerymen and slingers prevented the townspeople, who were defending the
wall, with cannon, pitch, and stones, from looking out over the battlements. When
166
the Táborites scaled the wall in various places, they killed some with their flails on
the walls and chased others who tried to escape, slaughtering them like calves in all
of the streets. They opened the gates and all of the remaining brothers and sisters
walked in singing and carrying the body of our Lord Christ. Having split up and
entered all the houses in the city, they confiscated possessions, and, coming upon
men who had hidden themselves here and there, cruelly butchered them or led them
back to Žižka in captivity. Only the women and children were spared.
Then Žižka ordered that all of those captured, with the exception of perhaps
seven of them who were supporters of the truth, be locked in the vestry of the
church. When the aforementioned vestry had been packed with 75 men, standing
almost on top of one another, he ordered that it be set on fire, notwithstanding
the fact that, raising their clasped hands to heaven, they begged him in the name
of God’s love to forgive them and give them the chance to do penance for their
sins, follow [the Hussites] and do whatever they wished. The Táborites behaved as
though they were deaf to the tearful prayers of these men. They rolled up barrels
of pitch, covered them with burning straw, and threw them onto the heads of the
men locked up in the vestry. All of them were thus suffocated by the flames and
the smoke [445]. After this, having broken the vault of the vestry from above, they
were covered with stones in the cellar of the vestry as though in a grave, and there
they were left to rot. Nearly 230 corpses lay in the streets.1 They buried some of
them, threw others into a well belonging to a certain citizen, and expelled all of
the women and children.2 Then they occupied the town themselves, surrounded by
moats carefully dug with their own hands.
Hussite appeal to Czech barons to reject Sigismund as king

After the victory at Vyšehrad, the Praguers sent the following letter to the Czech
lords, in this form:
We wish you all the best, dear friends! We are complaining about Sigismund
the Hungarian to you, and there is a lot to say of a king who, forgetting his
noble birth, has rejected the example of goodness and graciousness of his
ancestors. He has devoted himself to unheard of cruelties that he shows to this
crown of the Czech kingdom by arson, wicked violence against young girls
and women, the murder of people and children, and other various lawlessness.
He is doing this cunningly under the pretext of defending the Roman Church,
taking from the pope for his own use the blood-stained cross never before
instituted in Christian order and imposed upon us lawlessly.3 If he could he
would eradicate the Czech language by disgracing it with the most ugly deg-
radation and heresy all over the world, and he would glorify foreigners in this
country and let them occupy the posts of expelled Czechs as he clearly showed
before Vyšehrad on All Saints’ Day [1 November]. He called the Czech-speak-
ing lords, knights, and pages traitors, and first he lined them up and he did
not want to help them. Having the authority he got rid of many of them taking
167
their lives. There were more than 500 of them, those who were at the very front
of the line. We truly regret that they have been deceived, as they were Czechs
close to us and were defeated in order to weaken our Czech language by his
deception. He felt sorry for Germans and Hungarians, the most cruel enemies
of our language, and allocated them positions outside of the Czechs, always
acting towards the end, [namely] that Czechs would kill each other from both
sides, and as a result they would be made weak. Then they could be more
easily eradicated with the help of the Germans and Hungarians; as has been
heard from the cursed mouth of this king when he said that he would give away
the Hungarian country if there were no Czechs in the Czech country.
Therefore, dear friends, by love and mercy we admonish you, to take mercy
on yourselves and on your natural language, which this brute intends to leave
in a shameful accusation and to eradicate it. Come to our aid, no longer
help him further in his cruelties that lead to your great defamation and final
eradication; so that the law of God in all truths and supported by the Holy
Scriptures would have freedom without oppression, which the king with his
helpers is trying to thwart. He wishes to discourage us from our salvation
and to bring us to his heretical faith announced in Constance and to lead us
to damnation, and he often did not want to give us any answer or hearing
that we asked from him. And if you still desire to favor him while seeing the
obvious cruelties and immense destruction and lawlessness in this country,
we would be convinced that you too are interested in the eradication of the
Czech language, and we would be forced to take measures against you, with
the help of God, as public enemies of God and our language. Written on the
Tuesday after All Saints’ Day [5 November].4
Táborites conquer Příběnice Castle

On the Wednesday after St. Martin’s Day in the same year [13 November], the
priest Václav Koranda, a captain of the Táborites [446], having been captured and
arrested in Příběnice by the servants of the lord of Rožmberk while riding in the
company of some of his brothers from Mount Tábor after the feast of the Nativity
of the Virgin [8 September], under the safe escort of Jindřich, called Lefl, master
of the castle in Bechyně, was brought to the castle of the aforementioned lord of
Rožmberk and placed in the tower.5 At some point, breaking a beam from this
tower, and leaning poles against the wall, he managed to break out with some of
his comrades and get all the way down to the pavement where the guards were
stationed. Tying up the guards, he freed all of his brethren from the tower and put
the guards in their place. One of them begged to be released, saying that he would
do anything his captors commanded. Koranda made him swear not to tell anyone
within about their escape, but to go immediately to Hradiště Tábor and tell them,
as an eyewitness, what had happened and ask them to come without delay to help
them, so that they could take the castle without deception. What happened then
was that the Táborites, having seized the messenger in order to reward him if he
168
was telling the truth or to punish him if he lied to them, set out immediately, and all
of them promptly arrived at the Castle of Příběnice. When Koranda and the other
brothers saw them from the tower, they called in a loud voice: ‘Tábor, here, Tábor!’
Terrified, the warden and his men ran to arm themselves and attempted to rush the
tower. But they were unable to do this, nor were they able to approach the gate in
order to defend it, on account of the stones that were being thrown from the tower.
Therefore, the Táborites boldly came up to the fences, put to flight the defenders,
seized the gates of the castle, and entered with a great tumult. The clients of the
castle, terrified and dumbstruck at seeing this, threw down ropes over the walls;
some descended the walls using the ropes, and others were captured. Those who
were guarding the second stronghold of the lord of Rožmberk on the other side
of the river [Příběničky Castle], seeing this, abandoned everything that was in the
fortress, and fled without hesitation and in chaos. And so, that day the Táborites
miraculously seized the two strongholds of the lord of Rožmberk, which were
considered impregnable, with the only casualty being a man named Kunc who was
killed. They discovered in these castles vast quantities of various goods: gems,
cups, golden and silver belts, brooches, pearls, chalices, monstrances, the bishop’s
mitre and crozier from Milevsko [447], books, chasubles, many other expensive
vestments, and sable and marten fur coats.6 These items had been left for safekeep-
ing by the people from the immediate vicinity, both clergy and lay. They could not
have imagined that they were not safe here, yet they lost everything.
Gruesome murder of Bishop Hermann

Outside the castle they inhumanly drowned in the river below the castle Lord
Hermann, titular bishop of Nicopolis, who had been captured in the larger castle
together with two priests. This bishop used to be the parish priest in Miličín, and
presented by Lord Rožmberk, on request of Lord Čeněk, because Lord Čeněk kept
Hermann for a long time in the Castle of Lipnice, in fact since the year 1417, in
order to ordain priests whom the archbishop did not want to ordain. The Táborites
ignored the fact that he had once been an accomplice in the ordination of many
priests who shared their views, and that he relentlessly begged them to spare his
life, insisting that he was still willing to ordain as many of them as they wished,
and hold with them on all points of doctrine. When the bishop, swimming for a
long time, did not drown, and landed on the bank to rest, the bloodthirsty Tábo-
rites came running, and pushed him away from the bank, and struck him repeat-
edly on the head with stones. Thus, giving up the ghost, he sank to the bottom of
the river, leaving the Táborites with countless sins.7
Offer of the Czech crown to the Polish king

On the Thursday after St. Martin’s Day [14 November], when the Prague commu-
nity gathered with Krušina, Boček, and Hynek, lords and noblemen of the kingdom,
they agreed to send a delegation, more solemn than before, to the Polish king, to
169
ask him to become the Czech king and take up the burden of the defense of the law
of God. This delegation Mikuláš of Hus wanted to prevent, saying that it had never
been the will of the Táborites for anyone who was not an inhabitant of the Czech
kingdom to be elected king. When the seal of the Táborites, which Žižka with the
Praguers and other municipalities put onto the letter with unanimous consent to
approve the delegation being sent to the Polish king, was imprinted on the letter
by Lord Hynek, Mikuláš of Hus could do nothing further about the delegation, but
he kept silent and muttered to himself. In the same congregation it was peacefully
agreed on account of the Táborites, who were constantly [448] coming up with
more and more doctrinal innovations, that no one should attempt to further dissem-
inate any more novel doctrines among the people, unless he was sure that the nov-
elties had been founded in the Scriptures or that they could be proven beyond doubt
by rational argumentation, and that no one should publicize such novelties, unless
they were first presented to four masters, authorized for this by the community, and
only if they gave their approval would they be publicized to the people.
Political upheaval in Prague

Further, a second item they agreed upon was that all of the Prague priests should
comply with the regulations for officiating at masses observed up to the present
time, that is, in chasubles and with chalices, only getting rid of useless pomp. When
Mikuláš of Hus and the Táborites were displeased with these and many other deci-
sions, the aforementioned Mikuláš of Hus, captain of the Táborites, went back to
his brothers who had surrounded the fortress called Popovice, on the Sunday after
St. Martin’s Day [17 November 1420]. After they conquered it, they advanced to
the fortress of Leštno, a property belonging to Lord Václav, the closest adviser
of King Sigismund, with the intention of storming it. But immediately thereafter,
on the feast day of St. Elizabeth [19 November], after the departure of Mikuláš
of Hus, the community of the Old Town of Prague gathered, and, having deposed
the councilors who were on the side of the Táborites, they elected new ones, and
restored some of their own who had been deposed to the highest positions in the
council. Some of the Praguers, who belonged to the fellowship of the Táborites,
protested in silence. When those from the New Town saw this, they also called a
meeting and sacked their councilmen and unanimously replaced them with others.
Confrontation at Říčany
When this news reached the Táborites besieging the stronghold at Leštno, they
were distressed, and contemplated how they might restore the honor of their coun-
cilmen, who had been sacked so unexpectedly. Therefore, they negotiated a tem-
porary truce with those in Leštno, and they advanced to the fortress of Říčany
near Prague, which was sufficiently [449] fortified against an assault, although
the road leading to Prague by way of this fortress had not yet been blocked, and
much plunder was taking place. They sent their messengers to the Praguers, asking
170
them to make themselves ready, with their forces, and come to lend their aid in
conquering the fortress of Říčany. This was presumably trickery, because, when
the Táborites and the Praguers had come together, they wanted to have an excuse
to come back to Prague along with them to rectify what the Praguers had done to
displease them. Therefore, when Lord Krušina, the captain of the municipality
of Prague, understood that it was only proper for the Praguers to maintain their
honor and send their forces to help the Táborites, he resigned from his position as
captain of the Praguers and returned to his estates on the feast day of St. Elizabeth
[19 November], giving as an excuse his concern that his enemies wanted to attack
his properties. However, it is generally believed that he left Prague because, being
a noble lord, he was unwilling to take the field with the Táborites, as he did not
wish to be seen as an accomplice in their burning, murders, and other wicked acts.
But the Praguers, wishing to fulfil their promises and the requests of the Tábo-
rites, marched out from Prague towards Říčany on Sunday, which was the vigil
of St. Catherine [24 November], with some of their mercenaries, a host of cav-
alry, infantry, and wagons, and a number of priests who were carrying the blessed
sacrament. When they arrived at the designated place and the priests of Prague
began officiating mass in chasubles, some of the Táborite sisters and brothers came
running up to them and fell upon the priests, saying: ‘What are these sheets for?
Get rid of them and celebrate the mass as Christ and his apostles did, or we will
tear off all your fine garments!’ Then, however, elders from both sides intervened
and calmed everyone down, and they stipulated that neither the Táborites nor the
Praguers should harass or hinder one another in the conduct of their masses, and
that after they arrived in Prague they wished for them to find a middle ground in
these matters with the good will of both parties.8
The schemes of Mikuláš of Hus

After both sides had calmed down, Mikuláš of Hus, the most cunning of all the
Táborites, hearing that Lord Krušina and Lord Boček had left Prague, arrived
in Prague on horseback from his army with some priests from his company. He
announced to the councilmen and to the municipality that the Táborite brothers
wished for the Praguers to hold up their end of the agreement to which they had
committed themselves, and that equal numbers of Táborites and Praguers be
assigned to guard the town hall and the towers. Otherwise, he said, the Táborite
brethren would exact punishment, and might even abandon the battlefield. He
intended, deceptively [450], to strengthen the faction that was in favor of the Tábo-
rites, and presumably he did this at the instigation of some of the sacked council-
men. But whatever schemes man may concoct, God ordains all things according
to his will, therefore the councilmen, after consulting in a healthy way with their
municipality, answered Mikuláš of Hus in words to this effect:
Brother Mikuláš, you know well that at present, by God’s grace, we do not
feel that our enemies are in such strength in the vicinity as would necessitate
171
that we provide for the safekeeping of the towers and walls by us and the
Táborite brothers together. However, if it were needful, we are prepared to
make room for the brothers, not only in the towers, but in our own homes as
well. Therefore, the municipality is asking you not to attempt what you have
in mind, because the spirit of the agreement does not seem congruent with
this fact.
With these calm words they thwarted the clever little fox. When his plan was
foiled, he returned to his army and did not stop thinking of how to accomplish the
schemes of his perverted mind.
Agreement to resolve differences and the surrender of Říčany

Furthermore, at the same time, that is on the vigil of St. Andrew [29 Novem-
ber], Oldřich, called Vavák, of Jindřichův Hradec9 and of Janovice, and Petr
Purkardus, noblemen of the Czech kingdom, arrived in Prague with Lord Petr
Zmrzlík, who was formerly master of the mint of King Václav. They made a
pact with the Praguers for the defense of the Four Articles, and lamented the
dispute between the Táborites and the Praguers brought about by the various
excesses of the priests. Their masters on the one hand, and the Táborites on
the other, announced to them their beliefs, which they adhered to and would
continue to adhere to, unless they were enlightened as to their error. For this
reason, the aforementioned lords worked hard for a hearing and for a resolu-
tion to the dispute between the two sides. At that time, those in the fortress of
Říčany, seeing that they could not hold out, submitted to the Praguers under
the condition that all the people that were in the fortress, men and women,
would be unharmed and that they would be permitted to leave peacefully, with
the clothes on their backs and without any obstruction. This was the cause of
the postponement of the hearing until the Táborites from Říčany should have
returned to Prague [451]. Then, when two captains of the army promised those
who were in the fortress to agree with them in whatever they wanted, certain
men selected by the community entered the castle on the feast day of St. Bar-
bara [4 December], and together with them some Táborites, who had not been
chosen for this task, entered by force, presumably with the intention of loot-
ing. Although the chosen elders told the women that they might put all their
clothes on and leave the castle, and not to be afraid that their clothes would be
stolen, when they had put many tunics on and came down from the castle, the
Táborite sisters waited for them, laid hold of all of them, stripped them of their
finer clothes and threw away the less expensive. They ran their hands over all
of their private parts looking for treasures and money, which they found, not
only gold and silver coins, but even hair combs on their heads and silver belts
beneath their tunics. Taking all their belongings, they admonished them to
become their allies and to observe the law of God.
172
Execution of priests at Říčany

At the same time, Žižka gave the order to bring down from the castle nine priests
whom they had found there, and he handed them over to his slingers to burn.
Ignoring the promise the Praguers had given to the people of the castle that guar-
anteed that everyone would be allowed to leave the castle freely, they burned them
in the sitting room of the house of a certain peasant. They cried out and begged
that they might grant them the opportunity to repent, and teach them their cus-
toms, promising that they would do anything they were ordered by the Táborites.
Therefore 11 priests, these 9 along with 2 others that had been captured before,
of whom one was the parish priest from Maletice, called a prophet, were cruelly
burned by the Táborites near the Castle of Říčany. On the feast day of St. Nicholas
[6 December], they brought with them the captured master of the castle, called
Diviš, along with his son, and the entire army to the town hall in Prague. They did
not demolish the castle, but guarded it well.
Attempts to resolve differences between Táborites and Praguers

On the third day after the arrival of the Táborites in Prague, that is on the Sunday
after the feast of St. Nicholas [8 December 1420], a meeting was called at St.
Ambrose in the afternoon, where the communities of both towns of Prague, the
Old Town and the New Town, met with the Táborites so that the aforementioned
barons and noblemen might hear what it was that was causing disputes between
them. Mikuláš of Hus [452], along with others, was hoping that the majority of the
Prague community would be on his side in this meeting. The councilmen, suspect-
ing this, explicitly ordered that the people at St. Ambrose should stand separately
with their elders, and that no one should mix with anyone else, but remain with
their group. So the communities of the Old Town and the New Town stood apart
from one another, and both communities stood apart from the Táborite commu-
nity. It was also ordered under threat of punishment that no women and no priests
from either side should be at this meeting, nor should they mingle with the others,
the reason being that they wished to prevent even greater discord between the two
sides that might be triggered by the argumentation of the priests and the shouting
of the women. Therefore, God willing, the Táborites could not fulfill their desire
of creating dissent in the community, which they were hoping to do. Thus, the
meeting proceeded with reasonable positions being proposed and heard, and when
it was finished the people returned peacefully to their own residences.
Death of Mikuláš of Hus

Furthermore, on the Tuesday after the feast day of St. Nicholas [10 December],
the lord of noble birth Oldřich of Jindřichův Hradec, with other lords of noble
birth allied to him and with the consent of both sides, reached an agreement with
the councilmen, that all the Prague priests should come together with the Táborite
173
priests at a set time in the afternoon to the Carolinum [Charles College] for the
announcement of the conclusion reached by the theologians of both sides. There-
fore, the councilmen invited on the appointed day Mikuláš of Hus and Žižka to
a midday meal given by the burgomaster in the town hall, in order to form and
preserve a deeper friendship. Mikuláš of Hus excused himself from this meal,
thinking that they were going to make an attempt on his life. Therefore, on that day
he mounted his horse and left Prague with some Táborites who were on his side,
with a bitter spirit, thinking that he would cause harm to the Praguers wherever
he could. But when he arrived at the stream Psáře, his horse did not want to yield
to the wagons and fell into a ditch, and broke Mikuláš’s foot down the middle.
So he, who had, according to legend, sworn that he would never again come to
Prague, was brought to Prague to be attended to by a doctor. But after his foot
had been mended somewhat, he developed severe asthma in his chest, from which
affliction he died on Christmas Eve [24 December] in the house of Lord Zmrzlík,
which Lord Příběnice had taken control of for his own purposes [453]. Some of
the Praguers, those who were on the side of the Táborites, were disheartened by
grief over his death, but others rejoiced over it and sang out enormous thanks to
God that he had deigned to mercifully rid them of a treacherous man who did not
have peace and charity in his mind, but who rather, relying on his own cunning,
never ceased to cause contention, hatred, and division between both sides.10
Notes
1 Earlier, the chronicler noted 135 dead.
2 Presumably they were forced to abandon the town. The fate of such refugees is a separate topic.
Megan Cassidy-Welch, ‘Refugees: Views from Thirteenth-Century France,’ in Celia Chazelle,
Simon Doubleday, Felice Lifshitz, and Amy G. Remensnyder, eds., Why the Middle Ages Matter:
Medieval Light on Modern Injustice (New York: Routledge, 2010), pp. 141–53.
3 A reference to a formal crusade, which could only be summoned by papal authority, and carried
out by the crucesignati (those signed with the cross). There had been earlier crusades against
Christians; the most notorious being the thirteenth-century Albigensian Crusade waged against
Cathars in southern France between 1209 and 1229.
4 Six references to the Czech language (jayzk) in this short missive is significant. The Czech
language became a synonym for the Czech nation and her historic enemies, in the sense that those
seeking to subdue the Czechs were opposed to Czechness and the Czech tongue. For insightful
comment, see František Šmahel, ‘The Idea of the “Nation” in Hussite Bohemia,’ trans. R.F.
Samsour, Historica 16 (1969), pp. 219–23.
5 The narrative is confusing. Jindřich of Lefl, the lord of Bechyně, was killed at Vyšehrad as
noted twice above. Presumably he previously had escorted Koranda to Rožmberk Castle on 8
September, was thereafter killed on 1 November, and Koranda escaped captivity on 13 November.
6 It is possible that the episcopal mitre and crozier belonged to Hermann of Nicopolis who is
mentioned twice in the chronicle. Milevsko and Miličín are different places about 20 kilometers
apart.
7 It is odd that the story of Hermann’s murder told above (in the Goll edition, p. 425) is repeated
here.
8 For coverage of the ongoing dispute over liturgical vestments, see Howard Kaminsky, A History
of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 411–13, 416–19,
and 441–51.
174
9 Oldřich Vavák of Jindřichův Hradec belonged to an old family of Czech nobility. He had been
educated at the University of Heidelberg and was among the barons who supported the protest
over the death of Hus in 1415. He remained in the Hussite faith until his death in 1421. František
Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u
Domažlic (Prague: Svoboda, 1979), p. 358. This baron was friends with Žižka. In August 1421
he was appointed master of the mint in Kutná Hora but died on 22 September ostensibly of the
plague. Both events are noted in the chronicle.
10 The fatal illness or injury is unclear. Laurence says his injuries consisted of ‘pedem per medium
confregit’ and ‘asma pectoris.’ Both Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution, p. 420 and
Frederick G. Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution (New York: Russell & Russell,
1969), p. 192 say he broke his leg. The latter asserts he also suffered ‘severe concussions
in his chest’ (p. 192), later had difficulty breathing (p. 197), and thus succumbed. Miloslav
Polívka, ‘Nicholas of Hus: One of the Leading Personage [sic] of the Beginnings of the Hussite
Revolution,’ Historica 28 (1988), p. 118 says he died from severe injuries.
175
9
D E BATING HUS SITE THEOLOGY
But Žižka and some of his men were not afraid to take their midday meal with
the burgomaster and councilmen in the town hall on the appointed day, which
was the Tuesday after the feast of St. Nicholas [10 December]. After the meal,
when the masters and priests of Prague were already waiting in Charles Col-
lege, the Táborite priests did not wish by any means to come to the college, but
were prepared to go to any other place that the councilmen desired. So in order
that the planned conference might not be spoiled by their ill will, Lord Oldřich
Vavák, along with Žižka and the other mediators, ordered them, since they had
no intention of going to the college, to come immediately to the house of Lord
Petr Zmrzlík opposite the choir of the Monastery of St. James.1 Therefore, the
noblemen and Táborite captains as well as the priests and masters from both
sides who had congregated there, so that, after hearing both sides of the dispute,
they might reach a fair agreement between both sides, in accordance with the
will of God. They were unwilling to see such a good beginning spoiled because
of division among the people brought on by arguments between the priests who
wanted there to be a discussion of the question of the wearing of chasubles
while officiating at Mass there in that room filled with a great crowd of clergy
and laypeople. To this the rector of the Carolinum answered: ‘We have certain
other articles here that are harmful to the entire kingdom. Therefore, would you
please hear those first, and then we can discuss other matters at hand.’ Imme-
diately, Master Prokop [of Plzeň], at that time the rector of the university in
Prague, handed one document, containing more than 70 articles, to Master Petr
of Mladoňovice, then a preacher at St. Michael’s, so that he might read out its
contents in a loud and clear voice, so all those listening could understand.2 Mas-
ter Petr took that document, and, standing on a bench, he began to read these
articles in Latin and then in Czech, reading them out completely and in order
from beginning to end [454], and no one hindered him. This superabundance of
articles was the following.3
176
Doctrinal articles presented at the disputation in

Lord Zmrzlík’s house
1. First, that at this very moment, in the year 1420, the end of time will be
brought about, that is, the eradication of all evil, and indeed is already taking
place. This is an error.
2. Likewise, that the day of vengeance and the year of retribution are present,
during which all the sinners of the world and the enemies of the law of God
will perish, leaving none alive, and that they deserve to perish by fire, sword,
hunger, by the teeth of beasts, scorpions, and snakes, by hail and death.4 This
is a heresy intolerable to the Christian faith.
3. Likewise, that in this present time of revenge there is no time for grace and
mercy as far as God is concerned, and therefore evildoers and the adversaries
of Christ should not be shown any deeds of mercy. This is a heresy resulting
from hardheartedness.
4. Likewise, that in this present time of vengeance, Christ should not be imitated
or followed in his sweetness, gentleness, and mercy towards the adversaries of
the law of God, but only in his zeal, anger, cruelty, and righteous retribution.
This is a heresy resulting from hardheartedness.
5. Likewise, that during this time of vengeance every faithful one is cursed who
withholds his sword from personally and physically pouring out the blood of
the enemies of the law of Christ, and that every faithful one should wash his
hands in the blood of the enemies of Christ, because blessed is everyone who
repays his wretched daughter the same as she paid out to us. This is a heresy
and the cruelty of tyrants.
6. Likewise, that every priest of Christ is legitimately permitted to, and should,
during this time of vengeance, personally fight for the law common to all, and
strike down, wound, and slay sinners [455] with a physical sword, or other
weapons of war. This is heresy.
7. Likewise, that, while the church militant still exists, during this time of
vengeance that is long before the Day of Judgment, all towns, villages, cas-
tles, forts, townships, and all buildings should be demolished and set on fire
like Sodom, because neither the Lord nor any good man will enter them. This
is an error of unheard-of cruelty.
8. Likewise, that within Christendom, while the church militant still exists, only five
physical towns will remain during the aforementioned plague, into which the faith-
ful are obliged to flee at the time of vengeance, because outside these towns they
will not be able to gain salvation. This is an error and a lie told by false prophets.
9. Likewise, that in this present year of vengeance, the municipality of Prague
should be destroyed and burned by the faithful like the city of Babylon. This
is an unbearable injustice, full of oppression for the righteous and a detriment
to the faithful.
10. Likewise, that in this present time of vengeance no one will obtain salvation
and be saved from the judgments of the Lord except those who congregate on
177
the physical mountains and in the rocky caves where the faithful ones have
just now gathered. This is an error.
11. Likewise, that in this present time of vengeance, whoever has read or listened
to the preaching of Christ, where he says: ‘Then let those who are in Judaea
flee towards the mountains,’ and will not have left the cities, townships, and
castles for the mountains where the faithful brothers have just now gathered,
commits a mortal sin against the commandment of Christ, and will be pun-
ished by the plague of the Lord and will perish along with these cities, town-
ships, and castles.5 This is an error.
12. Likewise, that only those faithful congregated on the aforementioned
mountains are the body to which, wherever it may be, even the eagles will
gather, and that these are the hosts sent by God all over the world to inflict
all those plagues of the aforementioned vengeance, and for taking revenge
on the nations and their cities, villages, and fortifications, and who will
preside in judgment over every tongue that resists them.6 This is an error
and a lie.
13. Likewise, that whichever lord, client, burgher, or peasant has been warned by
the aforementioned faithful [456] by means of the four decrees published by
the latter—that is, regarding the liberation of all truth, regarding the defense
of the law of God, regarding the acquisition of salvation for humankind, and
regarding the destruction of sinners according to the degree of their sins—and
does not adhere to them by being physically present in their congregation,
should be stamped out or killed by them, since they are like Satan and the
dragon, and their properties should be taken from them. This is an error.
14. Likewise, that all earthly properties of the enemies of the law of Christ are
to be laid waste by the faithful in this present time of vengeance, in whatever
manner they see fit, with looting, burning, and physical destruction. This is a
heresy resulting from hardheartedness.
15. Likewise, that all peasants and vassals who are forced to pay annual fees to
the adversaries of the law of Christ should be wiped out, and the faithful lay
waste their properties, as they would those of their enemies. This is an error
and an excuse for robbery and plunder.
16. Likewise, that already now the church militant, which is to remain from long
before the final appearance of Christ until the Day of Judgment, through the
second coming of Christ, which has already happened, will be renewed and is
being renewed, according to the state of her pilgrimage, so that there will be
no sin, no stumbling blocks, nor any abomination, falsehood, or other blemish
in her. This is an error resulting from hardheartedness.
17. Likewise, that the foregoing opinions are founded in the passages from Mat-
thew 23 [sic 13:40–3]: and 24[:24:14], which discuss the end of time, and
that the end of time should be understood as the end of the present time, or
present year, after which there will be another age, that is, another time, an era
of people who are pilgrims and shine like the sun, without any blemish in the
kingdom of the father, which will last until the end of the world, rather than
178
understanding thereby the end of time itself, that is, the end of the world.7
This is an ignorant error [457].
18. Likewise, that in the kingdom of human pilgrims thus renewed, none who is
evil will be able to mingle bodily with the righteous ones unless that one first
lays down his wickedness. This is an error.
19. Likewise, that at the present moment, in the renewal of the kingdom, the
chosen ones will rise from the dead in their own bodies during the first resur-
rection, which will take place long before the second resurrection, which will
be for all, when Christ will descend from the heavens with the elect and will
be in his bodily form on earth, and every eye will see him. He will organize
a great feast and a meal on the physical mountains and will enter so that he
may see those at the table, and will throw the wicked ones into the darkness
without, and will consume in an instant by fire all those who are not on the
mountains, as God destroyed in the flood those who were not in Noah’s Ark.8
This is an error.
20. Likewise, that during the first resurrection those who were taken up into
the air with Christ while alive, will not die physically, but will be alive with
Christ, visibly, in their physical life on earth.9 So all the words of the Lord that
he speaks in Isaiah 65[:17–25] will be fulfilled in them to the letter: ‘Behold,
I bring forth a new heaven and a new earth,’ and so on until the end of the
chapter. This is an error.
21. Likewise, that in the aforementioned kingdom of Christ, thus renewed
through the aforementioned plagues, there will be no persecution against the
pilgrims, and all the suffering of Christ and his members will cease. This is
a heresy.
22. Likewise, that in the aforementioned kingdom of the pilgrims, which is to
endure until the final resurrection, every tax collector will have long ago
ceased to exist, taxes will stop, and every principality and secular government
will cease. This is an error and a deception of the simple.
23. Likewise, that it is no longer permitted for the faithful of the kingdom to elect
a faithful king for themselves to exact vengeance from evildoers to the praise
of the good, because God alone will reign and the kingdom will be handed
over to the people of the earth. This is an error.
24. Likewise, that the glory of this renewed kingdom, set on this path until the
universal resurrection, will be greater than the glory of the ancient church.
This is an error.
25. Likewise, that this kingdom of the church militant, which is the last dwelling
before the universal resurrection, will be endowed with greater gifts than the
first dwelling, that is the early church. This is an error.
26. Likewise, that in the renewed kingdom of the church militant, the sun of
human wisdom will not illuminate people, which means that no one will
teach his fellow, but all will be taught by God. This is a heresy [458].
27. Likewise, that the written law of God in the renewed kingdom of the church
militant will cease to exist, and the written Scriptures will be destroyed,
179
because the law of Christ will be inscribed in the hearts of everyone and there
will be no need of teachers.10 This is an error.
28. Likewise, that the law of grace, insofar as it in many instances contradicts
the aforementioned opinions, for instance regarding persecution, injustices
against the faithful, fraud, quarrels, deception, and scandals, will be canceled
and will cease to exist in the kingdom of the church militant thus restored.
This is a heresy.
29. Likewise, that in the renewed kingdom of the pilgrim church women will
physically give birth to sons and daughters without bodily pain and suffering.
This is a heresy.
30. Likewise, that following the general resurrection people will still give birth to
sons and daughters, up to grandchildren. This is a heresy.
31. Likewise, that in the kingdom of the pilgrim church women should not render
what is owed to their husbands and men to their wives. This is heresy.
32. Likewise, that women in the renewed kingdom will give birth without physi-
cal insemination.11 This is heresy.
33. Likewise, that during this time of vengeance, women can legitimately be
divorced from and leave their husbands, even if they were faithful and no
matter how much they may be unwilling, and their children and their homes,
and go to the physical mountains or to the five towns. This is an error.
34. Also, that in the renewal of the kingdom of the pilgrim church all churches, altars,
and basilicas dedicated to the honor of the Lord God, and in the name of some
saint besides Christ, are to be demolished down to the cornerstone, by breaking
the walls, burning the buildings, or whatever means, as sacrilege and simony.
This is a known error, a stumbling block without any benefit for the whole world.
35. Likewise, that all clerical houses, since they are heretical and infected, should
not be visited by faithful priests, nor should the priests live in them, but should
be destroyed. This is an error.
36. Likewise, that priests who adhere to the Holy Scriptures cannot have earthly
possessions for sustenance and clothing, which are necessary to them,
because of the custom of the Gospel, although civil law has been waived for
them, nor should the sacraments be accepted from priests who own property
[459]. This is a silly error.
37. Likewise, that ornate vestments not used for holy Mass by the early church
and illicitly introduced in later times are heretical vestments and ‘sheets,’ and
therefore they should be given to the common people for coats and other val-
uable uses. This is a silly and absurd error.
38. Likewise, that all priests celebrating Mass in ornate vestments, even if
all superfluous grandeur were removed from them, and with tonsures, are
dressed-up whores. This is an error.
39. Likewise, that all who officiate at holy Mass illicitly, in a manner contrary
to the ritual and clothing that was customary in the primitive church, are not
priests, but hypocrites; they pray in vain, and the faithful should not attend
Mass with them. This is heresy.
180
40. Likewise, that they should celebrate Mass under the sky and in homes and
tents, going against the custom observed by the early church except in cases
of extreme necessity, in insolently condemning the churches, which they are
presently able to go to. This is a superstitious error.
41. Likewise, that any priest, who is in a state of mortal sin, does not have author-
ization from God to consecrate or baptize.12 This is heresy.
42. Likewise, that Judas at the Last Supper did not receive the sacrament of the
body and blood of Christ, nor did he acquire the power of consecration. This
is heresy.
43. Likewise, that the venerable sacrament that has been blessed by those in a
state of mortal sin should be thrown out onto the ground, and the sacred ves-
sels be stolen, or the sacrament with its vessels should be put to the use of the
laity. This is a sacrilegious and scandalous heresy.
44. Likewise, that in the sacrament of the altar in the forms of bread and wine,
Christ, as true God and true man, is not wholly, sacredly, and truly present.13
This is heresy.
45. Likewise, that Christ, as true God and true man, is not to be adored in the sac-
rament of the Eucharist, according to the practice of worship. This is heresy.
46. Likewise, that no one should kneel before the venerable sacrament, nor give
any other sign of worship to God. This is heresy [460].
47. Likewise, that the faithful are to believe that in the sacrament of the body of
Christ, the whole Christ is present neither in the form of bread nor in the form
of wine, having in himself both his body and blood.14 This is heresy.
48. Likewise, that it is not appropriate or necessary to keep the blessed sacrament
until the next day for the use of the faithful or for adoration. This is an error.
49. Likewise, that it is not appropriate to elevate the sacrament of the body of the
Lord during Mass, for this was not part of the custom of the early church.15
This is an error.
50. Likewise, that the body and blood of Christ can be consumed sacramentally
in any meal as well as in the sacrament, if the person eating the meal is in a
state of grace. This is an error.
51. Likewise, that it is not appropriate or necessary to serve more than one Mass
in one day in one parish. This is an error.
52. Likewise, that the sacrament of the body of Christ can be properly given to
the same layperson in one day as many times as that person desires. This is an
error contrary to the statutes.16
53. Likewise, that the faithful should not believe anything except what is expressly
and explicitly stated in the canon of the Bible. This is heresy.
54. Likewise, that it is to be believed that the sacrament of the Eucharist and the
sacrament of baptism, together with the other sacraments, should not con-
tinue to be celebrated in the pilgrim church until the final coming of Christ.
This is an error.
55. Likewise, that all human traditions and observances, no matter how laudable and
useful, should be simply gotten rid of, like chaff from the wheat. This is heresy.
181
56. Likewise, that the decrees of the universal church and the constitutions of
the holy fathers, however legitimately inspired by the Holy Spirit, should not
be observed, because we should be satisfied with the observances expressly
instituted in the Gospel. This is an error.
57. Likewise, that the writings, doctrines, and commands of the holy doctors
approved by the early church, in both their learning and life, like Saints Dio-
nysius, Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Jerome [461], Augustine, Gregory, and
other saints, should not be read and studied by the faithful, nor adduced in
corroborating interpretations of the Scriptures. This is a blind, unlearned, and
ignorant error.
58. Likewise, that all the truths of philosophy and the liberal arts, although they
support the law of Christ, are in no way, shape, or form to be embraced or
studied. This is an error.
59. Likewise, that it is inappropriate to ever consecrate or bless water for baptiz-
ing or to keep it in the church after it has been consecrated. This is an error.
60. Likewise, that infants should not be baptized with godfathers and with the
questions and answers used by the early church, until such time as they are
able to understand what is taking place.17 This is an error.
61. Likewise, that auricular confessions should not be given any weight or made
by the faithful under any circumstance. This is an error.
62. Likewise, that no physical fasting or mortification of the body and other effi-
cacious deeds like prayer, alms, and tears, should be imposed upon penitents
and those making confession as atonement, but only this: go and do not sin
any more. This is an error.
63. Likewise, that holy chrism for anointing the sick and for baptizing should not
be kept in the Church of God or its use observed. This is an error.
64. Likewise, that it is appropriate for all priests, including those who are not
bishops, to inaugurate a bishop for themselves, according to their own pleas-
ure and decision. This is a silly error.
65. Likewise, that no saint who is in the heavenly homeland should ever be asked
or begged by us pilgrims for any help and intercession in the manner appro-
priate to that saint. This is an error.
66. Likewise, that the saints who are in heaven do not assist the pilgrims on earth
with their prayers or other aids. This is an absurd error.
67. Likewise, that the faithful are not obliged to observe the 40 days of fasting
as in the early church, the four other times appointed for fasting, fasting on
Fridays, etc., but everyone may eat during those days whatever he wishes and
as often as he desires. This is an error [462].
68. Likewise, that with the exception of Sunday, no feast day should be observed
by the faithful, despite any connection it may have with the early church. This
is an error.
69. Likewise, that the fire of purgatory reserved for souls leaving the body after
this life is not to be believed in, or taught as doctrine, in any way, shape, or
form. This is an error.
182
70. Likewise, that donations, prayers, and alms should not be given for the faith-
ful departed by any means, as they are improper. This is an error.
71. Likewise, that songs of worship, hymns, and praises collected by the early
church and issued for divine worship in churches, should not be used by the
faithful. This is an error.
72. Likewise, that it is unlawful for any Christian to eat under any circumstance
the meat of strangled animals, or to eat the meat of any animal containing
blood.18 This is an error.19
Táborites affirm the articles

When he had finished reading the aforementioned articles, Master Petr added
these words:
You should all know that by these articles we are not specifically impugning
anyone who believes in them, but the purpose of this is that people would
avoid any brother or priest who would wish to teach them as doctrine or
preach or stubbornly defend them, because each of them is either erroneous,
heretical, or insidious.
Then brother Chval, a squire, said: ‘I believe in all those articles.’ And the Knight
Roháč said: ‘In Constance they attributed to us 40 heretical articles, and you
are attributing to us more than 70.’20 To this Master Petr responded by reassert-
ing what he had said earlier. But the brother priest Martin, called Loquis, said:
‘Except for a few of them, which are indeed poisonous, we hold with all of those
articles.’ The same was said by their bishop and brother Markolt. But the masters
said: ‘We are ready, if you wish, to prove the falsehood of these articles through
argumentation and by the Holy Scriptures in public disputations in the colleges,
if someone wishes to stand up and defend them’ [463]. Then Martin Loquis
asked everyone in the name of the Táborites to give them copies of the arti-
cles. They answered him that they would receive the copies if someone wanted
to defend and advocate for them. When these documents had been prepared,
Mikuláš, a bachelor of liberal arts and a Táborite priest, and elected by them as
bishop, stood on a bench, and, holding in his hand a small sextern, he said, in
more or less these words:21
You have heard from the masters; now also listen to us. We have come to this
disputation thinking that the discussion would be only about the rite of the
holy mass, whether it is better to consecrate and administer to the people the
Sunday nourishment wearing chasubles or not. But the masters have cited
many articles against us, which we hope to be true, except for what is insidi-
ous in them. But leaving these for the meantime, we say and maintain that the
Táborite priests do better by celebrating the supper of the Lord and offering it
to the people without chasubles and church vestments, than the Prague priests
183
doing the same in chasubles. To prove it I am asserting that it is the most suf-
ficient and safest rule, with the least danger of error, to follow the practices
instituted by our Savior in these matters that pertain to Christian observances.
Regarding what I have proposed, I call it a human custom, and not the custom
of Christ and the apostles, but the custom and tradition of the popes, who have
fallen quite far from the life of Christ, in whom Christian charity has grown
cold, and iniquity is overflowing. Christ and his apostles wholesomely par-
took of the holy meal in common clothing, the clothing which they normally
wore, without the rituals and appurtenances now observed by the priests, and
they did so much better than the priests do now. These customs have been
introduced only now after many hundreds of years.
In conclusion, we say, therefore, that the custom that we observe regarding
the Sunday meal has its example in Christ and in his apostles, as is readily
apparent in Matthew 26[:26–8]. It is safest to observe this example, which
Christ himself has given to us, and that his apostles did not change. Again
we say that the custom observed during the supper of the Lord by the Prague
priests, is a custom introduced by human beings, and not one exemplified by
Christ and the apostles, nor shown anywhere in the new law or the old [464].
Observing this custom on equal footing with the Gospel, over and above the
law, they should fear that they might be counted in the number of the scribes
and Pharisees who worship God in vain, about whom it is written in Matthew
15[:3–9] and 23[:13–33].
He then began to say, ‘Likewise, regarding the holy doctors,’ but Martin Loquis
with the other priests did not allow the reading of this point until the end, but said:
‘Leave it for the meantime!’22 [Mikuláš continued:]
Likewise, we also say that the Prague priests are to be blamed for grum-
bling against the transgressors of human inventions more than against the
transgressors of the law and the commandments of God. They still have not
denounced completely the donation of Constantine and the emperors, which
allowed the church to pass into the hands of secular masters.23
When he had read off these points, as they are written here above, he said: ‘As you
have heard, these are solid Scriptures and unassailable arguments, against which
the masters have as yet given no counterargument from Scripture, even though we
have long tried to get them to do so!’
Concluding remarks by Jakoubek of Stříbro

Immediately Master Jakoubek, a bachelor of theology and a preacher at the chapel
of Bethlehem, stepped onto a bench, and, holding a sextern in his hand, read a
long speech from it, which I will paraphrase here. First, he posited a distinction
between certain matters regarding the Church of God that arise from the essence
184
of the faith in salvation, such as the words of the consecration of the bread and
wine, and some that are incidental, such as officiating at Mass in a chasuble. No
one should or indeed can change the first ones, but the others, that is to say the
incidental ones, can be abandoned at a given time, and in a given place, in the case
of extreme necessity, such as officiating at Mass in a chasuble. But they should
not be abandoned when they can be maintained in a given time and place; rather,
they should continue to be observed. All the human institutions of the holy fathers
should be understood in this manner, for they are not against the law of God and
do not obstruct it, but rather mystically bring to light certain things. Therefore,
if the Táborite brothers wish to imitate the practice of Christ in consecrating his
Sunday meal, they should do it in the evening after supper, first washing the feet
of those whom they wish to receive communion. After having spoken about these
and many other matters in front of the crowd gathered [465], he handed the sex-
tern over into the hands of Lord Oldřich of Jindřichův Hradec for safekeeping,
and also so that he might likewise receive the writings of the Táborites, should
they have writings of opposite opinion to present, so that they could recognize
some kind of common ground in the current matter. When these debates were
completed, the gathering was dissolved.
Notes
1 This Franciscan house was established around 1230 near the eastern wall of the Old Town.
Jaroslav Kadlec, ‘Die Franziskaner in den böhmischen Länder und ihr Generalstudium in
vorhussitischer Zeit,’ Archiv für Kirchengeschichte von Böhmen—Mähren—Schlesien 8 (1987),
pp. 84–91 at pp. 84–5.
2 Prokop of Plzeň was a conservative Hussite master as was Petr of Mladoňovice. On the latter see
Zdeněk Fiala, ed., ‘The Life and Work of Peter of Mladoňovice,’ trans. A. Nováková, in Zdeněk
Fiala, ed., Petra z Mladoňovic Zpráva o Mistru Janu Husovi v Kostnici (Prague: Universita
Karlova, 1965), pp. 31–47.
3 It is noteworthy that the word ‘heresy’ is used 22 times and the word ‘error’ employed 47 times
underscoring the strident disapproval of many aspects of Táborite theology.
4 There are several biblical texts that refer to a day of vengeance. These include Isaiah 34:8, Hosea
9:7, Jeremiah 51:6, and Luke 21:22.
5 The relevant texts are Matthew 24:16 and Luke 21:21.
6 Relevant texts include Matthew 24:28 and Luke 17:37.
7 Part of this appears to be based on Matthew 13:43.
8 First resurrection, see Revelation 20:4–6; every eye, see Revelation 1:7; darkness, see Matthew
8:12, 22:13, and 25:30; and the flood, see Matthew 24:39.
9 I Thessalonians 4:17 seems apropos.
10 Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 8:10.
11 Parthenogenesis (derived from Greek words meaning ‘virgin birth’) is a biological term indicating
a form of reproduction wherein an egg can develop into an embryo without male contribution.
This occurs in some lower forms of life. Maaike van der Lugt, Le ver, le démon et la vierge: les
théories médiévales de la génération extraordinaire: une étude sur les rapports entre théologie,
philosophie naturelle et médecine (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2004); and Eugene S. McCartney,
‘Spontaneous Generation and Kindred Notions in Antiquity,’ Transactions of the American
Philological Association 51 (1920), pp. 101–15 shed some light on the history of the idea of
parthenogenesis.
185
12 This would suggest that at least some of the Hussites were Donatists and were unmoved by the
medieval doctrine ex opere operato. Moreover, there are grounds for seeing this proclivity in Hus.
K. Hagen, ‘Hus’ Donatism,’ Augustinianum 11 (1971), pp. 541–7.
13 Marcela K. Perett, ‘A Neglected Eucharistic Controversy: The Afterlife of John Wyclif’s
Eucharistic Thought in Bohemia in the Early Fifteenth Century,’ Church History 84, no. 1 (2015),
pp. 64–89.
14 This is either an extension of Wyclifite theology or a denial of the medieval doctrine of
concomitance, or both. Caroline Walker Bynum, Wonderful Blood: Theology and Practice in
Late Medieval Northern Germany and Beyond (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
2007), pp. 93–6; and Thomas M. Izbicki, The Eucharist in Medieval Canon Law (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 40, 52, 146, 157–63.
15 The assumption is questionable. Reference to elevation can be found as early as the Apostolic
Constitutions but the practice appears to have originated in the twelfth century although there
is no mention in papal documents prior to Honorius III in the thirteenth century. Izbicki, The
Eucharist in Medieval Canon Law, pp. 86–136. A useable older survey is Gerard G. Grant,
‘The Elevation of the Host: A Reaction to Twelfth Century Heresy,’ Theological Studies 1, no. 3
(1940), pp. 228–50. See also Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 49–82.
16 This may refer generally to established ecclesiastical practice as opposed to a specific ruling
circumscribing how often a Christian may receive the sacrament. Alternatively, the compiled
synodal statutes of a diocese or archdiocese sometimes were compiled as Statuta. The statutes
of the archdiocese of Rouen come to mind. C.R. Cheney, ‘The Earliest English Diocesan
Statutes,’ English Historical Review 75, no. 294 (1960), pp. 1–29. See also Rubin, Corpus
Christi, pp. 63–4, 69, 147–8, 316.
17 This is a witness to baptismal theology held among the Táborites that accords with the later
doctrine of Baptist groups in opposing water baptism until the candidate is able to articulate faith
as an independent believer.
18 This appears to be an allusion to the first-century Council of Jerusalem noted in Acts 15:1–21.
Hubertus Walterus Maria Sandt, ‘An Explanation of Acts 15:6–21 in the Light of Deuteronomy
4:29–35 (LXX),’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 46 (1992), pp. 73–97.
19 In addition to the chronicle of Laurence, these Táborite articles also appear in Latin, in Jan
Příbram, ‘Contra articulos picardorum,’ in Ign. V. Döllinger, Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte
des Mittelalters (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1890), vol. 2, pp. 691–700; and in Czech that have been
reproduced in František Palacký, Archiv český, 6 vols. (Prague: Kronberg and Riwnáče, 1840–
1872), vol. 3, pp. 218–25, and again in Josef Macek, Ktož jsú boží bojovníci: Čtení o Táboře v
Husitském revolučním hnutí (Prague: Melantrich, 1951), pp. 57–66. The combination of these lists
provide a reasonably fair summary of Táborite doctrine on these points. František Heřmanský and
Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u Domažlic (Prague:
Svoboda, 1979), p. 361.
20 Chval of Machovice and Jan Roháč of Dubá were military captains who remained committed to
the revolution.
21 A sextern is a small booklet or pamphlet consisting of six folded leaves.
22 An interesting example wherein the bishop of the Táborites is opposed openly by his subordinates.
23 The ‘Donation of Constantine’ was a famous medieval forgery but it was not until c.1440 that
Lorenzo Valla wrote his essay, De falso credita et ementita Constantini Donatione declamatio,
which refuted papal claims. Apparently, some Hussites had already reached that conclusion before
Valla undertook his textual critique. G.W. Bowersock, trans., Lorenzo Valla on the Donation of
Constantine (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).
186
10
C ON QUES TS , RADICAL RELI GI ON,

AN D THE P IKART PROBLEM
Also, in the year of our Lord 1420, on 17 December, the Praguers, being asked
by Lord Boček the Younger, sent their host—[with] cavalry, infantry, and troops
in wagons—to meet their brothers from Oreb in the region of Hradec, in order to
resist the king, who was inflicting great damage on Boček and Puška, nobles of
the country, by burning down and seizing their properties. But this was not enough
for the Hungarians; in addition, they shamelessly ravaged young girls and women.
When the Praguers had come as far as Brandýs, and this city, along with some
of the surrounding fortifications, had surrendered to them, severe cold weather
prevented them from meeting the brethren of Oreb. Therefore, they returned to
Prague on the Monday after St. Thomas’s Day [23 December]. In the same year,
on Christmas Day at around the third hour of the night, Lord Hynek of Kolštejn,
the knight Hlas, Šimon, the councilors from the Old Town from Bílý Lev [White
Lion], and other secular people with them, and also Jan called Kardinal and Mas-
ter Peter English, clergy, and masters of arts from Prague, set off on a journey to
the king of Poland on behalf of all of the defenders of the law of God to ask him
to accept the crown of the Czech kingdom.1
Conquest of Nový Hrad near Prague and its destruction

Since the road from Nový Hrad, which was the main road by which provisions
were being brought to Prague, was being blocked off, on 30 December, the
Praguers sent their cavalry, infantry, and wagons to conquer Nový Hrad. Soon
they erected hutches and tents on the top of the mountain, called Hřeben in Czech,
near the moats of the castle, positioned their troops, and dug themselves in on all
sides [466] so that they could defend themselves against their enemies. Every day
they fired countless shells from the cannon and from their three catapults, and as a
result they damaged all of the roofs with the shells from their artillery. Approach-
ing closer to the moats, they erected a small catapult and with it they bombarded all
the battlements of the defenders. Then the knight Fulštejn, the defenders’ captain,
seeing that he would not be able to hold out, on the feast day of the Conversion of
St. Paul [25 January] in the year 1421 negotiated with the Praguers and made an
agreement, whereby both sides agreed that Fulštejn, along with all the people that
187
were in the castle, taking only their own things, and not royal property, could leave
without any hindrance and go to Kouřim, escorted by the Praguers and making use
of their wagons. Immediately, on the second day after the feast of the Conversion
of St. Paul [26 January], 20 men selected from the army of the Praguers entered
the castle. On the next day, that is Monday [27 January], they arrived with their
wagons in front of the castle to carry down the belongings of their enemies and the
inhabitants of the castle, and when Fulštejn had loaded many books, along with
other items, not his own, but royal property, on a wagon that had been allotted
to him, the common people standing outside the castle attacked the wagon and
snatched away all the things that had been loaded on it, whatever anyone was able
to lay his hands on. For this reason, the greedy rabble also wanted to enter the cas-
tle for the purpose of looting; and when they were not allowed in, they penetrated
the wall by digging under it, entered the vault of the library, and took the books
away. From there they went around looting other property, which they then sold in
Prague at low prices. The following day [28 January] they set Nový Hrad on fire,
and, hiring laborers, they demolished it down to the foundations.
Koranda preaches in Prague

In the same year 1421, Koranda, the chief and only priest, leader, and official of
the Táborites, arrived in Prague on the Friday after the feast of the Circumcision
of the Lord [3 January], wearing a beard, with a message from the brethren. When
he did not manage to receive a public audience before the community, he let it be
known that he wished to preach at the Church of the Mother of God of the Snows
and there to announce the intentions of his brethren [467]. When he got there, he
was prevented from ascending to the pulpit by Master Martin of Volina, and he
had to wait until the aforementioned master had finished his sermon. Ascending
the ambo, he told of his obstacles, and the Beguines accepted him as an angel of
the Lord, denouncing the masters for putting up these obstacles against Koranda’s
preaching. But when he declared for the second time that he wished to announce
the opinion of the brethren on priestly vestments used at the consecration of the
Eucharist, large crowds of people went to the Mother of God of the Snows to listen
to him, and he spoke more or less these words, with Master Petr of Mladoňovice
repeating them: First, that the opinion of the Táborite brothers regarding vest-
ments and chasubles used while consecrating the Eucharist was that during this
dangerous time, it was necessary for all those who want to be liberated to stay
within the limits of the Way, the Truth, and the Life of Christ.2 In addition, the
Táborite brethren wished to take up their cause against the high-ranking people
who were referring to irrelevant passages in Scripture in arguing for the propriety
of ornate vestments, and distorting the meaning of the Scripture passages adduced
by the brethren, just as they would against any such heathens, who distorted the
meaning of Scripture, just as they had done before concerning pictures and the
blessing of water. Similarly, again, Christ, true God and man, administered his
body and blood without the rituals currently used and the vestments currently
188
worn in Mass. These customs the apostles did not change, as St. Matthew writes
in chapter 26[:26–8], Mark in chapter 14[:22–4], Luke in chapter 22[:17–20], and
Acts chapter 2[:42].
Likewise, the brethren claimed that the most secure and least dangerous course
is for the priests of Christ, as closely as they are able, to imitate Christ and his
apostles in administering the sacrament, and not manufacture other customs in
the meantime, because the reason for doing this had not been defined in Scripture.
Likewise, as he said, they did not claim that the practices of the apostles and of
Christ were human inventions, because they came from Christ, who is God, for
whom God the Father gave testimony in Matthew 3 [sic 17:5]: ‘This is my beloved
son, in whom I am well pleased; listen to him.’ Again, his mother advised the serv-
ants at the wedding at Cana: ‘Whatever he tells you, do it’ [John 2:5]. The apostle
Paul writes, in his letter to the Romans [sic]: ‘You should only properly concern
yourself with the Gospel.’ Again: ‘Whatever you do, whether it be word or deed,
do it in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ [Colossians 3:17] [468]. Again, in Acts
16[:4]: ‘The apostles handed down their own customs and those of their elders,
to be preserved.’ Therefore, Paul says to the Romans [16:17]: ‘Beware of those
who cause disputes and offenses.’ Furthermore, it is written, in Matthew 15[:9]:
‘They worship me in vain, while teaching human doctrines and laws.’ Likewise,
they claimed that the custom in giving communion that priests in this present time
observe is not founded either in the old or in the new law, and that it was more pru-
dent to preserve the ritual vestments of priests offering calves as sacrifices in the
old law, than a new custom invented out of thin air and ungrounded in Scripture,
for thus the prophet says [Isaiah 55:9]: ‘Just as the heavens are exalted above the
earth, so my ways are exalted above your ways.’
Further, the Táborite brethren held that all those who espouse such doctrines
are to be rebuked, for they less severely punish and rebuke those who transgress
against the commands of the Lord, than those who transgress against traditions
invented out of thin air. Likewise, such masters, defending their customs for which
they are unable to find proper grounding in the law, say that some commandments
are greater, some smaller, quoting Scripture: ‘If anyone should cause one of these
little ones to sin,’ etc.3 With this, said the brethren, they pay us back the recom-
pense of our labor, and, although they say that many forsake the truth on account
of their chasubles and for transgressing against the established customs of their
elders, and especially the customs of the Lord, we reply that in the time of the
apostles more people achieved eternal life on account of communion and preach-
ing, than on account of ornate vestments, as is also the case now. Likewise, if it
were to be asked why, therefore, forsaking chasubles, they did not wash people’s
feet and eat the body and blood of Christ after supper, just as Christ did, he would
answer that these rituals have been mystically revealed through the apostle in [I]
Corinthians 5[:8]: Let us feast upon the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth
and not upon the leaven of malice and villainy. Therefore, let priests be clothed in
the Lord Jesus [Romans 13:14] and the central elements of mercy, namely kind-
ness, gentleness, etc., and, thus clothed, making an offering of the body and blood
189
of Christ. Then if they were to say that they, invalidating those rituals, might be
judged by others, the apostle answers [Colossians 2:16]: ‘Let no one judge you
in food and drink.’ If they appealed to the symbolic value of chasubles, which,
however, cannot be proved by the Scriptures, the brethren would answer them that,
even if they were wholly symbolic, they still should be properly ordered [469]. For
instance, thorns signify riches, wolves signify false prophecy, calves represent the
sacrifice of Christ; then let them hang all those things on their necks when they
want to officiate at a Mass. Otherwise, they claimed, and would not go back on
their claim, that some appropriate symbol, not one instituted by the Antichrist,
should be used, by which the priests might be distinguished from laypeople when
offering up the sacrifice of Christ. In this matter, their own preference was that
divine worship should be officiated by all, clothed in fur pelts. So he handed over
these arguments, written down in one small book. Then he left Prague.
Conquest of religious houses and Krasíkov Castle

Likewise, in the same year, in the month of January, Žižka, with the hosts of
Táborites, arrived in the region of Plzeň and conquered Chotěšov, the nunnery,
and Kladruby, the monastery, and then hastened to the town of Stříbro, because
Švamberk, a great persecutor of the Táborites, had arrived with a small number of
armed men at the Castle of Krasíkov, and immediately the brethren marched away
from Stříbro and up to the very strong Castle of Krasíkov.4 In just one day they
took by force the top of the mountain called Hřeben in Czech; the second day they
took the tower and the bridge. Bohuslav Švamberk, master of this castle, seeing
that he was unable to hold out, and fearful, because he knew that, should the Tábo-
rites enter the castle by force, they would not spare the life of anyone inside, asked
for Lord Petr Zmrzlík, the former master of the mint, who was then ruling at the
Castle of Kladruby, which he had conquered, to be sent for. He indicated that he
wanted to hand the castle over to him alone and to surrender with his people into
his hands. It happened that, when Lord Petr arrived, Švamberk handed the castle
over to him and promised that he and his servants would stay as prisoners. Lord
Petr managed to convince the Táborites, with great difficulty, to spare their lives,
and sending away his clients, with extreme care he left behind Lord Bohuslav in
the castle under guard.
Táborite setbacks
At the same time, during the month of January, the lord of the mountains and Lord
Jan Městecký [470], along with people from Kutná Hora and other towns and
their clients, marched up to Přelouč, where some of the Táborites were then resid-
ing, and attacked them, capturing about 125 and killing many more. He brought
them to Kutná Hora with the priest Valentin, and those who were unable to march
because of their injuries were killed and left for dead on the road. Also, in the
same year in the month of January, Hromádka from Jistěbnice gathered a great
190
host from among those peasants who followed the sect of the Táborites, and con-
quered the fortified township of Chotěboř and completely plundered it. When part
of them rode out of the town in order to bring payment to the brethren, the lord
of the mountains of Kutná Hora, Lord Flaška, Lord Jan Městecký, Lord Půta of
Častolovice with the people of Kutná Hora, and lords and their troops from other
towns marched upon Chotěboř on Candlemas [2 February]. Because the Tábo-
rites had inflicted great damage on the burghers of Chotěboř, they did not wish
to defend themselves along with them, and the Táborites, seeing that they would
not be able to resist alone, placed themselves on the mercy of the lords who were
attacking them. But the bloodthirsty people of Kutná Hora killed around 1,000 of
them, including three priests. Hromádka, moreover, along with two priests, was
taken to Chrudim, and they were burned to death in the middle of the square.
Similarly, around the same time, on the Monday after St. Agnes’s Day [20 Jan-
uary], it was publicly announced by the Táborites in the town of Soběslav, which
belonged to the lord of Rožmberk, that any priest found by them officiating at
Mass in a chasuble would be burned to death together with his chasuble. When
this news was announced, faithful priests who were giving communion in both
species but did not approve of the Táborites and their rituals, abandoned their
flocks and their churches and fled to safer places. So the poor peasants, not having
their priests, were forced to go to Tábor for Holy Communion.
Also, at the same time, on the Wednesday after the feast of the Conversion of
St. Paul [29 January], Brother Martin Loquis, the principal originator of all the
Táborite heresies, was captured by Lord Oldřich of Jindřichův Hradec and put
into a tower. This fate befell him because, not satisfied with the many errors with
which he had already infected [471] the common people, he had spewed forth a
new error and heresy regarding the blessed sacrament, saying that ordinary peo-
ple might take the hosts consecrated by a priest and divide it among themselves,
because Christ said: ‘Take and divide amongst yourselves’ [Luke 22:17].5
Similarly, about the same time, the people of Žatec rode out of the town to pil-
lage, and suffered heavy casualties. For Mikuláš, called Chudý, with citizens of
Most and Chomútov and that whole district, having previously committed them-
selves to the common peace, gathered together and attacked the people of Žatec,
wounding many and capturing more, and some on both sides were killed.
Žižka, Sigismund, and Táborites in western Bohemia

Likewise, in the same year as noted above, after Candlemas [2 February], Žižka,
with a host of Táborites, stormed a suburb of the city of Tachov and conquered
it. Indeed, King Sigismund had been warned by letters from the people of Tachov
to hasten more quickly to their aid if he did not want to lose the town, and for
this reason the king gathered his hosts of soldiery from everywhere and prepared
himself and his army to defend the aforementioned city. But Žižka had by then
dispersed his brethren, and this suburb of Tachov, where he was encamped with
his people, had been set on fire by some of them, and some of his horses with their
191
wagons had been burned in the fire. Therefore Žižka, on the advice of others, in
order to recruit a greater number of the brethren, fortifying Kladruby, Chotěšov,
and the Castle of Kraslík with several thousand of his brethren, retreated to
Hradiště Tábor. But the king, learning that Žižka had left the region of Plzeň,
surrounded the Monastery of Kladruby with his men and stormed it with cata-
pults and cannon. But they suffered greater damage from those surrounded than
those surrounded suffered from them, and, finally, every day they used to shout at
the troops: ‘Where is the Antichrist, the heretical king? Tell him to come across
in force in order to conquer the monastery!’ Therefore, while the king, with the
townships and lords faithful to him, was holding the field in this way, Žižka sent
a message to the Praguers asking them to send a host equal to his own, because
his intention was [472] to drive the king, whom he considered Antichrist, from
the field. The Praguers, immediately and willingly, sent to him, on the feast day
of St. Dorothy [6 February], that is, on the first Thursday during Lent, cavalry
and infantry with 320 wagons, to join Žižka and to drive the king away from the
field. When they met in Dobríš, at once they hastened towards Žebrák, Horovice,
Rokycany, and a certain castle belonging to the mother of the lord of Rožmberk,
called Vilštejn, which they conquered.6 When they were still five miles from the
king, the latter disbanded his troops and, not daring to wait for Žižka with his men,
fled from the field and retired to Litoměřice on horseback, and from there, on the
Wednesday before the feast of Our Lady of Salus Populi [26 February], he arrived
with the two queens at Kutná Hora.7 After spending a few days there, he moved
with the aforementioned queens to Brno.
But the Táborites, after being peacefully received in Rokycany, shamelessly
destroyed the monastery, including the altars, cruelly robbed the inhabitants of
their possessions, and, capturing one priest, they savagely burned him to death
on the spot; and after they had done much damage to the town, they all moved to
the town of Plzeň. On the feast day of St. Valentine [14 February], the Praguers,
along with the Táborites and the barons faithful to them, surrounded the town of
Plzeň from all sides, and during the first attack they took the suburbs along with
the mills. There were then in the town many lords of noble birth with their yeomen
and servants and with many priests, who valiantly defended the walls of the town.
After four weeks had passed, when the battlements were more or less destroyed
by cannon, fearing an attack of the army, with the consent of both sides, that is,
of the Praguers, the Táborites, and the lords faithful to them on one hand, and the
people of Plzeň with their lords and the towns of Stříbro, Domažlice, Tachov, and
others of the landfríd on the other hand, they signed a truce until the next year,
that is until the year 1422. They confirmed it with written documents and the seals
of both sides. Clauses were added saying that the people of Plzeň, along with
those who adhered to them, should send without delay their legal envoys to King
Sigismund, who at that time had moved to Brno from the mountains, because he
had at that time insufficient forces to drive the Praguers from the battlefield [473].
These messengers were to petition his royal majesty, both orally and in writing,
that he might permit acceptance of the Four Articles codified by the Praguers and
192
the Táborites and not obstruct their observance, and, moreover, to graciously allow
the people of Plzeň, along with those allied to them, to hold with the Praguers in
these matters. The following was added: that whether or not the king should have
agreed, or given his permission in this matter or not, one month from the signing
of the agreement, the people of Plzeň would be obliged, along with all those allied
to them, not to hinder the observance of the Four Articles in their towns, town-
ships, and villages, but to guarantee the priests coming from the Praguers the free-
dom to preach the word of God, and to give communion in the Utraquist manner,
if anyone should wish to. This would be in effect until the predetermined time, that
is, until the New Year, with the penalties recorded in the letters in force. When this
agreement between both sides was signed, the troops were disbanded and moved
the camp towards Chomútov. But the people of Plzeň sent messengers to the king,
and, fortifying the town and walls with moats every day, they did not observe the
agreement, and did not allow any [Hussite] priest into the city to evangelize the
people with the word of God and administer the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Establishment of a Táborite community in Moravia

In the same year, namely the year 1421, in the month of February, a new Tábor
sprung up in a village called Nedakonice near Strážnice, which is situated on an
island in the Morava River. These Táborites, consisting of peasants and a few
priests, together with some yeomen, laid siege to the Monastery of Velehrad.8 They
burned the monks, the abbot, many books, and the entire monastery. Fearing that
they would suffer the same unacceptable damages as had been inflicted in Bohe-
mia, with the Táborites thus reinforced, the bishop of Olomouc and the barons
of Moravia, with the towns in their possession, took the field with some Austrian
forces, for the purpose of conquering the island.9 In the attack many Austrians and
citizens of Olomouc were killed. For this reason, fighting the whole time, they
burned the sedgegrass and withdrew. The Hungarians also tried to take the island,
but, suffering defeat as well [474], they withdrew. On this island were some blood-
thirsty priests wearing beards and no tonsures, looking like laymen, who took up
arms and fought. They paid no heed to the rites of the church in saying Mass, but
consecrated the host in their own plainclothes after saying the Paternoster. Chief
among these priests were two partners, Bedřich and Tomáš of Věstonice.
Pikart doctrines and sexual behavior

The same year and at the same time, on the last day of the month of February
[28 February], a letter was brought to Prague from Mikuláš, the elected bishop
of the Táborites, and from Jičín, a master of liberal arts, containing matters over
which one should weep when reading them, previously unheard of in the Chris-
tian religion. They told of how, on their mountain of Tábor, as a result of the per-
verted teachings of some priests, and especially of a certain Martin Loquis, a priest
from Moravia, more than 400 people of both genders were infected by the Pikart
193
heresies mentioned earlier. They adhered obstinately to heresies such as the idea
that the body and blood of Christ are not truly present in the sacrament of the altar,
but bread alone, which acts only as a symbol of the body and blood of Christ.
Therefore, one should not kneel before the sacrament of the altar, nor should it be
revered in any other way or kept until the following day, and so they were breaking
to pieces all the monstrances in which the body of the Lord was exhibited, and,
like heathens or the most treacherous Jews, they threw the sacrament of the body
of Christ out of the monstrances and burned it and stomped upon it with their feet.
They did the same thing to the pyxes and chalices in which the body and blood of
the Lord were kept. They broke silver monstrances and chalices to pieces and sold
them, and, when they saw anyone taking the sacrament of communion, they ridi-
culed them, saying: ‘Have you still not abandoned that butterfly of yours?’10 There-
fore, the aforementioned bishop Mikuláš and the priest named Jičín were writing
to ask for instructions from Master Jakoubek and Master Jan Příbram on how to
resist and oppose such erroneous doctrines, and they admonished them to take
great care so that the people of Prague would not become infected with this heresy.
For this reason, on the Sunday when the Laetare is sung, which was 2 March, by
the order of the masters and the councilors, all the preachers during their sermons
made announcements concerning the aforementioned heresies [475], which are
so harmful to orthodox Christian faith, and gave orders, on the instruction of the
councilors, that no one should accept any such heretic into his house, but instead,
should any of them come to Prague, he should bring them to the councilors, and
they should not be suffered to stay in Prague. But this legitimate order of the coun-
cilmen had no effect. Many people in Prague, of both genders, were infected with
this heresy, such as the cobbler Václav, a burgher of Prague, who was burned to
death for his obstinacy after the feast day of St. Mary Magdalene [22 July] in the
same year. His story will be told later. Furthermore, because of the aforemen-
tioned heresy, the brothers living in Hradiště Tábor were divided into two sides,
the Pikarts and the Táborites. The more faithful faction of the Táborites expelled
more than 200 persons of both genders, who had been infected by the ideas of the
Pikarts, from the mountain of Tábor. And these, wandering around in the forests
and on the mountains, fell into such insanity, that men and women, throwing away
their clothes, were going about naked, saying that they would be in a state of inno-
cence because of this, and that clothing had been invented because of original sin.
They had so lost their reason that they thought that it was no sin when a brother
copulated with a sister, and if any woman became pregnant, she said that she had
conceived through the Holy Spirit. Alas, many other evil things were being done by
them, of which it would not be decent to leave to posterity a written description.11
However, after a short time, before St. George’s Day [24 April], Žižka arrived
at Hradiště from Beroun. Near the village of Klokoty he found 50 people of both
genders belonging to the aforementioned sect of the Pikarts, and he burned all of
them to death. There were two priests among those burned, one of whom was called
Petr Kaniš. All of them, notwithstanding the exhortations of Žižka, did not wish
to recant their heresy, but they went into the whirlwind of fire laughing merrily,
194
saying that today they would reign with Christ in paradise. After Žižka left [476],
the brothers there burned to death another 25 from the same Pikartian sect. At the
same time, one of the heretical Pikarts preached many erroneous and heretical
articles in various regions, such as the following: First, that genuflection before
the sacrament of the altar is heresy, because the body of Christ is not truly present
there,12 but only bread and manna; for Christ, with his entire body, ascended into
heaven, so that nothing is left here except consecrated, or blessed, bread and wine,
which should be consumed for strengthening oneself against spiritual enemies.
Likewise, a woman should be ready to render her wifely duty to her husband
whenever and wherever he commands her: even in church she is obliged to render
her duty to her husband, and to receive communion immediately afterwards.13 Fur-
ther, if a man capable of reproducing should happen to have an old or barren wife,
he may divorce her and take a young woman as a wife. Similarly, common people
can administer communion to themselves with the consecrated bread, so long as it
has been consecrated by a priest and brought to the altar. This is because the hand
of a priest is no worthier than the hand of any good layperson. There were many
other articles, likewise heretical.
Hussite armies in northwest Bohemia

In the same year, that is, the year 1421, a manner of agreement with Plzeň
was reached, as noted earlier, and the entire army moved towards the town of
Chomútov, which they surrounded in force on the fifth of March, on the Saturday
before Palm Sunday. When the Germans cursed the army coming through the city
walls and thwarted their attack, immediately on the following day, that is, on the
Sunday when ‘Domine ne longe’ is sung in the Church of God, the army attacked
the town from all sides, falling upon the moats and the walls.14 They ignored the
hot water and melted pitch that the inhabitants of the town poured down on them
from the walls, and the town, together with the castle, was taken from them by the
Praguers, attacking from one side, and the Táborites from the other. When they
entered the city, there was great looting—indeed, they never again came upon
such wealth in the course of their conquests—and they killed all of the men in
the town [477], some with the sword, others by fire, sparing the lives of scarcely
30 of them, so that these might bury the corpses. At least 3,500 were buried by
them, and there were many more yeomen, priests, and Jews who were burned.
Indeed, the villainous Táborite women committed a horrible crime in that place.
They took the women and young girls out of the town, all of them grieving for
their husbands and parents, with the promise of releasing them and allowing them
to depart unharmed. However, when they got out of the town, they stripped them,
took their money and jewelry, and locked them into a cottage in the vineyard
where the grapes are pressed and burned them in a whirlwind of fire, sparing not
even the pregnant women, which increased their wickedness.
After the Prague army took control of the town, the whole army hastened
towards Žatec, and many strongholds and castles, stricken with fear, surrendered
195
to them. The inhabitants of Louny, being frightened, sent their delegates to Žatec
and delivered themselves into the power of the Praguers. The army from Prague
took over Louny, appointed as councilors those who previously had been expelled
from the town on account of the law of God, and then marched on to Slaný. When
they prepared to attack, the inhabitants of the town surrendered, opened their
gates, and allowed the army to enter.15 After occupying the city, the army returned
to Prague on the Easter vigil [22 March] with a victory procession, conquering on
the way the redoubtable strongholds of Makotřasy and Okoř.
Žižka confronts the priest Antoch and brutality at Beroun

Likewise, in the same year, on the first Wednesday after Easter [26 March],
Antoch, the Táborite priest mentioned earlier,16 was preaching, presumably insane,
in Prague Square about the two horns of the beast, saying that one of the horns
was the councilors of the Old Town of Prague, and the other one the masters of
Prague, who with these horns obstruct the holy truth, not permitting their priests
to officiate at Masses without ornate vestments (or ‘sheets,’ as he called them), but
rather wishing that they wear chasubles, which he claimed to be a blatant heresy,
no less ridiculous than the idea of a flying sow. Therefore, he warned his brethren
not to stay in Prague or become accomplices to the Praguers. On this matter the
Táborites who were then in Prague became divided, and so some of them stayed
with their captain Žižka in Prague, while others left, with their priests carrying
the body of the Lord in front of them. But the aforementioned Žižka pursued
them and caught up with them, and inflicted many blows on the priests [478].17
On that same day, Žižka marched out with the Praguers to surround Beroun. They
attacked and conquered it on 1 April, which was the Tuesday before St. Ambro-
se’s Day, and threw the knight Kobliha with his comrades down from the tower;
the soldiers wielding flails immediately beat them to death. Žižka with his men
burned to death the parish priests, along with 37 other priests and monks, three
university masters in Charles College, a certain knight, and some Prague burgh-
ers who had escaped from Prague, notwithstanding the vehement protestations of
some of them, and especially of the knight called Doupovec, that they wanted to
do penance and adhere to the truth until their death. At that time, the people of
Mělník arrived in Prague under safe conduct and pledged themselves to uphold
the Four Articles, and Smiřický was made their captain.
Archbishop Konrad converts to the Hussite cause

Also, at that time Konrad, the archbishop, arrived under a letter of safe conduct in
Prague and joined himself with the Praguers for the defense of the Four Articles.
When this happened, people sang the Te Deum Laudamus in all the churches while
the bells rang. But the Táborites were disgusted at this, especially the priests,
and they said, ‘Once again, the Praguers are showing kindness to the beast of
Antichrist.’18
196
Bohemian towns fall to the Hussites

In the same year, on the Saturday before the feast day of St. Tiburtius, which was
12 April, the people of Prague moved their army towards Český Brod, and initially
towards the castle called Toušen, which belonged to Lord Michalczo. The castle
surrendered to them in three days, but those who were in it were permitted to
leave, peacefully and unharmed. After fortifying this stronghold, they marched
towards Český Brod. They surrounded it on the Wednesday after the feast day of
St. Tiburtius [16 April]. The following day they attacked without any semblance of
order, and although the city was well fortified by moats and armed men, within a
few hours they took control of the moats, climbed the walls and entered the town.
There were many wounded among the Praguers, but only a few were killed. Then
the Germans, mercenaries of the Hungarian king, fled to the church and defended
themselves as well as they could from the tower, which they had occupied, but they
were unable to resist. The Praguers with their forces entered the church, burned
about 200 of them to death [479], and killed many more with flails and swords on
the streets. Among them were eight priests, along with the parish priest, who died
in a whirlwind of fire and by the sword, as well as Mikuláš, called Návara or Czber,
a distinguished scribe of King Václav, who was burned to death in a barrel.19
At the same time, on the Sunday after St. Tiburtius’s Day, 20 April, a certain
layman, a Pikart, entered the Church of St. Gall, and, taking the sacrament of the
body of Christ in the monstrance, he threw it onto the ground, trampling the host,
and poured out the most precious blood from the chalice. He was immediately
captured and tortured, and then promptly burned to death in a barrel outside the
town.20
Then, at the same time, the people of Kouřim, frightened by such a quick con-
quest of the town of Český Brod and by the many yeomen and burghers killed
there, sent their delegation with plenary authority on behalf of all the inhabitants
of the town, and delivered themselves into the power of the Praguers, begging not
to be harmed and asserting that they wished to further the cause of the law of God
along with them, with their resources and their bodies, even to the point of death.
When the agreement between the people of Kouřim and the Praguers was signed,
the people of Prague arrived on Sunday in Kouřim and took possession of it, and
from there they immediately marched on to Kolín on 22 April. But the citizens
of Kolín, feeling that there would be no assistance from the king, accepted the
Praguers into their town and surrendered to them, promising that they would stand
with the people of Prague according to the law of God and the truth of the Holy
Scriptures. But some of the Praguers broke into and destroyed the monastery of
the mendicant friars and there burned to death six priests, along with the parish
priest. The people of Čáslav and Nymburk, hearing how the Praguers had captured
and occupied Kolín, sent their fellow citizens to them and allied themselves to the
Praguers, promising not to obey the Hungarian king, to willingly confess the law
of God for which this war was being fought, and to support and defend the priests
who preached the law of God.
197
Events in Kutná Hora

The people of Kutná Hora, however, on the same day sent their army to Kolín with
the master of the mountains and many armed men to attack the Praguers. But,
seeing the numbers of Prague troops [480] and the neighboring towns already
subdued by them, and the walls demolished, they returned to Kutná Hora and sent
their fellow citizens to the people of Prague to beg them not to destroy this jewel
of the kingdom, to treat the inhabitants of the town graciously, and to grant them
freedom, and, furthermore, if anyone were unwilling to stand with the Praguers
and the law of God, that he should be permitted to leave with his possessions and
life intact. So, an agreement, with certain conditions, was signed on the Thursday
after the feast day of St. George [24 April] with the people of Kutná Hora, which
guaranteed that they should be free to stay until the feast of the Assumption [15
August] and to submit to the law of God for which the Praguers were fighting, and
that those who did not want to join would be free to leave without any damage
to their property or lives. The men, however, with their wives, daughters, and
children, would be obliged to meet the people of Prague in a procession carrying
the blessed sacrament and beg for mercy, because the people of Kutná Hora had
previously decapitated and thrown into the mineshafts, without criminal cause,
many of those who professed allegiance to the law of God.21
When these things were done, on the feast day of St. Mark the evangelist [25
April], which was on a Friday, the people of Kutná Hora, with their priests and a
host of people of both genders, and with the blessed sacrament in front of them,
went out to meet the Praguers near the Monastery of Sedlec.22 When they came
close to the Praguers they knelt, and one of them, speaking on behalf of them
all, begged for mercy from God and from the Praguers. Lord Jan [Želivský], the
priest, having made an exhortation to them, recited one by one the many evil deeds
they had committed against the people of Prague, exhorted them not to commit
such acts any more, and proclaimed that peace and grace had come upon them
from God and the Praguers, according to the agreement they had reached among
themselves. With much weeping on both sides, they raised their voices towards
heaven and sang the Te Deum Laudamus. They took the verses in turns; the people
of Prague sang one verse and the people of Kutná Hora the next. So they returned
with joyful dancing, in the company of some of the Praguers, to Kutná Hora, and
the Praguers took over the town and brought in a new order.
Having taken the Castle of Žleby, which first Zmrzlík and Lychmburk, and
later Krušina, took charge of, the Prague army was directed to Chrudim with the
intention of conquering the city. But the people of Kutná Hora insisted with all
their strength upon Lord Petr of Svojšín, called Zmrzlík, who was residing in
Orlík, who used to be the master of the mint under King Václav [481], of divine
memory. They wanted the Praguers to install him in this office, as he was a strong
and pious man, because the people of Kutná Hora, who supported him, would
then be keener to work and would not leave Kutná Hora. So the Praguers gave
in to this request of the people of Kutná Hora and sent for him. He, overcome
198
by their insistence, mounted his horse and rode to Chrudim with his entourage,
and accepted the office. He then returned to Kutná Hora and governed the people
justly and benignly. Despite this, however, many of the people of Kutná Hora,
along with the miners, were unwilling under any circumstances to assent to the
law of God and to the Utraquist communion, and, loading their wagons, they left.
But they were robbed of nearly all of their possessions on the roads, and some of
them returned with their noses cut off. When there was an outbreak of the plague
at Kutná Hora, the aforementioned Lord Petr, a friend of the clergy and a zealous
adherent of the law of God, arrived in Prague in the same year as noted above, on
the second day after the feast of the Assumption of Mary [16 August], and ended
his days from a throat abscess.23 He was buried in the Church of St. Michael in
the Old Town. May his soul happily rest with the faithful departed in the bosom
of Abraham!
Hussite military conquests

Also, in the same year, while occupying Kutná Hora, the Praguers marched
towards Chrudim and waited on the battlefield for Žižka and the Táborites. Hav-
ing burned the Pikarts on the second day after the feast of St. Mark [26 April],
Žižka burned down many churches during the journey. On the third day after the
feast of St. Mark [27 April], that is, on the Sunday before the feast of St. Vitalis,
they negotiated with Lord Jan Městecký, the captain of Chrudim, and asked him
to surrender the town to the Praguers without bloodshed. But when they parted
without any result, the Prague army, along with the Táborites, surrounded the
town on the next day, that is, on the feast day of St. Vitalis [28 April], coming as
close as the moats. Lord Městecký, observing this, came to the conclusion that he
would not be able to resist them and entered into negotiations, and piously abased
himself before God in front of the blessed sacrament, begging him humbly to for-
give him, because he had resisted the truth. In the same vicinity, the army of the
Táborites destroyed or partially damaged the monasteries of Pardidub, Chotěšice,
and Sezemice, and many other churches.24
When they had occupied the towns of Chrudim [482], Vysoké Mýto, Polička,
and Trutnov Dvůr, along with many castles, they also surrounded Litomyšl, when
the bishop had fled, and took the town without bloodshed. Having captured all
these places, they turned their army towards Jaroměř, which was a town well
guarded and provided with a well-equipped host, and surrounded it, and on the
Tuesday after the feast of Pentecost [13 May 1421] they attacked it, and promptly
on the same day they conquered the moats up to the walls, but not without severe
casualties on their side. The inhabitants of the town, coming to the conclusion
that they would not be able to resist, begged amicably that they might be allowed
to peacefully leave with none of their property, but only their lives spared. When
they [Hussites] had given them their word to this effect, on that Thursday [15
May], all the citizens left with their wives, stripped down to their underwear,
and, having been led out of the city, the attackers drowned many of them, and a
199
crowd of robbers burned others of them on the battlefield.25 The next day they
burned 21 priests, who refused to accept the Four Articles, sparing the lives of
only 3 of them, who offered their consent to the articles. They captured the city
captain, Lord Černohorský, brought him to Prague, and imprisoned him in the
town hall. During the conquest of this town, many lords of noble birth of the
Czech kingdom were present: Krušina, Hynek and Jan Boček, Městecký, and
Lord Čeněk of Veselá, who arrived with many hundreds of cavalry and infan-
try. Here in the fields around Jaroměř they knelt, and the others from both sides
knelt in the presence of the blessed sacrament, and, after making a short prayer
of humility, stood up. Then Lord Jan, priest and administrator of the army, said
to Lord Čeněk: ‘Lord Čeněk, do you recognize here that you have sinned against
God and against the Prague municipality by leaving Prague Castle and handing it
over to the hands of the king?’ He said: ‘I admit it.’ And Lord Jan said: ‘Do you
ask God and this municipality to forgive you for these sins?’ He said: ‘I do ask
this.’ Immediately Lord Jan concluded an agreement between Lord Čeněk and the
lords on his side and the municipality of Prague, but stipulated that he come to
Prague and there confirm the pact permanently [483]. So Lord Čeněk arrived in
Prague on the feast of Corpus Christi [22 May], and there he became completely
reconciled with the municipality, and his standard that had been hanging on the
pillory was taken down.26
Then, the Praguers who were at Jaroměř returned to Prague, but Žižka, the
captain of the Táborites, with his army, marched to Litoměřice, and having taken
a certain wooden battlement on a high mountain, which he called ‘the Chalice,’
surrounded Litoměřice.27 Therefore, the people of Litoměřice arrived in Prague
under a letter of safe conduct, surrendered to the Praguers and begged them to
convince Žižka to order his army to pull back from their town. The Praguers soon
sent their fellow citizens to him, asking him to lift the siege of the town, because
they had surrendered to the Praguers. But he ignored them and attacked, though
not without losses on his side, and finally, being defeated, pulled back. Then
he marched through Roudnice, and, despite the fact that his army had received
needed provisions from the archbishop, he partially demolished the monastery,
and burned down the provost’s house, not sparing the icons and looting the chal-
ices and ornate vestments. The Praguers took over the town of Litoměřice on 29
May, and appointed Lord Hynek of Kolštejn as captain there. At the same time,
during the octave of Pentecost [11–18 May], the people of Domažlice, having
taken control of a certain fortified place, and capturing 16 yeomen in it, burned
them to death. They spared only Bohuslav of Ryžmberk, because he had been
captured and imprisoned by the Praguers previously.
Then, on the Saturday before St. Urban’s Day of the same year, that is on 24
May, an agreement was signed between the town of Prague and lords of noble
birth of the kingdom and their clients, who had besieged and occupied Prague
Castle, saying that, beginning from Sunday, which was the feast day of St. Urban
[25 May], a truce should be observed for two weeks. Neither side should obstruct
200
the other, but no one of Prague would be allowed to go into the castle without the
permission of its occupants, and the occupants of the castle would not allow the
king or his power to enter unless he [484] had with him more than 3,000 troops.
Then, if the Praguers could not prevent him from arriving in the castle, those who
were in the castle would be allowed to let them in without breaching their agree-
ment. Should the king not arrive with such a force after two weeks, as they had
stipulated, then they would be obliged to leave the castle, but without loss of life or
property. Should anyone be interested in staying with the Praguers, and observing
the Four Articles, he would be able to do so and remain safely in Prague. It was
added that the Praguers would leave the fortified places that they had taken from
them. It came to pass that two weeks had elapsed and the king’s army had not yet
been seen. Therefore, on 7 June, the people of Prague took over the castle and
fortified it, stationing 100 men from the Old Town and 100 from the New Town
to guard the castle. On the following day, after ringing all the bells in Prague,
they sang the Te Deum Laudamus. But on the third day, the icons belonging to
the masters, along with some very lovely and expensive altar panels, were sacri-
legiously burned at the instigation of the priest Jan. Among other things, to make
their frenzy even more evident, they displayed a picture of Christ on a donkey on
the cupola of the church, and they turned it with his face towards Meißen, and
they said, blasphemously: ‘If you are Christ, bless the people of Meißen!’ Then at
once, throwing the icon down from the cupola, they smashed it into pieces. Their
blasphemy and great insanity were a partial cause of the great defeat inflicted on
the Praguers by the people of Meißen near the town of Most, as will be written
about later. Had not many lords with other decent men prevented it, the band of
looters would have demolished the castle along with the church of their patrons.
From the castle they took two large cannon, along with many smaller ones and
other weapons.
A temporary cessation of hostilities was granted to the nuns of the Convent
of St. George, and their abbess, so that those who wanted to adhere to the Four
Articles could stay there, and those who did not could leave freely. So it happened
that the abbess, along with many of her nuns, accepted the Four Articles. Despite
this, however, on the Saturday before the feast of St. John the Baptist [21 June],
the nuns were taken from the Convent of St. George to St. Anne in the Old Town
and there they were left with some others. But the restless abbess, along with
several nuns, not wanting to stay there, left Prague and went to her friends [485].
Also, on the feast day of St. Urban [25 May], Lord Petr of Chlum, burgrave of
the queen in the Castle of Lychmburg, handed the castle over to Lord Krušina
according to an agreement made previously. The same burgrave, riding through
Jičín to the Castle of Bradlice, was captured by Lord Čeněk and was led to the
castle. Thus, along with the captured burgrave, Lord Čeněk set about to take the
castle, and succeeded in conquering it. At this time, the inhabitants of the Castle
Žleby also surrendered to the Praguers and handed it over to the master of the
mint, Lord Zmrzlík.28
201
Notes
1 With respect to the third hour of the night, Bujnoch points out that during the last days of
December, the time in Prague for the beginning of the first hour would have been calculated at
approximately 16:30. Therefore, the third hour of the night would fall between 18:30 and 19:30.
Josef Bujnoch, ed., Die Hussiten: Die Chronik des Laurentius von Březová 1414–1421 (Graz:
Verlag Styria, 1988), p. 334.
2 An allusion to a dominical saying in the Johannine gospel: John 14:6.
3 New Testament synoptic text in Matthew 18:16, Mark 9:42, and Luke 17:2.
4 The abbey at Chotěšov was a Praemonstratension foundation dating to the early thirteenth century
while the Benedictine Monastery at Kladruby had been founded in the early twelfth century.
5 It may be observed that the word evomuit, in the Latin text, denoting vomiting, was a tropic
expression in the medieval period when describing new, controversial, heretical doctrines.
Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 335.
6 A thirteenth-century wooden structure rebuilt in stone by the Rožmberks located near the village
of Vlčtejn about 12 miles southeast of Plzeň.
7 Salus Populi (the salvation or health of the people) was the Thursday before the fourth Sunday in
Lent (Laetare). The two queens must have been his wife Barbara of Cilli and Sophia, the widow
of his brother Václav.
8 Nedakonice is a village in southern Moravia on the Morava River not far from Uherské Hradiště.
Strážnice is located about 12 miles southwest of Nedakonice. The village belonged to the Cistercian
Monastery of Velehrad founded in 1205 and was occupied by Hussites on 12 January 1421.
9 Jan Železný (or John ‘the Iron’), had been bishop of Litomyšl since 1388. He was at the Council
of Constance where he opposed Hus. By 1418 he was bishop of Olomouc, which was the
center of a large ecclesiastical province. After 1421 he became the administrator of the Prague
Archdiocese when Archbishop Konrad defected to the Hussites. He helped recruit troops for the
battle of Kutná Hora that took place in December 1421. He was made cardinal in 1426 and died at
Esztergom (northern Hungary) in 1430. Other details in Thomas A. Fudge, Jerome of Prague and
the Foundations of the Hussite Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp. 191–2.
10 In the Latin text it reads: ‘adhuc non dimittitis illum papilionem!’ The word papilio means
butterfly. Bujnoch asserts this was common in the vernacular indicating a counterfeit coin. Here it
can be understood in the context of a sneer at certain Eucharistic theologies, especially an alleged
consecrated host. Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 255.
11 A violent attack is added to the translation: ‘O pathetic [deceased or castrated] Master Vávra in
the other world, how is it that you were allowed to write those sureties [securities] neither having
seen them nor hearing of them with your ears. If you were alive in those days, these speeches and
gossip could not enter me and would have no place in me, even if they were true. For even these
afore written lies you should have shoved up your ass and let them rot with you lying in the grave.’
Goll, FRB, vol. 5, p. 475; and František Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové,
Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u Domažlic (Prague: Svoboda, 1979), pp. 363–4. The lies refer
to false deeds or securities Vávra apparently wrote. The anonymous fifteenth-century translator
believes the security papers were best deposited in Vávra’s posterior and buried so that both the
man and his work might decay together.
12 The fifteenth-century Czech translator added a vitriolic and vulgar comment here in the middle of
the text, to wit: ‘O dear shitter [O dear asshole]! Yes in you there was often heresy and always in
your writings you refer to the sacraments.’ Prague, NK MS XIX A 50, fol. 253r. Goll, FRB, vol. 5,
p. 476 and Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 364 note the word
pizdaři (from pizda), indicating a crude reference to the anus, written above the Czech chvistačka
that suggests strong diarrhea. Both phrases are scatological insults declaring the anonymous
Pikart preacher as someone who shits himself.
13 An interesting connection between sexuality and sacramentality. See Thomas A. Fudge, The
Trial of Jan Hus: Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedure (New York: Oxford University Press,
2013), pp. 64–70.
202
14 Domine ne longe is the incipit for the Palm Sunday introit Domine, ne longe facias auxilium tuum
a me (Lord, do not keep your help far from me), which dates to the ninth century.
15 These events indicate the ‘cities of refuge’ motif no longer had currency. Žatec, Louny, and
Slaný were three of the designated cities, in Táborite theology, slated to avoid the wrath of God.
Plzeň had long ceased to exhibit any Hussite sympathies and now represented a serious bloc of
opposition to the reform cause.
16 Priest Antoch is not mentioned previously in this chronicle either by name or by obvious
reference.
17 Frederick G. Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution (New York: Russell & Russell,
1969), p. 209; and Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1967), p. 451 seem to read more into the text. The former asserts that Žižka
‘flew into a rage and beat them with his bare fists,’ while the latter says Žižka struck them with
his fists, ostensibly more than once. The chronicle is more prosaic: ‘Ziska insequens presbiteros
plurimis affecit plagis.’ Plaga implies punishment and the verb plagare (which is relevant here)
includes the idea of beating, striking, and wounding. J. F. Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon
Minus (Leiden: Brill, 1960–1964), fasc. 9, p. 805. Relying on Tomek, Heřmanský and Bláhová,
Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 364 suggest that Žižka followed the men and tried to
persuade them to return. When they refused and persisted in their stubborn disobedience, he
hammered them.
18 Twice in the chronicle, Archbishop Konrad is referred to as Antichrist. In two other passages,
King Sigismund is thus characterized.
19 Cathedral scribes were a special type of scribe employed in the court of the archbishop, as well
as in the royal court. These scribes prepared ceremonial books, usually beautifully decorated,
and the texts were subject to the approval of the archbishop. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z
20 In contrast, iconoclastic incidents in 1412 and 1414 were not dealt with quite as severely. Fudge,
Jerome of Prague, pp. 158–9.
21 These atrocities were mentioned earlier in the chronicle with the most notorious episode
apparently involving more than 1,600 victims.
22 A monastic house owned by the Cistercian order situated about two miles northeast of Kutná
Hora. This was the oldest Cistercian house in Bohemia, founded around 1143. It was very wealthy
and in the fifteenth century featured 500 monks, 300 priests, and other laymen. Heřmanský and
Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 349.
23 The apostema could refer to throat cancer. However, the reference to a raging disease at Kutná
Hora suggests something along the lines of plague. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové,
Husitská kronika, p. 365 state the cause of death was bubonic plague.
24 Pardidub was the Minorite Monastery in Pardubice. Chotěšice was the site of a Benedictine
abbey situated about ten miles southeast of Chrudim. The Cistercian Monastery at Sezemice was
located about 11 miles northeast of Chrudim. Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 337.
25 Linens or underwear (camisias). Niermeyer, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, fasc. 2, p. 121.
26 The banner had been pulled down from the Old Town Hall on 7 May 1420 and was remanded to
the Old Town pillory where ostensibly it remained for more than a year until 22 May 1421.
27 The wooden fortress sat atop a hill behind the village of Třebusín and belonged to the crusading
Knights of the Teutonic Order. Žižka ordered the structure rebuilt in stone and made it his
headquarters styling it the castle of the ‘Chalice.’ Evidently, the castle tower was built in the
shape of a chalice. From then on he was known as Jan Žižka of the Chalice. Heymann, John Žižka
and the Hussite Revolution, pp. 218–19. See also Thomas A. Fudge, ‘Žižka’s Drum: The Political
Uses of Popular Religion,’ in Thomas A. Fudge, Heresy and Hussites in Late Medieval Europe
(Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum, 2014), XIII, pp. 546–69.
28 Another instance wherein narrative and chronology do not coincide. Lord Zmrzlík has already
died and was thus noted in the Goll edition, p. 481.
203
11
NAT IONAL AS SEM BLY AT ČÁSLAV
Likewise, in the same year, on 1 June, an assembly of all lords, knights, and munic-
ipalities of the Czech and Moravian realms was called in Čáslav.1 The aim of the
assembly was for both friends and enemies to meet and negotiate for the purpose
of peace, justice, and the good of the kingdom, and especially what would help
to promote the law of God. Hence, on the second day after St. Marcel’s Day [3
June], the lords of the Czech kingdom, along with many knights, representatives
of the people of Prague, and burghers from other towns, met in the parish church
at Čáslav. At the request of the priests, all humbly knelt and prayed, begging for
the gift of the Holy Spirit. But because the lords of Moravia had not arrived yet,
and certain inappropriate proposals had already been made, they postponed the
rest of the negotiations until the arrival of the Moravian lords. The following par-
ticularly distinguished lords were present at this assembly: Konrad, the archbishop
of Prague, Oldřich of Rožmberk, Čeněk of Veselá, Oldřich Vavák of Jindřichův
Hradec, Jindřich Chudoba of Valštejn, Chudoba, Škopek of Dubá, Hynek Berka of
Dubá, Hynek Krušina, Flaška, and many others with their sons, whose names are
not known.2 The following day the Moravian lords arrived: their captain Vilém of
Pernštejn, Petr of Strážnice, and Jan of Lomnice, along with many others whose
names are not known. All of them met frequently with the Czech lords and the
other representatives of the realm, and discussed what was to be done for the sake
of peace, justice [486], and the law of God. On 7 June, they unanimously agreed to
the Four Articles so frequently mentioned above, and promised to grant them free-
dom and to defend them within their territories. There were some disagreements
between them about a fifth article, which was proposed at that time, and which
said that the Czechs would not have Sigismund as their king and would not be trib-
utary to him. The Moravian lords and the knights initially did not wish to agree to
this article and asked for more time, so that they could look after their reputation
as high-minded men, by receiving permission from King Sigismund; this delay
was granted to them. But the lords of the Czech kingdom added to this article a
clause saying that they did not wish to have King Sigismund as their king, unless
God willed it; and on this point the Czech community assembled there held fast,
insisting that they did not want King Sigismund as their king, unless God willed
that he should rule, in which case they did not presume to oppose the will of God.
204
Similarly, the Czech lords expressed that the matters that were negotiated in this
assembly must not be prejudicial to the delegation sent by the king of Poland and
his brother Witołd.3 Thus, completing their negotiations, they selected 20 of the
lords, barons, knights, and representatives from the cities, who, with the throne of
the kingdom being considered vacant, would be regarded as having the authority
to carry out royal business in place of the king. And soon, singing the Te Deum,
they dispersed to their lodgings. They confirmed in writing what they had mutu-
ally agreed upon. The letter of the Czech lords, in the vernacular, was as follows:
Declaration of the Čáslav assembly
We, Oldřich of Rožmberk etc. announce with this letter: Noting many various
and great difficulties, disturbances, destruction, burnings, violence, and other
various nasty things in our Czech kingdom, which have originated because of
the discord of will, reason, and a desire for the truths announced in Holy Scrip-
ture, requiring all our effort, which we are indebted to, to rectify and convert
these nasty things into order, those disorders into peace and concord and to
rectify and strengthen the common good of this kingdom, we have made every
effort to call a general assembly of the Czech land, and we have all agreed as
one on everything. We have issued a treaty to which we are all committed and
by which all of us are bound: First we undertake to protect and defend the
truths of God mentioned below by our united minds and all effort against any
person or by any means intend to hinder or harm them, in order to push us away
from them by force. We undertake to adhere to them personally and with our
servants and to practice them, unless we are better informed by Holy Scripture,
which the Prague masters [487] and priests could not oppose by Holy Scrip-
ture, and the meaning of these truths is explained and written in these words:
First, the word of God should be announced and preached by Christian
priests freely and without hindrance throughout the Czech kingdom and the
Margraviate of Moravia.
Second, the blessed sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ should be freely given in both kinds of bread and wine to all faithful
Christians, old and young, according to his provision and commandment.
Third, many priests and monks rule large physical properties against the
commandment of Christ, which is an obstacle to their clerical office and that
harms the profane state. This disorderly ruling should be taken off from such
priests and stopped, and they should live in an exemplary way and should be
brought to the state of Christ and the apostles.
Fourth, that all obvious sins, mortal and other unruly [things] odious to
the law of God were by an order and with wisdom, by those who have been
authorized to do so, stopped and prohibited in every instance, so that the
evil and false reputation about these lands, Bohemia and Moravia, would be
cleansed, so that a common good would come to the kingdom and the mar-
graviate, and to the benefit of the language.
205
Fifth, we should not accept or have the Hungarian king Sigismund as our
king or hereditary master until the end of our or his life, as it was he and his
helpers by whom we and the entire Czech kingdom have been deceived most,
and through whose injustice and cruelty great damage has been caused. By this
rudeness he made himself despicable. Unless the Lord God wants it and unless
first the glorious town of Prague, the Czechs lords, the municipality of Tábor,
knights, pages, other Czech towns and communities that joined or still will join
the truths of the above-mentioned articles, agree with it [we will not accept him
as king]. This king is an obvious abuser of those holy truths supported clearly
by Holy Scripture, and a murderer of the honor and persons of the Czech lan-
guage. Should any lords, yeomen, towns, or communities, abandoning other
lords or yeomen who adhere to the truths of God, help this king through advice
or act without the consent of the municipality of Prague, lords, yeomen, and
others of the afore mentioned municipalities, and this would become known
about them, and being warned by letters or certain messengers they would not
immediately stop it, then they shall be penalized as described below.
Sixth, we have together and unanimously elected 20 wise, stable, and
faithful men from our numbers: Jan of Kněževes, Lidéř of Radkovice, Pavlík,
Jan Charvát, a burgher from the great Old Town and New Town of Prague,
Oldřich of Rožmberk, Čeněk of Vartemberk otherwise of Veselá, Oldřich of
Hradec, Hynek Krušina of Lichtenburk, and Jindřich Berka of Dubá; lords:
Jan Žižka, Zbyněk of Buchov, Jan of Smilkov, Mikuláš of Barchov, Milota
of Bohdanec, Oneš of Melkovice, Jindřich of Bohařina; yeomen: Franc of
Rožmitál, Vácha of Žatec, Matěj Pražák of Hradec on the Labe [River], Matěj
Hostec of Kouřim, to administer, and to manage in various manners the crown
of the Czech kingdom, to which officials, administrators, and rulers, to all of
them together, we gave and by means of this letter are giving full authority
and the right toward establishing peace and general appeasing in the Czech
lands, and for curbing all skirmishes and discords as well as various evils to
cease between communities and persons that originated or will originate in
the Czech kingdom. We affirm upon our honor and without any cunning that
whatever the aforementioned rulers and managers would together and unani-
mously agree upon, or on which would their majority agree on, to which they
would accede to, which they would negotiate and announce or whatever they
would command to any one of us [488], that we will faithfully and without
delay accept, do, fulfil, and obey, and especially if all or some of us were asked
by those officials or managers to help and defend this country or another
country, then we promise them to be personally and with all our power ready
to go wherever they would order us to go, and to fulfil their order.
Each of us is obliged by this unless there is some serious cause that would
stand in the way of it and that would be accepted by those rulers; but our
power that is required from us should always be made ready and available.
It was also well agreed that if someone does not want to join this agreement
206
and articles mentioned above that bring salvation, he should be ready for this
according to the findings of the aforementioned rulers.4 Or if the community
did not like some of them [a particular leader], then that community where
he is the ruler will be allowed to elect and appoint someone else suitable in
his place. Also, in all difficult cases that they themselves should not be able
to decide and settle or did not know how to do so in accordance with the
law of God, the aforementioned officials should invite among themselves two
clerics, that is Master Jan Příbram and Priest Jan the preacher, and listen
to their good and proper advice, and settle the matter properly and justly for
everyone.
It was also agreed that the rulers and directors should have the aforemen-
tioned authority given them by us only until the next Day of St. Václav [28
September] and not any longer, unless we have by the will of the Lord God
reached the king by that time. Then every abovementioned estate [establish-
ment] should maintain its rules and freedoms, so that the Four Articles, which
bring salvation, mentioned above could be preserved by every estate [estab-
lishment], unless all of us and the aforementioned communities give special
and unanimous decision in this matter. We promise to practice and keep, and
truly and fully maintain all the articles established in the above-mentioned
treaty under the penalty of losing honor and our faith [fate], to which we are
sentencing ourselves by the means of this letter, that goods [belongings] and
our estates, recorded in the provincial books, would become public property,
and under the penalty of being expelled forever from the Czech kingdom, if
we, may God not allow it, in some respect transgress some of the aforemen-
tioned articles and do not want to rectify it according to the findings of the
aforementioned [leaders], which was visibly by means of a worthy and proper
finding or by conscience proven and clearly demonstrated. To all this etc. [In
addition to all of this, as a confirmation and better security, our own seals with
our good knowledge are appended to this letter, which is given in Čáslav in
the general assembly in the year since the birth of the Son of God 1420 this
Saturday after Marcellus, 7 July].5
Statement of Sigismund read to the national assembly

Likewise, Aleš Holický and Půta of Častolovice, lords of the Czech kingdom and
delegates of King Sigismund, arrived at the aforementioned assembly of lords
and representatives of the towns. They obtained a hearing with some difficulty,
and read out to the assembly the letter they had prepared, the text of which was
as follows:
We Sigismund, Roman king by the grace of God, ever augustus [multiplier] of

the empire, and Hungarian, Czech, Dalmatian, Croatian, etc. king, wish to let
all lords, knights, pages, towns, and all communities of our Czech kingdom
207
know what is our intention and we want you to know that we have learned that
there should be an assembly of lords and communities in Bohemia now, and
therefore we sent to you lords of noble birth Aleš of Šternberk alias of Holice
and Půta of Častolovice, our advisers and our faithful beloved, to negotiate
with you, to bring our message to you, asking you, as we have done often
before, to advise and help, so that the country would remain in just order and
peace, and to get rid of false accusations and especially against those who
would like to push us away from our inheritance, because you are obliged to
us by this as to your master, because God knows that we regret the destruc-
tion that takes place in this country. Therefore we always delayed and still
delay [some action], as we do not like to see this crown being destroyed by
foreigners. Regarding those four articles about which you have often spoken
with us and have been sending messages about, asking us to help you so that
you could receive a proper hearing, to which we have [489] always agreed
because we have been telling you and still are telling and what is righteous
according to the Lord God everyone should be left with, in such a measure, so
that both sides could be left in peace, one side not touching the other side or
pushing her, because through this all evil things in this country can be fairly
eradicated. But should anyone have the impression that there are some nasty
things [evil, unruly things] caused by us, which we do not think to be true,
we are keen to fix it and to be advised so that there is no evil thing caused by
us. And all of you know that still during the life of our dear brother Václav
of blessed memory we cared about the good of this country, we cared about
maintaining order here so that everyone could stay with his just order, and
we have done our best for it and exerted great effort on it.
Should anyone not be willing to always accept what we are presenting
and what you yourselves have asked for, and wanted to lead the country to
further destruction and shame or wanted to push us away from the Czech
kingdom, then we could not tolerate it any longer and we would have no
other option than to invite all our friends and neighboring countries to help
us, and to take appropriate action to always stop those evil things that are
taking place in this country and not to let us be pushed away from our just
kingdom.6
Unfortunately, this will not be fulfilled apart from the final destruction of
this land even apart from your shame and the shame of your descendants,
about all of which along with other of our intentions the aforementioned Aleš
and Půta are authorized to inform you. Therefore we beg of you, for those
who would speak to you in our name, that you would entrust yourself fully
to them both, or just to one of them, if the other was not available, as if [you
were entrusting yourself directly] to us. Written in Trenčín in the year after
the birth of the Son of God 1421 on the Tuesday after the feast of Corpus
Christi after St. Urban [27 May], in the thirty-fifth year of our reign. To the
order of the lord king: Michael, canon of Prague.7
208
Indictments lodged against the king

Also, at the aforementioned assembly at Čáslav, it was decided that articles should
be sent to King Sigismund, laying out what the assembly regarded as the valid
reasons why he was not to be accepted as the Czech king, and why the kingdom
had no intention of having him as king. The text of this document was as follows:
Most serene prince etc. and king. As Your Grace presented it in the letter,
should there be any evil opposition to Your Grace that you would like to rec-
tify in the Czech kingdom, here, described below, are the evils and the said
injustice:
The first wicked thing is that Your Grace allowed to be burned to death
Master Jan Hus who was protected by your letter of safe conduct, to the
shame and disgrace of the Czech language.
Second, all apostates from the Holy Church and dishonored heretics had a
free hand in the Council of Constance, and Your Grace, always augmenting
the shame of the Czechs, allowed the burning to death of another master,
Master Jerome, in spite of a papal and your [own] letter of safe conduct,
against all of Christianity and your name.8
Third, Your Grace admitted [allowed, conceded] defamation of the Czech
country, and that Czechs were sentenced by the Council of Constance as her-
etics and the cross or papal crusade was proclaimed against them, so to vilify,
eradicate and annihilate the Czechs and other Christians as heretics.
Fourth, Your Grace ordered proclaimed in the city of Wrocław a crusade
and announced this to the great shame of the Czech language and damage to
the Czech kingdom.
Fifth, Your Grace inflamed all neighboring countries and princes with this
cross and heretical crusade against the Czech language and then brought
them yourself to the Czech kingdom.
Sixth, these princes and foreigners by Your Grace and under your com-
mand burned down, destroyed, and robbed the Czech country, burned to death
faithful Czechs, clergy, and secular people alike, men, women, and children,
and abused [violated] young girls and women [490].
Seventh, you ordered to be dragged by horses near Wrocław the Prague
burgher called Krása for receiving the communion of the body and blood
of the Lord, and then burned him to death to the shame and disgrace of the
Czech language.
Eighth, Your Grace ordered the decapitation of many burghers in Wrocław
for guilt that King Václav of blessed memory had forgiven, and you chased
away others and searched them out to the great damage and shame of the
Czechs.
Ninth, Your Grace separated the country of Brandenburg from the Czech
country, which Emperor Charles of blessed memory conquered after consid-
erable effort and with the treasure of the Czech country, and to that purpose
209
[separating Brandenburg] pawned the old Marks, to great damage and the
destruction of the Czech kingdom, without the consent of the lords and the
communities.9
Tenth, against all rules and in spite of his promise, he took away from the
kingdom the crown of the Czech kingdom to the great shame and defamation
of the Czech kingdom, [doing so] without any consent of the communities,
lords, the town of Prague, knights, pages, and the whole Czech community.10
Eleventh, the imperial sacrament, which to the glorious memory of the
Emperor Charles who with great efforts and with large expenses and with the
shedding of the blood of our ancestors conquered to the honor of the king-
dom, he/you [Sigismund] unrightfully and to the shame of the country took
abroad without any common consent.11
Twelfth, various jewels, acquired by our ancestors, established to honor
God and to the praise of our holy heirs and for the treasure of the Czech
kingdom, the jewels of the Prague church, and those from the Castle
Karlštejn, and also from other monasteries and churches were collected,
and also in Moravia, all these jewels he confiscated, spent, and exported
from the country to the immense damage, destruction and shame of the
Czech kingdom.12
Thirteenth, he hid the registers of the kingdom without common consent,
and against the rules and law of the country he sold and took the money of
poor orphans, widows and other good people that were with the registers of
Bohemia and Moravia.13
Fourteenth, the freedoms and our laws, upon which is established our
Czech and Moravian country, and that is kept by its ancestors and Czech
kings and princes, he oppressed all estates and expelled [and led them out].
Therefore all these aforementioned vituperations, heresies, and un-Chris-
tian vilification and the aforementioned nuisances and things caused by Your
Grace persist through your power to the present time, and no neighboring
countries should attempt to do what happened or what is still happening in
the Czech kingdom and the Margraviate of Moravia. Therefore we are asking
Your Grace to rectify it.
First he should stop these vituperations and vilifications and lead the Czech
kingdom and the Margraviate of Moravia away from them.
Likewise, he should return to the Czech crown all of the aforementioned
countries that he has taken away without the consent of the lords, the town
of Prague, knights and pages, and the whole community of the Czech crown.
Similarly, he should return the crown and sacraments of the imperium, the
aforementioned jewels and registers of the kingdom and letters [documents
or deeds?] that he has taken from the kingdom and from Karlštejn and else-
where, which either relate to freedom or other regulations to the honor of the
Czech crown.
Also, you should stop and calm down the neighboring countries that
you have provoked against us without any guilt, and namely those that
210
belong under the Czech crown, so as not to destroy the aforementioned

kingdom and margraviate any further and not to shed the blood of faithful
Christians.
Furthermore, you should be pleased to know our intentions and the resolu-
tion of all of us on which all of us agreed regarding those Four Articles. First,
about the taking of the [divine] body and the [divine] blood in both kinds
by ordinary people. Second, concerning freely preaching the word of God
in proper ways by proper priests. Third, concerning the evil and excessive
endowments of the clergy. Fourth, about suppressing obvious mortal sins, we
intend and wish to adhere to these articles, unless someone presents better
information through the Holy Scriptures, if possible. We also wish to adhere
to our regulations [491], rights, and freedom, as this is the way the Czech
kingdom and the Margraviate of Moravia have been founded in the past by
kings and princes and maintained by our ancestors.
Likewise, at the same assembly, it was decided and made public, on the
authority of Lord Konrad, the archbishop of Prague, to the clergy in his
archbishopric, that a general council of the clergy would take place in the
city of Prague on St. Prokop’s Day [4 July]. At this assembly both friendly
and unfriendly priests from Moravia and Bohemia would be able to come
together to discuss what would advance the cause of peace and unity among
the clergy, and what would be conducive to promoting the law of God. The
Praguers promised to provide a letter of safe conduct for all those who came
to this assembly.
Invasion and atrocities by a Silesian army

While the assembly was being held, the dukes of Silesia, with an army of nearly
20,000, entered the Czech kingdom in the region of Polička, Náchod, and Trut-
nov, killing many men and women, and cutting off either the right foot and left
hand or the left foot and right hand of almost 40 children, and also cutting off the
noses of some. Therefore, the lords at the assembly decided that all of the barons,
along with their knights and the peasants living on their lands, joined, in addition,
by the forces of the municipality of Hradec Králové, should make ready for war
and gather near Náchod on St. Vitus’s Day [15 June]. Hearing of this, the Sile-
sians left the country. However, many thousands of barons, knights, and common
people did, in fact, gather in the predetermined place, which struck fear into the
Silesians, and for this reason they sent a letter stating that they wished to come to
a peaceful agreement with the Czechs. Because of this, Čeněk [of Vartemberk]
and [Hynek] Krušina [of Lichtenberk] did not permit their hosts to venture further
towards Silesia.14
Therefore, Ambrož, priest and leader of the people of Hradec, stirred up rum-
blings among the people, and had the lords not departed hastily, they would have
been smashed to pieces and mangled with flails by the common people. However,
a little while afterwards, when the mob had been calmed down, they dispersed and
211
went to their homes. Ambrož, however, arrived in Prague on the Vigil of St. John
[23 June], and spoke harshly against Lord Čeněk, saying that there was no faith in
him, and that they would have conquered all of Silesia had not Čeněk ordered his
hosts to pull back; and he likewise made many other unjust allegations of wrong-
doing against him. But, by the grace and providence of God, Lord Hynek Krušina
arrived in Prague at this time, and effectively defended the innocence of Lord
Čeněk [492] and the other barons. So there was division among the people, with
some saying that this one, and others that that one, had spoken the truth.
King Sigismund replies to the indictments

Then, the Hungarian king sent a reply to the articles written against him by his
subjects in the Kingdom of Bohemia, which went as follows:
We Sigismund, by the favor of God etc., announce to all lords, knights, pages,
people of Prague, and municipalities of our Czech kingdom: You accuse us
of many items and namely of the burning to death of Master Jan Hus and
Jerome, and you also mention heresy, defamation, and the dishonoring of the
Czech land. But we are not guilty of this, because we were never interested
and are not in anything that would cause the shame of our Czech crown, and
it is well known that we have faithfully and bravely argued in the name of our
brother of blessed memory before the Council of Constance, and therefore
we have been exposed to great tribulation and vilification in Constance.15
Also the Czech land is not being condemned, only those who adhere to heresy
and practice it, and still today, Lord willing, we are not destroying or defam-
ing this country, but this crown is being destroyed and defamed by those
who demolish churches and monasteries built to honor the Lord God, who
take the body of the Lord and other sacraments and they awfully damage,
and cruelly burn to death and kill young girls [virgins], priests, monks, and
other spiritual people, knights, pages, and other faithful Christians, women
and men, who chop to pieces pictures and damage, abandon, and burn down
towns, destroying in such a way the country for good. And these obvious
evildoings and non-Christian articles provoke and have provoked the dukes
of neighboring countries and other secular people and thus all Christendom
against this country, but not us.16 It would be a very improper and regretta-
ble act if we, of our own will, brought our inheritance and kingdom to such
shame and destruction. Rather on God’s honor we truly regret the destruc-
tion and shame that is constantly taking place without us causing it. And if
you are accusing us regarding the crown and the sacrament, we removed it
for safekeeping, not to the harm of the Czech country, but to prevent these
things from being shamefully destroyed, abolished, and lost to the detriment
of the crown, as it has been well demonstrated on other sacraments by some
of you and yours. We took the registers of the country with the consent of the
212
lords, who sealed them with their seals, when we intended to take them away.
And all these things and others, that you know about, in which we would be
found guilty, as conduits of these evildoings, let the lords and dukes of the
Czech crown investigate and we will be only happy to rectify and put it right
according to the instructions of the lords, and you too [should] rectify all
those wrongdoings and destruction caused by you as dukes and lords of the
crown [should] find out and order.
As you are writing to us that you have decided to adhere to those Four
Articles unless you receive better information supported by the Holy Scrip-
tures, we can answer to it that we have never denied you this, we have
always agreed to and offered you a hearing, better information supported
by the Holy Scriptures regarding these articles and others that are against
the Holy Church, and we have never refused and we are always ready to
provide you with a hearing, better information, and instructions.17 The only
aim has been to make sure that the country is not destroyed. And as you
are writing to us that you want to keep your rights and orders, just as your
ancestors, you should know that we never intended and do not intend to
take your orders, rights, and freedom away from you or to cancel them
in any way, we only want to keep the order and freedom for everyone. We
prefer [493] to establish them rather than cancel them. So look at who is
taking your rights and freedom away from you and who destroys the rights,
whether it is we or you yourselves, and you will find in your records, which
you have among yourselves, that it is you who cancel your rights and free-
doms. We have also heard that you have destroyed pictures in a Prague
church and decided that the castle and church, which have been built to
honor and praise the Lord God and holy heirs, should be demolished.
Therefore, for goodness’ sake, do not do it and do not let it be demolished,
you have already demolished one seat of the Crown in Vyšehrad as well as
churches to the great shame of the crown, and if you demolish another one
than you should know that you will provoke against you all Christendom
and also us for such non-Christian acts, and you will bring those afore-
mentioned evil acts against the country and against you, and you will drive
yourselves and the crown to greater shame and dishonor. You know that this
is the head of this crown and that St. Václav and other holy heirs and the
emperor of good and blessed memory, our father, together with other kings
and dukes of this crown are lying here. And for goodness’ sake, take mercy
on yourselves and on this country, and do not let this country, our towns,
and our servants be destroyed anymore; and introduce justice as we have
written to you before, and stop these wrongdoings so they would no longer
happen against the Lord God and against the order of the Holy Church and
against us, and we will be happy to help you in it. But if you do not do it,
then it will come to such an end that this country will have to perish, and
we will not be able, even if we wanted, to prevent it. Date etc.18
213
Notes
1 Frederick G. Heymann, ‘The National Assembly of Čáslav,’ Mediaevalia et Humanistica 8 (1954),
pp. 32–55.
2 Along with Čeněk of Vartemberk, Hynek Krušina, Oldřich of Hradec, Viktorin and Hynek of
Kunštát, there were others of the same persuasion including Jan of Chlum, who had accompanied
Hus to Constance in 1414. The latter had been living on his fortress in Pihl near Litomyšl.
František Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o
vítězství u Domažlic (Prague: Svoboda, 1979), p. 366. On Chlum, see Thomas A. Fudge, Jan
Hus Between Time and Eternity: Reconsidering a Medieval Heretic (Lanham: Lexington Books,
2016), pp. 117–40, 249–51.
3 Pope Martin V later told Witołd that he would have to help Sigismund deal with the Czech
heretics. Jan Długosz, ‘Historiae Polonicae,’ in Aleksander Przezdziecki, ed., Joannis Długossi,
Opera Omnia (Kraków: Josepho Liskocinski, 1873–1878), vol. 11, p. 431.
4 The meaning of ‘ten k tomu připraven’ (the one who is ready) is difficult to determine. If the
text read ‘ten o to připraven’ (the one who is ready for it) this might suggest the ruler would be
deposed. Because it says ‘k tomu’ it makes more sense to understand the text as suggesting the
proposed action has to do with preparing the ruler, in the sense of educating him and refining him,
in accordance with the articles proposed by those named above. This reading adds clarity and
provides a logical contrast with the following sentence that speaks of a community dismissing a
leader who is unwilling to conform and replacing him with an alternative leader.
5 The text of the letter in the chronicle concludes prematurely. The complete conclusion [enclosed
in brackets] was added by Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika,
p. 367 based upon the text in František Palacký, ed., Archiv český, 6 vols. (Prague: Kronberg
and Riwnáče, 1840–1872), vol. 3, pp. 226–30. See also Josef Bujnoch, ed., Die Hussiten: Die
Chronik des Laurentius von Březová 1414–1421 (Graz: Verlag Styria, 1988), pp. 232 and 339. The
document was ‘written in the forceful, rather laconic, and concentrated Czech of the time.’ The
version here was edited after the assembly. The more authentic is the one published in Palacký,
Archiv český. Frederick G. Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution (New York: Russell
& Russell, 1969), p. 225.
6 Sigismund believed the Hussites were heretics and implicit in their heresy was a threat aimed
at royal authority. Opposition to the king was understood by Sigismund and his advisors and
supporters as not merely opposition to the faith of the church but treasonous in its stance on the
king and his rightful claim to the throne of the Czech kingdom.
7 The Latin ending of the letter reads: ‘On the orders of the Lord King: Michael, royal notary.’
8 Laurence is not accurate on this point. Jerome applied for an imperial safe conduct that was
unsuccessful. The application was essentially denied. The Council of Constance did issue a
provisional one. He never held a papal salvus conductus. Thomas A. Fudge, Jerome of Prague
and the Foundations of the Hussite Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016),
pp. 175–8.
9 The language changes here from the formal Vaše Milost (‘Your Grace’) found in the first nine
articles to the less formal third-person pronoun (‘he’), which appears in the next nine articles and
statements, before changing again in the last three paragraphs to the more accusatory first-person
pronoun (‘you’).
10 Sigismund returned the Czech crown in 1437.
11 The imperial insignia (crown jewels) were returned to Bohemia permanently only in the nineteenth
century.
12 Following his formal ascent to the throne, the king returned these.
13 The land and court records were also returned to the realm in 1437.
14 There are sermons from the Hussite period reflecting considerable fear of the Hussite armies.
For example, Wrocław University Library MS I F 561, fols. 169v–171r. I am grateful for a very
stimulating talk at a conference in Prague in June 2018 delivered by Jan Odstrčilík from the
214
Institut für Mittelalterforschung of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, which alerted
me to the existence of this sermon. Subsequently I tracked down a copy of the manuscript in
Wrocław, which has hitherto neither been edited nor published.
15 In the absence of evidence or argument, the plea appears fatuous.
16 The reference to the ‘non-Christian articles’ may be to statements the council leaders made in
response to Hus and Jerome and not to the same articles as the Four Articles of Prague.
17 The king’s assertions are disingenuous and it is difficult to find any evidence to support his claims.
18 (P) adds the following: ‘The same material but under a different sentence the aforesaid Sigismund,
the king of the Hungarians, writes in this form to the barons of the land of Moravia.’ However, the
letter itself does not follow. Goll, FRB, vol. 5, p. 493.
215
12
C ON T ENDING FOR THE VARI ETI ES

OF HUSS ITE FAI TH
Then, when Žižka, the captain of Tábor, together with some of his priests, was
seeking out the sect of the Pikarts and summarily burning at the stake as many
unrepentant heretics as he found, the priest Martin, called Loquis, a supporter and
indeed the originator of the horrible heresy of the Pikarts, about which much has
been said above, and for the sake of which he had previously been arrested by
Lord Oldřich and released after the Táborites pleaded for him, observing these
developments, and wishing to escape from the hands of the Praguers and Tábo-
rites, set out on a journey towards Moravia, where he had come from, taking with
him the priest known as Prokop the One-Eyed, a member of the same sect.1 When
they arrived in Chrudim, they were captured by the captain of the town, a man
named Diviš, and put into the pillory. When he was speaking with them peacea-
bly, and asking them, among other things, what their opinion was concerning the
blessed sacrament of the altar, that is, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and when Martin Loquis answered heretically that ‘Christ’s body was in heaven,’
giving as his reason for this that Christ’s body was one as opposed to multiple,
like the many hosts on the altar, the aforementioned captain [494] could not bear
to hear such heresy against God, and struck him with his fist. Had not the priest
Ambrož, the vicar of Hradec Králové, intervened, he would shortly have wanted
to burn them at the stake. But, because the priest Ambrož pleaded for them, he
released them into his hands. Then Ambrož put them in wagons and brought them,
bound, to Hradec Králové. They were hoping that after they had been held there
in prison for almost two weeks, they would repent of their heresy and return to
the true faith; but when the aforementioned Ambrož came to the conclusion that
he would not be able to do any good for them, he brought them, bound, on the
Monday before the feast day of St. John the Baptist [22 June], to Roudnice and
presented them as heretics to the ordinary, whose name was Konrad, in order that
he might interrogate them according to the rules of the Holy Scriptures and assign
them a fitting punishment.2
After they had been brought to Roudnice, they were locked in dark jail cells,
and the common people were prevented from seeing them, lest they do damage to
faithful hearts with their elegant little sophistries. When they had been held in the
216
harsh prison for more than eight weeks and not even the smallest spark of repent-
ance was observed in them, Žižka insisted that the representatives of the Praguers
bring them to Prague, where they would be burned in the middle of the square as
a deterrent for others. But the councilors of Prague, afraid of the talk that would
spring up among the people, because many people in the city were on Martin’s
side, sent one of the councilors to Roudnice. Having hired a torturer, he arrived
in Roudnice, and, having waited upon the archbishop with his delegation, handed
them over into the hands of the torturer, who cruelly burned out their waists down
to their entrails, to thoroughly interrogate them as from which person, or people,
they had received these heresies, and whether there were others in Prague who
professed the same. Having been thus tortured, they disclosed the names of some
people from whom they had received their ideas and who still held to the same
beliefs at Prague. When they were vehemently exhorted after this to repent and to
return from their errors to the unity of the church, they replied mockingly: ‘It is
not we, but you yourselves who are in error, misled by the heretical clergy, and in
venerating the sacramental bread you kneel before a created thing.’
Then, on the Thursday before the feast day of St. Bartholomew, that is, on 21
August, they were led to the place where they were to be burned, along with a
large crowd of people. They were urged to beg the people standing by to offer
humble prayers for them [495]. But the priest Martin answered: ‘We do not need
these prayers; let those who need them ask for them.’ While the aforementioned
Martin said many horrible things, too shocking to pious ears, he was burned in a
barrel together with his accomplice. Praise be to God, who has snatched away the
wolves seeking to assail his flock, and, lest they infect others, miraculously driven
them off and consumed them in fire. For when this wicked Martin, this so-called
priest, was first in captivity in the home of Lord Oldřich, he wrote a letter to some
of his brethren among the Táborites, containing copious evidence of his erroneous
and heretical views.3
Priest Želivský incites an uproar in Prague

Next, after the burning of these men, certain people suspected of being involved
with the Pikart heresy were arrested in Prague, among whom were Lasko from
the New Town and three Táborite priests, Prokop, called Rasus, Gira of Glatov,
and Abraham, who were unwilling to permit lighted candles in the presence of the
venerable sacrament of the Eucharist.4
Also, in the same year, on the Monday after the feast day of St. Peter, which was
30 June, after the secret [496] negotiations of certain men with Lord Jan the priest,
who had on his side a small majority of the common people of the town, the large
bell in the Church of the Mother of God of the Snows was rung. At the sound of
these bells, all those who were supporters of sin and disorder ran in chaos from the
New Town to the Old Town, presumably at the instigation of the aforementioned
priest Jan. They climbed the town hall with a great racket and cried out that the
217
councilors of both towns were without faith, accusing them of many crimes, and
said that they therefore ought to be deposed. Therefore, they took from them the
seal and joined together the Old Town with the New Town. Four captains were
chosen from the whole community, who would be in charge of both the Old Town
and the New Town for the time being, until new councilors were elected. After
this was done, on the following Wednesday [2 July], they called a meeting in the
town hall of the Old Town and elected 30 councilors who had been nominated by
the aforementioned priest Jan, 15 from the New Town and 15 from the Old Town,
among whom some, as the rumor went, were suspected of being Pikarts. These
councilors were to preside together at the town hall of the Old Town, as the repre-
sentatives of the whole city and resolve major disputes, and some of them were to
hear less important cases in the New Town if needed.
For this reason, all men who were of age and owned land were greatly distressed
by this election and deposition of councilors, without any semblance of order
and in a manner contrary to the privileges of the city. One of these, a blacksmith,
though he was elected a councilor by them, did not wish to accept the appoint-
ment, reasoning that they had not been elected legitimately, as the prerogative of
the town dictated. In the course of this process, the moon, which represents the
mob, joined together in the heavens with Mars, a sign of strife, according to the
astrologers, signified that proper procedure and a good outcome was not to be
expected in any matter from the newly elected councilors, but rather that their
election would be like kindling for a fire, and the root of many evils in the king-
dom.5 This was said by someone whose name is unknown. In order to investigate
the outcome of the events, the aforementioned priest Jan, who was executing the
office of sub-chamberlain, told the community [497] assembled at that time at the
town hall:
Behold, you laypeople are unified in support of one man. Therefore, if you
want us, the clergy, to also be unified and not to divide the people, you must
get rid of Master Křišt’an, the parish priest of the church of St. Michael in
the Greater Town of Prague, along with his subordinate priests, and get them
away from that church, because they do not want to be reconciled to what we
have decided, but remain committed to these trifles, that is, the rites of the
church, and do not want to give the Holy Communion to children, nor do they
sing in Czech as they do in other churches.6
When he finished making these proposals, the faction that supported him
shouted: ‘Yes, yes!’ Then Jan said: ‘Do you want other priests to be appointed
in this church?’ His faction shouted: ‘Yes, yes!’ So they commissioned Master
Jakoubek and the aforementioned Jan to appoint other priests, the priests who had
been legitimately appointed having been gotten rid of. The elders and the more
important citizens did not dare to contradict them, for fear of being thrown out of
the town hall.
218
Hussite women take action

At the same time, a certain priest, who was at the time in charge of the Church of
St. Peter at Poříčí, was chased away from his church by some of those dwelling
in the neighborhood of the church, who had been infected by Táborite heresies,
because he officiated at Masses in a chasuble. And Prokop [Holý] and Philip, two
Táborite priests suspected of being Pikarts, were appointed in his place. Certain
supporters of the Pikarts also tried to get rid of Jaroslav, the priest from the Church
of St. Nicholas in the Old Town, a pious man. Also, some of the secular authorities
who were on the side of the Pikarts tried to appoint Vilém, a priest suspected of
being a Pikart, to the Church of St. Michael in the Old Town; but, God willing,
they were not accepted. A group of devout maidens, widows, and wives, seeing
that the aforementioned councilors had been the cause of so many and such great
evils, as if they ‘had no ears to hear,’7 guided by the Holy Spirit, called together all
those who had remained faithful servants of the truth, went together to the town
hall, and presented a written complaint to the councilors. One maiden from their
number, holding the letter in her hand, read the letter, the text of which follows
below, word by word [498]:
Dear lords and brothers, we are begging Your Grace, in the name of the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and for the sake of salvation and the preser-
vation of all the communities of the town in the Christian faith, not to chase
away and not to permit the chasing away of faithful priests from churches,
because they observed the truth of God properly and consistently for a long
time, keeping out of heresies and various aberrations not supported by
Holy Scriptures and the law of God, and managing servants according to
the law of God and the life of Christ and teaching to manage this way. And
many from the community of this town are aware of this, and also many
elsewhere in the Czech lands. As we have heard, some have risen against
them, attempting to oppress them, and some already have been oppressed,
such as those at Poříčí in the New Town. One [priest] named Prokop, from
the ranks of the Táborites, without the approval of the elders authorized
it, mobbed with others, and divided that large settlement, and they ran
away, lamenting and accusing him that he pushed himself through, and
also in other settlements, such as at [the churches of] St. Nicholas and St.
Michael: the settlement does not blame them, fearing that proud inquisitive
priests could be appointed, self-centered, [hopping,] meddlesome priests,
who are in positions in many places in Bohemia and Moravia, and though
the Táborite communities are needed and helped to do many good things,
which we appreciate, we also hope that many of them fear God and are
good; but many of them, priests and other people from the community of
both male and female gender violated their faith in the blessed sacrament
of the body and blood of the Lord and in some other articles as they confess
it themselves, and many of them oppose this.
219
And these heresies spread all over the kingdom and especially here in
Prague. And we were warned this year to avoid people like this who are com-
ing here, either priests and laypeople, men and women, and they should be
examined and such people should not be tolerated, so that all of us are of the
same true faith of Christ.
This was observed earlier before us, and we are asking Your Grace to
advance it by your diligence or to order someone faithful to do it. And also,
some priests who came here disclosed that they blessed only the bread and
wine, not believing that it was the body and blood of the Lord, and under this
heresy they gave communion to people and led them to idolatry. And some
women say that they have been instructed by Táborite priests to consecrate
for themselves, which they often did; and some already say that they wish to
repent of it. And should these mishaps take place here in these communities,
there would be immense division and demoralization of all the communities,
and while we adhered before to the truth, we would shamefully abandon the
truth and the true faith. Therefore, when some of them come here, be they
priests or others, we do not know whether they confess the true faith regard-
ing the body of the Lord and other articles, and we are afraid that some
of them might be heretics, and that someone might take up a position and
preach against God, against the faith, and against the good customs of these
communities under the pretext of preaching the word of God, as mentioned
before. You can see it, it comes to your attention, yet you do not care and do
not stop it. You do not order someone to stop it, and if someone wishes to do
something in this matter, you prevent that one from doing so. It seems that
you take sides, and it causes division in the communities. We note that during
your ruling we did not experience any unity, quite the contrary, there was
more division, more so than under the former rulers. Therefore we beg you to
rectify it and to do so bravely, so that all of Prague and others know that you
should not be suspected of spoiling it. And do not allow the priest at Poříčí to
make a fuss before the body of the Lord, nor anywhere else in Prague, or any-
one else, and return the former priest to the church, because the settlement
does not know of any guilt of his, nor of any other churches mentioned before.
But should you not be willing to do it we would regret it very much and
anyone else who confesses the true faith as well, and we would be forced
to try with the help of the Lord God and with faithful prayer, because you
would want to negotiate unity in physical matters and not in spiritual mat-
ters of faith. Also, because the Táborite priests were here, you have allowed
them to take posts at the Mother of God Before Týn and to speak lies against
the priests of these communities and against the whole community, to vilify
not only several local priests but also the entire community concerning the
accepting and pardoning of Konrad to the truth of God and other articles,
which led to the division of these communities, and people were divided in
the church and grumbled, and did not honor the body of the Lord.8 Some of
you councilors were present and did nothing about it. We have also heard
220
that [499] while some priests abandoned poor posts, you have ordered to
give three and a half kopa of groschen to the six or seven priests as Čapek
mentioned during his preaching.9 We also beg you, when you call a session
of the community or elders of the community at the town hall for common
well-being, do not call only those who take sides, according to the commun-
ion of the persons, because many people notice it well and some are mak-
ing conclusions from various symptoms [signs]. Also, when negotiating, the
officials confessing the true faith should negotiate, who are not suspected of
being Pikarts or rogues [devilry].
The councilors, having heard the letter to the end, became angry, arrested all
of the women, and ordered the married women to stand to one side and others to
stay where they were, so that, having separated them, they might be able to calm
them down more quickly. But the women, forgetting all womanly fear, put on the
spirit of masculinity, and refused to be separated from one another.10 Therefore,
the councilors, coming to the conclusion that they could do nothing with them,
decided to order the letter that had been read in their presence to be brought back
to them, but they were not able to lay their hands on it. For this reason, much
agitated, they left the town hall and locked the women in the room where they
were for almost two hours. After these two hours had passed, they were permitted
to leave freely. The more level-headed part of the community very much liked
the proposal that had been made by the women, so much, in fact, that, when a
certain young maiden read the same letter in the town assembly that was called
afterwards, they did not speak out against it, but rather became apologists for it.
Praise to you, O Lord!11
Archbishop Konrad convenes a synod of Czech clerics

Next, in the same year, on the feast day of St. Prokop [4 July], a synod was opened
in the Old Town within the walls of the college of the liberal arts, which is known
as Charles College. Since Archbishop Konrad, who was at that time in Roudnice,
was unable to come, and excused himself on account of illness, he selected as
his representatives at the synod two masters of arts and deacons, namely Master
Prokop from Plzeň and Master Příbram, so that, after having chosen assistants
who seemed suitable to them, they might give orders, perform administrative
functions, and negotiate on matters pertaining to the promotion of peace, salva-
tion, and unity among the whole clergy. Therefore, those masters chose Master
Jakoubek of Stříbro, bachelor of theology and a preacher at Bethlehem, and the
priest Jan, who was by this time de facto ruler of the entire town, to help them,
even though the clerical community cried out in opposition to Jan, whom they
were calling an apostate, unwilling to have appointed over themselves anyone of
bad reputation. But when they achieved nothing, those four divided the clergy
assembled [500] at the university into four groups: first, those from Prague; sec-
ond, those from Hradec; third, those from Žatec; and fourth, those from Tábor; and
221
those who had come from all other regions they distributed among these groups at
random, giving one by one to the contingents, thus separated, a number of articles,
so that, having considered and debated them, they might give answers.12 Although,
among many of the participants, no consensus was reached about many of the arti-
cles proposed in this manner, because the majority was in agreement, on the Mon-
day after St. Prokop’s Day, that is, on 7 July, Master Příbram, ascending to the
chair where the lectures of the theologians are read, with all the clergy assembled
and also some men of noble birth present—to wit, Lord Oldřich of Rožmberk,
Lord Viktorin Boček, some of the councilors of both the Old and New Town, and
a large crowd of pages—read aloud the articles reproduced below. He asked of
each of the four contingencies whether they gave their consent to each article; and
whenever all the other factions voiced their approval of one of the articles, the
foolish sect of the Táborites was crying out and objecting, especially when what
was said touched church rites and observances. The articles are reproduced herein:
Articles read at the Prague Conference

First, we believe with sincere and faithful hearts, and affirm, being of one
mind, that it is to be believed and asserted that every word of the New and Old
Testament is clearly and inviolably true, according to the interpretation that
the Holy Spirit inspires, and we maintain and proclaim that it is to be honored
and observed wholeheartedly by all true Christians.
Likewise, we faithfully and wholeheartedly believe, and assert that it is neces-
sary for all to believe, in the Creed formulated by the great Council of Nicaea,
the Creed of Athanasius, and all other orthodox Creeds believed in and prom-
ulgated by the early church.13 We hold, and determine that it is necessary
for all to observe, all the holy decrees, and all the reasonable and orthodox
doctrines, of the apostles and the early church, which we honor as mother and
teacher of the orthodox faith, and from which we consider that it is impermis-
sible to deviate.14 We command that what the apostles taught and antiquity
preserved, we also must guard and preserve.
Likewise, in order that we may maintain and preserve a general order and
uprightness among all our clergy, and so that all arrogance among the clergy
in this kingdom may be held in check, we consider it proper to choose four
suitable men, respected for their knowledge and the quality of their lives, as
chief leaders and directors of all clergy and administrators in spiritual mat-
ters, with the consent of our father in Christ, the most reverend Lord Konrad,
archbishop of Prague [501]. These men are to be, namely, Master Jakoubek,
Master Příbram, Master Prokop from Plzeň, and Jan, preacher from the New
Town of Prague. We sincerely promise to be obedient to them and to respect
their management, direction, and recommendation in all legitimate and
proper areas, and we willingly grant them full and plenary authority over us,
to punish all the unjust, to give direction to the clergy, to defrock priests, and
222
to make any changes to our common rules and regulations, or to do anything

else that order and justice may require.
Likewise, all priests of Christ should have both Testaments in their possession
in written form, and if they are really not able to acquire both, at least the New
Testament, and they should read and study it with all assiduity, and should
diligently promote, not only in their own lives but in the lives of others, a
model way of living, according to the customs of the apostles, preaching and
proclaiming continuously the word of God.
Likewise, no priest should dare to initiate, teach, or preach any new or pro-
gressive doctrine that is contrary to Scripture or against the ancient com-
mandments and reasoned decrees of the holy fathers, unless he brings this
novel doctrine before the aforementioned administrators and directors of the
clergy or to the provincial assembly, and supports his position with Scriptures
and rational argumentation. This holds especially regarding articles against
the most blessed sacrament and other related matters, prohibited by the col-
lege and clergy, which we ourselves also prohibit, so that no one shall be
permitted to adhere to them or teach them.
Likewise, all priests should believe with a most faithful heart and confess in
words with the utmost sincerity, that in the most divine sacrament of the Eucha-
rist, our Lord Jesus Christ is with us in his real presence, with his own body and
blood, true God and true man [502], in the form of bread as well as wine, and this
should be proclaimed to the people as something to be faithfully adhered to and
believed.15 Furthermore, they should promote the efficacious taking of the most
divine communion, in both species, that is, bread and wine, of this holy Eucharist
by all faithful Christians, both the sick and the well, adults and infants, with all
pious inspiration and intentions, as often as the Holy Spirit has moved them to
do so, whether only once a day, or at certain intervals of days. The clergy should
recommend this most earnestly to the people as the gift of all graces.
Likewise, the order and office of holy Mass should be stringently observed, in
all aspects of the rite and garb that have come down to us from the example
of the early church, and in the common vestments of which the saints of the
early church approved, which some call an orarion, others call ornamentals.16
However, all superfluous and precious decoration should be removed from the
vestments of all and sundry who officiate at the sacrifice of the Mass, unless
some unavoidable necessity prevents this.
Likewise, we have decided that with regard to the ministering of all seven sac-
raments, the sacrament of the Eucharist, as a strengthening and confirmation
of the other six, should not be omitted, but should be offered and adminis-
trated at the same time. Because, according to the words of St. Dionysius, no
sacrament is properly celebrated if the sacrament of the body and blood of the
Lord Christ is not taken at the same time.17
223
Likewise, no priest of Christ should rule by secular and civil law over ben-
efices, estates, houses, properties, or any other goods or possessions, but
should live according to the rule of poverty, demonstrated in the Holy Scrip-
tures, and according to the apostolic life. He should be satisfied that he has
enough to eat and drink and is modestly clothed. But no secular lord should
under any circumstances claim or take away for himself the legitimately held
alms and resources of the church, or temporary or permanent donations.
Likewise, we have decided that henceforth no priest shall dare to sell the
properties of the church, or other secular properties, or have excessive care,
on account of greed, for his patrimony. We determine and demand this accord-
ing to the Council of Nicaea.18
Likewise, we have decided in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and pro-
claim, that the following is to be held as true, on pain of eternal damnation
[503]: that every priest of Christ should assiduously, with maximum effort
and without any laziness do all within his power to put an end to and eradi-
cate all public mortal sins, forbidden by the law of God, that is to say his own
sins and the sins of others, and that neither he himself nor his servants should
through negligence permit, or through laziness tolerate, any wicked deed of
this sort, even if it should mean the loss of their property or life.
Likewise, no priest should receive or demand any money or gifts for provid-
ing the seven sacraments or other spiritual ministries connected with them,
nor should he be able to, or dare, to accept any such gifts for saying prayers
on the pretext of any religious purpose.19
Likewise, no priest should live with women, especially not with young ones,
nor should he have any intercourse with them, nor should he mingle with
them in conversation or visit them in their houses, but rather avoid them,
unless he is compelled by some clear, sufficient, and wholesome reason.
Likewise, should a priest be found to have fallen into the sin of fornication,
he shall be punished with one year’s imprisonment and should he repeat it, he
shall be defrocked and suspended from the priesthood forever.
Likewise, should a priest be caught drunk several times, or should he be found
to be devoted to hanging around in pubs or playing dice, he shall be punished
with one month’s imprisonment.
Likewise, a priest should give evidence of his calling through his dress and
tonsure, which distinguish him from the common people [504], and also in
his bearing and gait. But he should not seek beauty in his vestments and
shoes, but rather piety.
Likewise, we assert that any scurrilous priest, given to vain or lewd language,
jokes, or cursing, should be defrocked.
224
Likewise, seditious clerics should never be ordained to the priesthood. Should

there be any such priests in the clergy, whatever their rank, they should be
demoted.
Likewise, no priest should presume to keep true penitents, wishing to confess
their sins to priests with a humble heart, away from the confessional through
any temerity, or dare to prohibit confession as illegitimate, or deny the power
of the confessionals, in which we forgive the sins of those who truly repent, as
the ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ, or other saving remedies.
Likewise, all directors of churches should have a baptismal font, consecrated
for the appropriate times, and oil and chrism in their churches, and they
should see to it that these things are present.20 They should observe the usual
ritual of anointing, questions, answers, exorcism, and blessing. They should
baptize infants and immediately give them the sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ, assuming they are able to take it.21
Likewise, should a priest of any rank be brought before a court presided over
by a bishop or other elected officials, and should he be legitimately proven
guilty of any sin by this court, it would be inappropriate for any layperson to
defend him by any means, but rather he should be subject to just sentencing.
Likewise, any priest who has a place and time available should be bound to
pray the hours, unless he is unavoidably occupied in meditation or studying
diligently the law of God, or some other more useful enterprise. If any priest
has free time available, in which he ought to be either praying or studying,
and wastes this time, he should be excommunicated.
Likewise, we declare that for the purpose of avoiding certain pitfalls regard-
ing church rituals, the practices that have been abandoned in the Prague com-
munities, which have for sound reasons been rationally abandoned, should be
considered abandoned, unless some more reasonable or useful consideration
should be brought forth that would justify their resumption.
We have decided, therefore, upon these holy and well-reasoned regulations and
decrees; or rather, we renew the ancient councils and their precepts, adding in all
these points, that it is not our intention through them to detract from the orthodox
faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, but if we will have been better instructed as to the
rectitude of the contrary positions, we are ready to humbly emend them [505].
Notes
1 It is an error to ascribe the origins of the Pikart heresy to Martin. Thomas A. Fudge, ‘Heresy and the
Question of Hussites in the Southern Netherlands (1411–1431),’ in Thomas A. Fudge, Heresy and
Hussites in Late Medieval Europe (Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum, 2014), VI, pp. 1–30. Previously,
Laurence asserted that Martin was responsible for the heresies espoused by the Táborites.
2 In medieval canon law the word ordinarius was a common designation applied to parish priests,
bishops, or archbishops who were considered the legal holder of the pastoral power (ordinarius
225
loci). Hence, the Ordinary referred to here is Konrad of Vechta, archbishop of Prague. He is
referred further as ordinario regni, because as archbishop he possessed ecclesiastical power for
the entire Kingdom of Bohemia. Josef Bujnoch, ed., Die Hussiten: Die Chronik des Laurentius
von Březová 1414–1421 (Graz: Verlag Styria, 1988), pp. 340–1. The term ordinarius regni is rare.
3 That letter was published by Goll, FRB, vol. 5, p. 495 as a footnote to the chronicle text.
4 Following the death of Jan Žižka in October 1424, the void created by his departure was eventually
and most successfully filled by Prokop Holý (‘bare’ or ‘bald’). Also called Prokop Veliký (‘the
Great’), he was born sometime in the 1370s. Little is known reliably of his early life. Prokop
traveled widely outside Bohemia in his youth. A rich merchant, Jan of Cách (who may have
been Prokop’s uncle), apparently took young Prokop on business trips to the Rhine, Flanders,
France, Spain, Italy, and as far afield as Jerusalem. At an indeterminate time he took holy orders.
Apparently he spent time at a Minorite house in Hradec Králové departing from that community
on a date that cannot be established. He was also married by the time he came to prominence as a
leader among the Hussites. By 1421 he was active at Tábor. In many sources he is referred to as
Procopius Rasus, which has caused some to refer to him literally as Prokop the Bald. This is an
error. The moniker is almost certainly to being clean-shaven. Táborite priests were notorious for
wearing beards in distinction to clerics in the medieval church in the West. Prokop did not follow
this innovation and continued to shave earning the nickname ‘the shaven’ (rasus). Aeneas Sylvius
and Jan Długosz suggest he had been one of Žižka’s close friends. Prokop adopted a policy
quite different to that of his predecessor. Instead of purely defensive warfare, Prokop elected to
strengthen the Czech borders by invading neighboring regions that maintained hostility to the
Hussite faith. In these endeavors he commanded armies in Silesia in 1428 and 1429, Saxony in
1429 and 1430, and also in the Upper Palatinate and other German territories. In clear departure
from his former colleague he likewise consented to diplomatic meetings with King Sigismund.
One occurred at Bratislava in 1429 and he later went with the Hussite delegation to the Council of
Basel in 1433. He appears to have successfully utilized Žižka’s military tactics and strategies. He
remained a central leader within the Táborite branch of the Hussite movement from his takeover
of the Hussite armies in 1426 until his death eight years later. Unlike his predecessor, Prokop did
not actively engage in fighting. The sole documented case of him taking up the sword was at the
momentous Battle of Lipany on 30 May 1434 when he was forced to fight, unsuccessfully, for his
own life. The only monograph on this important figure is Josef Macek, Prokop Veliký (Prague:
Naše Vojsko, 1953).
5 Ptolemaic cosmology, which prevailed in the Middle Ages, considered the sun and the moon as
planets. In the Romance and Germanic languages the seven days of the week were designated
after the seven planets but this was not the case in the Slavic world. Bujnoch, Die Hussiten,
p. 341.
6 The issue of communing children is reviewed in David R. Holeton, ‘The Communion of Infants
and Hussitism,’ Communio Viatorum 27 (1984), pp. 207–25.
7 A dominical saying of Christ that appears seven times in the synoptic gospels: Matthew 11:15,
13:9, 13:43; Mark 4:9, 4:23; and Luke 8:8, 14:35.
8 The conversion of Archbishop Konrad to the Hussite cause on 21 April 1421 caused rejoicing
among some of the Hussites but loathing and disgust among some of the radical communities
who condemned the rejoicing as noted above.
9 This refers to Jan Čapek though the reference is vague and we cannot determine anything specific
in the chronicle about this matter. It appears that he preached in the Týn Church denouncing
Archbishop Konrad. On the other hand, Táborite priests, who were late at the synod in Prague,
among them especially Jan Čapek, freely entered the Týn Church, where they preached against
the Prague priests, and against the entire community and caused great offense in the church.
Several Prague aldermen were present but neither protested nor intervened. Six or seven Táborite
priests were given financial support from municipal funds even though such support had been
denied to needy priests. František Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové,
Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u Domažlic (Prague: Svoboda, 1979), p. 370.
226
10 The phrase virum induunt (spirit of masculinity) literally means ‘became men’ or ‘put on the
man’ (singular) or assumed ‘manhood.’ This might be compared with the phrase virilem animum
(manly spirit) used to describe Hus’s courage at Constance, noted above.
11 The comment is telling with respect to the chronicler’s point of view but it does not seem
persuasive to argue that Laurence manufactured the letter himself. The document does not appear
to be extant elsewhere. The term ‘town assembly’ (in Czech velka obec), refers to the great
assembly of the commons wherein ordinary people were able to participate in political debates
and decisions.
12 The term in the Latin text ‘aliorum titulis’ refers to ‘church title,’ which may include particular
saints acknowledged as church patrons, as well as the parishes or local churches connected with
the particular church title. In this case the synod of the clerics included the four main Hussite
centers. These were Prague, Hradec Králové, Žatec, and Tábor. The Táborite group included
delegates from different churches and places throughout Bohemia. Bujnoch, Die Hussiten,
p. 342.
13 This would seem to suggest that all Hussite parties adhered to the teachings of the early church
especially those codified in the main historical confessions.
14 Historical roots can be found in Cyprian and Augustine. The former asserted: ‘One cannot have
God for one’s father if one does not have the church as one’s mother.’ De ecclesiae catholicae
unitate, 6, in CCL, vol. 3, p. 253. The latter argued that faith in the gospel was motivated by the
authority of the church. Contra epistulam Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti 1.5, in PL, vol. 42,
col. 476; and also that whoever rejected the church rejected God. In Joanis evangelium tractatus
124, 4.4., in PL, vol. 35, col. 1407.
15 This underscores part of the disagreement over the doctrine of the eucharist among the Hussite
parties. The Táborites tended towards a Wyclifite doctrine of remanence while many of the
conservatives in Prague continued to hold to the idea of transubstantiation. See Ian Christopher
Levy, John Wyclif’s Theology of the Eucharist in its Medieval Context (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette
University Press, 2014) for the broader context.
16 The orarion features in the Byzantine liturgy and may be considered a special type of stole. Made
out of silk or a similar type of fabric, the orarion is worn by the deacon on the left shoulder.
Extended comments in Charles du Fresne du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis,
vol. 6 (Niort: L. Favre, 1886), pp. 52–3.
17 De ecclesiastica hierarchia, 2.8 and 3 in PG, vol. 3, cols. 422–3 and cols. 470–1.
18 Possibly an allusion to canon 12 of the Second Council of Nicaea (787) in Norman P. Tanner,
ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (London: Sheed & Ward, 1990), vol. 1, pp. 147–8 with
foundation in canon 2 of the Synod of Trullo (692). Henry R. Percival, ed., The Seven Ecumenical
Councils of the Undivided Church (Oxford: James Parker & Company, 1900), p. 596 (= Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 14). This in turn is a reiteration of a fourth-century
Syrian text incorporated in the Apostolic Constitutions 8.5.47.
19 Hus condemned the practices in his sermon ‘Abiciamus opera tenebrarum,’ in Anežka Schmidtová,
ed., Iohannes Hus, Positiones Recommendationes, Sermones (Prague: Státní pedagogické
nakladatelství, 1958), p. 109. James of the Marches, inquisitorial report, Rome, Vatican Library,
MS Vat Lat 7307, fol. 24v enumerates: ‘Exactions of money for baptism, confirmation, confession,
communion, for holy incense, for marriage, for 30 masses, masses for the dead, for anniversaries,
for burying, for prebends and benefices and prelates and dignitaries, the selling of indulgences …
[and] the unworthy robbery of simple people and the extortion of fees.’ Such practices were never
authorized or endorsed by the medieval church.
20 The appropriate times (tempora debita) refers to the consecration of the chrism, the baptismal
font, including consecration of the water for the baptismal rite. From the late Middle Ages, the
vigil days of Epiphany, the Easter vigil, and Pentecost come under the tempora debita.
21 Hussite authorities were quite specific about this. The St. Wenceslas Day Synod, which convened
in Prague on 28 September 1418, ratified 23 articles; the first of which addressed this matter:
‘First of all: Following baptism, children must receive the Eucharist in the proper manner which
227
is in the form of the body and blood of the Lord. If the child is not able to receive the sacrament
without spitting it out, then it will be necessary to wait before communing. If the child is able
to receive, a small piece of the sacrament should be placed in his or her mouth. After the mouth
has been closed for a time, place a drop of the blood of Christ in his or her mouth taken from the
chalice with one’s finger taking care to keep the paten under it.’ František Palacký, ed. Documenta
Mag. Joannis Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam in constantiensi concilio actam et controversias de
religione in Bohemia annis 1403–1418 motas illustrantia (Prague: Tempsky, 1869), p. 678.
228
13
MIL ITARY CAM PAIGN S AND THE

SECOND CRUS ADE
Similarly, in the same year, in the month of July, the people of Prague sent their
cavalry and infantry towards Žatec, to join with the people of Žatec and Louny
and attack the properties of their enemies, who were attempting to stop them. They
burned down the convent of the holy virgins in Doksany during the octave of St.
Prokop [11 July], and when they arrived at the township of Teplice and the convent
of the virgins, although they were received with friendliness by the abbess and
the whole convent, and supplied with as many provisions as the nuns could spare,
they turned the abbess with the virgins out of the convent, which they occupied,
and some of the brigands in the army robbed them of their clothing. Finally, they
burned down the monastery below the Castle of Osek, and the monks fled.1
Confrontation at the Castle of Most

Then, instigated, as it is said, by the troops of the army of Prague who had taken
possession of Bílina along with the castle, on the feast day of St. Mary Magdalene
[22 July], a multitude of cavalry and infantry set off from Prague towards Bílina to
reinforce the troops against the army of Meißen, which was close, with the inten-
tion of more securely attacking the town and the Castle of Most. When they met,
they marched together towards Most, and soon they occupied the mountain on
which the castle sat. Assembling two catapults and two large cannon, they inflicted
great damage on the castle while crying out vociferously:
Do you heretics, who are in the castle, not care that we will do the same to
you as we did to those in Bílina? We will tie the two sons of your captain to
wooden beams, and we will storm the castle!2
Fear and trembling wounded the hearts of those in the castle, because they knew
how they had conquered Bílina, a castle once considered almost impregnable, in a
short time. Therefore, they asked for friendly negotiations [506]. When the com-
mander of the castle, the father of the captured sons, made contact with some rep-
resentatives from the army, his sons implored their father, that is, the commander
of the castle, to have mercy on them and surrender the castle to the Praguers.
229
The boys’ father, in tears, answered: ‘This I cannot do, nor would it be proper,
for the castle has been entrusted for defense to none other than myself.’ When no
agreement was reached in the negotiations, some of the troops attacked the castle
and burned down a portion of the outworks. The inhabitants of the castle, even
more terrified on account of this event, were crying out words of peace outside
the walls, pleading with the army, for God’s sake, to let them retire with only their
lives spared, for they wished to hand over the castle. Although all the Praguers,
and especially those of noble birth, were favorably inclined to this pitiable suppli-
cation, the preacher, Lord Jan, opposed them, saying:
What good would it be for us if we let them leave here and then have to con-
quer them again in another castle? Do you not see that the Lord God wants
to hand them over into our hands? When this is done, we will do with them
whatever the elders deem to be appropriate.
Many of the soldiers committed acts that were hardly Christian—I will not men-
tion the violence perpetrated against the women, but I will tell about the inhumane
treatment of certain of the prisoners. They tied up one German captive to a large
pole, which is called a taras in the Czech language, and some of them wanted to
attack the castle, using the pole, with the prisoner tied to it, as a battering ram, but,
restrained by others, they sent him away. They burned another German prisoner to
death, despite the fact that he begged them on his knees to spare his soul and not
to hand him over to death, promising to do all that they commanded. He jumped
out of the fire seven times, but they beat him to death with flails. They committed
many other acts which, as I said, were scarcely Christian, during the pillaging of
the surrounding areas. This was no secret to the burghers of Most, who, when
they captured anyone from the Czech army, led him out of town, accompanied by
buglers, and burned him to death, paying back evil deeds with evil deeds. Because
God, the righteous judge [507], does not leave any evil deed unpunished, but pays
back all according to their deeds, the Praguers lost all hope of conquering the cas-
tle and the proverb was fulfilled that says: ‘I did not want what I was able to have,
and I could not fulfil what I wanted.’3
Therefore, it happened that, on the feast day of St. Sixtus [6 August], the hosts
of the margraves of Meißen, with many thousands of infantry and cavalry, both
Germans and Czechs, under the command of Hlaváč and Sigismund of Děčín,
and the hosts of Mikuláš of the surname Chudý, approached the town and the
Castle of Most to help them drive the Praguers from the battlefield. The people of
Prague, having surrounded the castle and being encamped on the mountainside,
when they saw the opposing army, some of them were absurdly dividing up the
spoils that they did not yet have, saying that they would claim the weapons and
armor of this or that German for themselves. When the army of Meißen formed
up their troops in battle array and approached the mountain, the Praguers likewise
set up their army for the confrontation with the army of Meißen, and unheard-of
fear swept through the armies of both the Misnians and the Praguers. But when
230
the armies met, the leaders of the Praguers turned tail and fled; all of the other
soldiery, seeing this, took flight, leaving behind the two catapults and two large
cannon where they were. Like sheep wandering without a shepherd, some fled to
Žatec, others to Chomútov, Louny, and Slaný, hurrying and not looking back. Had
the troops of Meißen, admittedly also terrified, pursued them, none, or very few,
would have escaped. But the cannoneers killed many of the Meißen army who
were trying to climb the mountain, and it is said that 2,000 from both sides fell in
battle on that day.
Murder and mayhem

At the same time, a certain Táborite priest, named Bárta, as he marched in front of
the Táborite troops with the blessed sacrament of the body of Christ, as the custom
of the Táborites demanded, was cruelly slaughtered with swords and lances by a
group of soldiers from the army of Meißen, along with all the peasants who were
following him. A certain German from their number took the monstrance with the
blessed sacrament, crushed the host, and rammed the monstrance down into his
quiver. When the horrible news about the great catastrophe [508] reached Prague,
the entire town was greatly disturbed. Women and children wept for their fathers
and husbands who had been lost there; all the people of Prague, both clergy and
lay, bewailed the lawless action of their brothers, and the faithful preachers cried
out in all the churches in Prague that almighty God had sent this blow upon them
as a righteous judgment. ‘Because,’ they said, ‘when at the beginning we fought
with compassion and humility for the defense of our most holy truth, all things
turned out favorably for us with God’s help. But now, when our brothers have
been given over to wantonness, with some of them fighting not for the truth but
for spoils, mercilessly taking the belongings of the poor and slaughtering their
neighbors more cruelly than the heathens, now the Lord God has become angry
with us and sent this judgment upon us. Therefore, abandoning evil things, let us
surrender to the gracious purposes of God, and let us pray to God that he may be
pleased to turn away his anger from us and may deign to show mercy to us.’
Also, on the Monday after the feast day of St. Mary Magdalene [28 July], when
the Praguers were still holding the battlefield in the region of Žatec, Czechs and
Germans from Plzeň marched upon the town of Rokycany. They attacked and
conquered it with only a light attack, because they had friends in the town; and,
killing and capturing many people, they set the town on fire and returned home
with great spoils. Only those who had previously taken refuge in the castle were
saved. Then, on the Wednesday following the feast day of St. Mary Magdalene
[23 July], the cobbler Václav, a citizen of the Old Town of Prague, who cast doubt
upon the blessed sacrament and stood fast in his heretical obstinacy, namely, by
not believing that the body and blood of Christ are truly and genuinely present in
the blessed sacrament of the altar, which he plainly showed when he turned his
back on the sacrament when it was brought out. On the same day as noted above,
he was burned to death in a barrel. Thanks be to God!4
231
Then, at the same time, after the feast day of St. Sixtus [6 August], three sec-
tions of the town of Prague set out marching towards Most in order to assemble
their brethren dispersed here and there throughout the surrounding towns, and,
thus joining forces [509], to drive the army of Meißen out of the realm. Žižka, the
captain of the Táborites, who was then in Prague receiving treatment for a malady
that was afflicting his eyes, although the doctors gave him no hope that his vision
could be healed, rode out with them to at least frighten the Germans.5 So they went
as far as Louny; and the army of Meißen, hearing that the Praguers had managed
to organize themselves again, retreated from the Czech kingdom and went back
to their homes.
Priest Želivský causes division among the barons

In the same year and at the same time, the lords of the Czech kingdom, R ožmberk,
Čeněk, and other lords, knights, and pages, who were already allied with
the Praguers, desired and brought it about that there should be a meeting with
the people of Prague and other towns that adhered to the side of the truth on the
following Sunday, which was the Sunday after the feast day of the Assumption
of the Virgin Mary [15 September], 17 August, in Český Brod, so that they all,
being of one mind, might negotiate about the well-being of the kingdom, order and
oversight, and the defense of the truth. To make certain that the results of the nego-
tiations could not be cancelled, the lords asked the city and community of Prague
to delegate some of their fellow citizens with plenary authority to meet there on
the predetermined day. But although the municipality of Prague had agreed to do
this and confirmed it in letters, the priest Jan, who was then with the army near the
town of Most, advised the Praguers by letter, and, after his arrival in Prague, by
words, not to attend this meeting, saying that these aforementioned lords were trai-
tors and heathens and that they did not sincerely adhere to the truth. For this rea-
son, the community of Prague was seriously divided. Some thought that because
they had previously agreed that there would be such a meeting with the lords for
the good of the kingdom, it would be completely inappropriate to back out. Others
were against it and cried out that by no means was it appropriate for them to meet
with the traitors at the predetermined place and time. When each side had made
its case, they finally agreed that two councilors and two men from the community
should be sent, not with plenary authority, but only to listen to what the lords
would propose. They also refused to go to Český Brod but suggested Kolín, and
the lords chose a place near Kutná Hora, and thus it took place.
When the Praguers met the lords near Kutná Hora [510], not having plenary
authority from the community, the lords made no negotiations with them, but
sent Lord Oldřich of Jindřichův Hradec, called Vavák, along with many knights,
to Prague to urge the Praguers to send some men with plenary authority, to avoid
division among the lords and knights. The aforementioned Lord Oldřich, along
with Lord Sádlo, attacked the priest Jan in various ways, saying that it was inap-
propriate for priests to meddle in secular matters, because they had preached
232
against it before. After many discussions they returned with the Praguers to Kutná
Hora, taking with them Master Jan Příbram and Master Prokop from Plzeň. After
they had convened and negotiated almost daily for more than two weeks, they did
not reach any agreement except for the following. First, that the lords should send
a delegation to the great Duke Witołd, announcing to him that they had accepted
him as their master and king and entreating him not to hesitate to come to the
Czech kingdom. Second, that on 18 September, both sides, that is the barons,
knights, and pages along with the Praguers and the other towns allied to them, in
all their force, should come to Český Brod, and from there that the army should
march wherever it seemed best to the lords and the Praguers that it should go.
Third, that Lord Oldřich of Jindřichův Hradec, called Vavák, was to be elevated to
the position of master of the mint, so that, having collected there the revenue that
came from the mountains, he might use it in such a way as to benefit the common
good of the whole country.
When these negotiations were completed, on 4 August, they returned home,
leaving Lord Oldřich in Kutná Hora, and he, infected with a malignant abscess,
died inside of three weeks; and many others of noble birth were also infected by
the disease, which was raging in Kutná Hora at the time, and died. In addition,
Master Jan Příbram, who was at the assembly with the lords, came to be in a bad
odor with certain people from the Prague community, and at their instigation was
driven away and banished.
The battle for Žatec and its aftermath

Next, during the octave of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin [15 September], the
commanders who had been appointed in the cities of Chomútov and Kadaň, which
had been occupied by the Praguers, on account of the fact that the army of the
Germans of Meißen was already in the area making conquests and help was not
expected by the Praguers, after the walls had been destroyed in certain areas, and
a number of homes burned down, transferred themselves to the town of Žatec and
the surrounding fortifications, taking heavy casualties and causing the Praguers to
be disorganized [511].
When the aforementioned Germans of Meißen had, together with some Czechs
allied to them, conquered the towns of Chomútov and Kadaň, they surrounded
the fortress of the town of Bílina, which belonged to the lord of Koldov. They laid
waste the surrounding fortresses and villages, and did not spare either peasants
or women, but savagely slaughtered many pregnant women. When the Praguers
heard of these wicked acts, on 13 September, that is to say on the Saturday before
the raising of the holy cross, two sections of the community, along with some
mercenaries, left Prague, taking with them a large number of foot soldiers from
the peasantry, in order to drive the Germans from the field. When the Germans
heard of the approach of the Praguers, they abandoned the siege of the fortress of
Bílina. Likewise, Sigismund of Děčín [and Vartemberk], together with his allies,
abandoned the siege of the new fortress called ‘the Chalice’ at Litoměřice and
233
fled, not waiting for the Praguers to arrive. Since at the same time a large number
of Germans, together with the prince-electors of the empire, had invaded Bohe-
mia through Cheb en route to Žatec, the Praguers, who were lying in wait for
them at Slaný, gave directions to the barons to whom they had joined themselves,
and to Žižka and to the other Táborites, to the effect that they should advance to
Slaný as large a force as they could muster in order to move against the Germans
and drive them out of the realm. For, as it was said, the prince-electors of the
empire, both the ecclesiastical and secular lords and the princes of Bavaria and the
Rhineland, along with a host of dukes, counts, barons, and knights, with a great
number of men in arms, had secretly entered the Czech kingdom as part of the
papal crusade [against the Hussites].6 When they reached the Czech borders, the
bishops dismounted with their great entourage, and in the presence of the others
[512] all expressed humility, false though it was, in order that God might prosper
their enterprise of defeating the Bohemian heretics. Then they walked across the
border. Among the bishops the following stood out as most prominent: Johannes,
archbishop of Mainz; the archbishop of Cologne; the archbishop of Trier; Duke
Ludwig, the son of Klem; and the count of Nassau, together with many others
whose names we do not know.7 Although they had laid siege to Žatec, and had
made six valiant attempts to storm the town on the Friday before the feast day
of St. Matthew [19 September], they were dealt a humiliating defeat and were
repulsed with heavy casualties, by the help of God’s grace, whose cause was being
prosecuted that day. It was reported by those living in the town that almost 60 of
them had been found killed, with many having been taken away, half dead from
their injuries, by the enemy, and 60 prisoners had been taken into the town. At this
time an enormous crowd of almost 6,000 had congregated in the town on account
of the German tyranny; to wit, they had more than 5,000 warriors on foot and 400
cavalry. Many hosts had come, apparently from all over Christendom, from distant
regions, speaking many languages, to join the German army and to have a share in
the indulgences that had been offered and extended by the Pope.8 And those people
who saw the crusading army claimed they had never before seen such a numerous,
well-equipped host with its innumerable tents gathered together.9 According to a
common estimate, there were some 200,000 warriors. Day after day they burned
down villages, towns, and castles, and, eager to receive the aforementioned papal
indulgence, they were even crueller than the heathens, and they killed and burned
people of both sexes, young as well as old, in a whirlwind of fire. Therefore, fear
and trembling struck the hearts of many people in the area of Žatec. Because of
this some forsook the well-protected fortresses and fled to the cities, hoping to be
received there in grace and mercy. However, the invaders did not spare them, but
burned them to death as they had done to the others.10
In order that their power and number might be increased, the invading army sent
off a contingent to King Sigismund and urged him, by his oath at Constance, to
come with as large an army as he was able to muster, in order to wipe out the her-
etics.11 If he would not come [513], the prince-electors threatened that they would
arrange for another Holy Roman Emperor to be chosen. But before King Sigismund
234
was able to leave Hungary, where he was residing at that time, to join the army, the
weeping, cries and laments of the women, virgins, and widows rose to the ears of
our Lord Jesus, and the anger and just vengeance of God was visited upon all of the
armies of the enemies. For the Almighty God miraculously put that savage army to
flight without a single man attacking them. On 2 October, in many places the tents
of the army caught fire, an event foreordained by the providence of God. Above
the tents one could see a vision like a single yellow pillar that went from one tent
to the next, and wherever the pillar stopped, the tent was devoured by fire.12 Thus
abandoning their equipment, the crusaders fled, barely escaping with their lives.
When the people of Žatec saw what was happening, they pursued the crusaders with
about a thousand men and killed several hundred, and others they captured alive
and brought them into captivity, giving glory to God with immense thanksgiving,
because God had scattered their enemies and the persecutors of his truth.
Furthermore, after the news of this plague visited upon the enemy by the Lord
was reported in Prague on the feast day of St. Francis [4 October], the Praguers
captured the town of Stará Boleslav, which Lord Michaelec had laid siege to, and
returned to the city of Prague praising the Lord God with songs and hymns while
the bells were rung. At the same time, the Hungarian king Sigismund gave his
daughter as a wife to the duke of Austria.13 By doing so he secured his help in the
struggle to eradicate the heretical Czechs.
At the same time, on the order of the Hungarian king Sigismund, Pipo Spano,
with a large number of Hungarian troops, invaded Moravia by stealth in order
to destroy the properties of the barons who were allied to the Praguers, and in
particular those of Lord Petr Strážnický and Lord Boček.14 Sparing no one, they
burned down villages and townships, raping young girls, and savagely burning to
death, or cutting down with swords, the people of both genders whom they cap-
tured, not even sparing small children. The lords, seeing this, were stricken with
fear and trembling, and were incapable of organizing themselves for a credible and
unified defense, nor were they cooperating with one another. With the exception
of Lord Lacek of Ostroh [514], each sought only to appease the king, so that he
might be able to go on living quietly with his properties intact.
Notes
1 The house at Doksany belonged to the Praemonstratensian nuns founded in 1144. The convent
at Teplice was Benedictine and dated to 1166. The monastery at Osek was an early thirteenth-
century Cistercian foundation.
2 The Czech text adds the comment ‘Ha Ha! Poor wretches’ or ‘Ha Ha! Deadmen.’ Goll, FRB, vol.
5, p. 505.
3 The proverb ‘potui, nolui et, quod volui, adimplere nequivi’ can be found with some regularity
among the works of later legal writers including the Italian jurist Sigismondo Scaccia (1564–
1634) in his Tractatus de commerciis et cambio; the Spanish canonist Juan de Castillo Sotomayor
(1563–1640) in his treatise on the Roman law of usufruct (Tractatus de vsufructu); the Portuguese
writer on canon law Agostinho Barbosa (1589–1649) in his Thesaurus Locorum Communium
Jurisprudentiae; and the late seventeenth-century legal writer Joannis Torre, Tractatus tripartitus
De pactis futurae successionis. Its origin must be found in antiquity. An identical idea is associated
235
with Hannibal and a bon mot (variously expressed) that when he was able, he did not wish to take
Rome, and when he wished to, he was not able.
4 The remanentist conviction of the cobbler and the chronicler’s exuberant exclamation ‘Deo
gracias!’ underscore the emotional significance of the eucharist in the Hussite movement.
5 Given the respect Laurence clearly had for Žižka, it seems strange that he omitted telling details
of the misadventure at Rábí Castle (in southwest Bohemia) in July 1421 wherein the commander
suffered a severe injury that deprived him permanently of his eyesight. Frederick G. Heymann,
John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution (New York: Russell & Russell, 1969), pp. 254–6. This
bland comment about a malady affecting eyesight is inaccurate and misinformed.
6 Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution, pp. 273–4.
7 The archbishop of Cologne was Dietrich II von Moers (1414–1463) and the archbishop of Trier
was Otto von Ziegenhain (1418–1430). The reference to Johannes (Graf von Nassau), archbishop
of Mainz is incorrect as he died in 1419.
8 This bears comparison with the first crusade wherein 150,000 troops were reported massing on
Prague representing three-dozen nations.
9 Crusade indulgences were plenary and penitential in nature but nowhere implied martyr status.
Pope Eugenius III’s encyclical Quantum praedecessores nostri (1145), PL, vol. 180, cols. 1064–6
and Innocent III’s letter Quod futura sint (1199), PL, vol. 214, cols. 780–2 are early and key
examples of papal attitudes. See Ane L. Bysted, The Crusade Indulgence: Spiritual Rewards
and the Theology of the Crusades, c.1095–1216 (Leiden: Brill, 2014). See also Stuart Jenks, ed.,
Documents on the Papal Plenary Indulgences 1300–1517 Preached in the Regnum Teutonicum
(Leiden: Brill, 2018).
10 The crusader defeat at Žatec was demoralizing to the enemies of the Hussites. The prolonged
siege and the failure of a half-dozen offensives contributed to the collapse of the second crusade.
11 Possibly a reference either to Sigismund’s remark about a crusade (16 March 1416) in František
Palacký, ed., Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam in constantiensi concilio
actam et controversias de religione in Bohemia annis 1403–1418 motas illustrantia (Prague:
Tempsky, 1869), pp. 609–11 or to his assertion (4 December 1417) that he was eager to
exterminate all Hussite heretics and was impatient for the opportunity to do so. Konstantin von
Höfler, ed., Geschichtsschreiber der husitischen Bewegung in Böhmen (Vienna: Aus der Kaiserl.
Königl. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1856–1866), vol. 2, pp. 252–4 at p. 254.
12 There are parallels between the conclusion of the first and second crusades, to wit, fires within the
crusader encampments at Prague on 19 July 1420 and again at Žatec on 2 October 1421. It is not
clear whether the crusaders deliberately or accidentally set fire to their encampment.
13 An agreement was signed to this effect on 28 September in Bratislava linking Albrecht of Austria
and Sigismund’s daughter Elizabeth.
14 The Czech form of his name is Pípa Vlach and in the chronicle he is referred to as Pipa Gallicus.
Pipo Spano, otherwise Filippo Buondelmonti delgi Scolari, Count of Ozora, (1369–1426), had
lived in Hungary since 1378 and had collaborated with Sigismund over many years including
in military offensives against the Hussites. He was a personal friend of the king and belonged
to the Order of the Dragon. He was buried in Hungary at Székesfehérvár, close to the tombs of
Hungarian kings. Leonardo Bruni, in his Historiae Florentinae, considered Pipo a military genius
who was outranked only by Julius Caesar. Gizella Nemeth Papo and Adriano Papo, Pippo Spano:
Un eroe antiturco antesignorno del Rinascimento (Mariano del Fruili: Edizione della Laguna,
2006), p. 95. See also Katalin Prajda, ‘The Florentine Scolari Family at the Court of Sigismund of
Luxemburg in Buda,’ Journal of Early Modern History 14 (2010), pp. 513–33; and Mark Whelan,
‘Merchant, Administrator and General: Filippo Scolari in the Service of the Hungarian King,
c.1397–1426,’ Whispering Gallery 115 (2012), pp. 19–24. Based upon an analysis of the towns
and properties mentioned one may conclude that Pipo’s invasion was limited to the border areas
in the Trenčín region. Josef Bujnoch, ed., Die Hussiten: Die Chronik des Laurentius von Březová
1414–1421 (Graz: Verlag Styria, 1988), pp. 344–5.
236
14
D ISC ORD, DISS ENT, D EATH, AND

T HE PRIEST ŽEL I VSKÝ
Likewise, in the year noted above, on the Sunday after St. Gall’s Day [19 October],
while the great bell of the Mother of God of the Snows rang, the priest named
Lord Jan, who has been so often mentioned, convened the community of both the
Old and New Towns at St. Stephen’s, also known as ‘St. Stephen’s by the Little
Pond.’ Standing on an elevated spot, he exhorted the people to elect one agreeable
and faithful captain whom everyone would obey, abandoning the barons, for they
were to be considered faithless. While he was speaking many slanders about the
lords of the kingdom, some of the party of the aforementioned priest Jan stood up
and spoke about Bzdínek, a newly created knight, saying that he had been always
very faithful to the community and a brave defender of the Holy Scriptures, well
deserving of being elected to this position. They asked that he be elected captain,
and said that so far as they were concerned, they voted for him. At the same time
all from their number called out in loud voices: ‘Yes, yes!’ with none of the elders
openly opposing his election at that time. Therefore, the aforementioned priest Jan
announced that Bzdínek had been elected as commander by the entire community.
He gave him, in the name of the whole community, plenary authority to bring dis-
orderly citizens into line through imprisonment, beheadings, or banishment from
the city, or to inflict whatever other punishment should seem appropriate to him,
and to replace officials and councilors whenever he considered it necessary, to
appoint them, and to depose them. Immediately there were elected two men from
the Old Town and two from the New Town, to provide assistance, as captains of
the lower rank, to the supreme captain. These captains, by the consent of the whole
community, ordered that, when they went out to take the field in battle, no man
should go away from the army without the knowledge of the captains, nor quit
the field secretly, if there were a battle, on pain of death, and the loss of all his
property. When these things were completed, they sang a hymn of praise to God
and returned home. The elders were very much against this election and the hand-
ing over of power to the captain. Therefore, they assembled in Bethlehem Chapel
and went to the town hall and beseeched the councilors not to allow the captain
to exercise the power that had been given to him [515] without the knowledge of
the councilors and the community. The councilors agreed with this, but within a
237
short period of time, they deposed, with the consent of the captain, five councilors
without the knowledge of the community and appointed five others in their place.
Also, after the election of the captain discussed above, Jan Sádlo, Lord of
Kostelec, who always adhered to the Praguers according to the truth of the Holy
Scriptures, came to be mistrusted by some of the councilors, because he did not
appear with his host on the battlefield, when the Praguers had given him to under-
stand that he should. When this news reached the aforementioned Lord Jan Sádlo,
he became distressed and intended to purge himself of his guilt. He sent a letter
to the councilors asking them to issue a letter of safe conduct, so that he could
come safely and prove his innocence. Therefore, the councilors sent him a letter
promising that he could come to Prague without fear, because they did not believe
such false accusations against him. Therefore, on the Monday after St. Gall’s
Day [20 October], taking with him his brothers and the lords of Janovice, whose
names were Peter and Purkard, he came to Prague. But when he arrived with the
aforementioned lords at the town hall at around the hour of vespers to prove his
innocence, he was arrested by the councilors, and the same day, at two o’clock in
the morning, he was decapitated in the town hall without being offered viaticum,
even though he fervently demanded it.1 They buried his body the following day
near the Church of St. Nicholas without any ceremony whatsoever. This was the
same Jan who had been the favorite and chief adviser of King Václav, who pro-
tected many masters, priests, and burghers from the wrath of the king, defended
faithfully the truth of the Utraquist communion, and attempted to the best of his
ability to eradicate all excesses that were not founded in the law of the Lord. This,
presumably, attracted the hatred of some of those who held high places in the city
of Prague. But the majority of the people of Prague lamented tearfully his sudden
death, and the Lord’s faithful preachers were constantly arguing and asserting, in
private and in public, that the councilors had committed a very grave sin in putting
this man to death so hastily.
In those same days, the dukes of Silesia invaded the kingdom with a large num-
ber of soldiers [516]. They laid waste and burned villages and towns on properties
belonging to Lords Boček and Žampach in the area near Chrudim, in particular
near the castles of Litice and Žampach.2 Some of the Czech barons joined with
them, including Půta, Janek of Svídnice, and Jan Městecký of Opočno, who broke
his faith [with the Hussites], even though he had sworn when the town of Chru-
dim was under siege that he would hold with and faithfully defend the citizens of
Prague and the Four Articles set forth by them. Then, on the feast day of St. Gall
[16 October], the army set out marching from Prague towards Belá. This town had
been seized from the Praguers by Lord Michalec, who was defending it with his
vassals. These vassals got wind of the arrival of the army of Prague and fled, and
on the feast day of St. Luke [18 October], the Praguers took over the town, made
it a defensible position, and departed.
Furthermore, on the Thursday before the feast day of Saints Simon [and Jude]
[23 October], messengers from the great Duke Witołd arrived in Prague, asking
the Praguers on behalf of the duke to get ready with an army as large as they could,
238
and to meet Sigismund, a blood relation of Witołd, on the territory of Duke Jan of
Opava, who had captured the Prague messengers sent to the duke and put them
in prison, so that they might, joined together, simultaneously destroy the duke of
Opava and free their captives. But nothing happened as a result of this delegation;
rather, the captives were handed over by the prince of Opava to the Hungarian king
Sigismund.
Then, on the Sunday before the feast day of Saints Simon [and Jude] [26 Octo-
ber], the people of Plzeň, with the lords that were their allies, conquered the fortress
of Štenovice, which had been occupied by Žižka, and killed more than 60 people
of both genders who were in it. Likewise, at the same time the dukes of Austria, on
the orders of King Sigismund, surrounded the castle and town of Jevišovice with
many thousands of cavalry and infantry. When they had conquered the township
[517], which was lightly defended, they stormed the castle. Because the masters of
the castle felt that no help would come from the people of Prague, to whom they
had sworn allegiance at that time, or from the Moravian lords, though they had
promised them help, and that they were unable to defend themselves for very long
against the attack, because of the small numbers of their troops, they negotiated
with the Austrian troops and eventually were able to leave the castle alive, with
their wives and families, giving the highest-ranking lord among them as a hostage.
The Austrians demolished the castle totally, down to the foundations, because it
was standing on their border and they had suffered much damage from it.
Žižka confronts the Pikarts

Next, in the same year, when many people had been seduced by the Táborite priest
Martin into erroneous views concerning the sacrament of the altar, and conse-
quently fell into the heresy of the Pikarts, which has been mentioned above, some
of the Táborite brethren of both genders, after being banished from Tábor, began
living on an island situated between Veselí and Jindřichův Hradec.3 After they
had caused a great deal of damage to the surrounding area, they reverted to the
nature of beasts, seduced by a peasant who called himself Moses; they fell into
erroneous and heretical beliefs such as have never been heard of before, inspired
by the Devil, their father, as will be manifestly demonstrated by the articles pre-
sented below, which Žižka, the blind captain of the Táborites, after he massacred
them, laid out in a letter sent to the Praguers. Here they are, presented in the Czech
language:
First that they have been seduced by the priest Martin Loquis regarding the
receiving of the body and blood of the Lord, calling ordinary bread the body
of God and also any other food. They have no books and they do not care
about them because they have the law of God in their hearts, as they say.
When they sing ‘Our Father’ they say thus: ‘Our Father, who is inside us, bless
us; may your will be done, give to all of us our bread!’ They do not mention
faith because they think that our faith is heresy.
239
They do not observe any saints’ days, all days are equal and they call the
seventh day the seventh age. They do not observe Lent, they eat [devour or
guzzle] anything they have, any time [518]. Likewise, they call heaven above
the roof and say that there is no God in heaven and no devils in hell, they are
only inside bad people and God is inside the good ones. Also, they testified
that the Holy Church had already been renewed and they believed that they
will live here forever. In like manner, they designated Petr [Kániš] as Jesus,
the son of God, and Mikuláš as Moses, and they consider them responsible
for managing the whole world.4 Similarly, they call the Lord Jesus Christ
their brother albeit one who lacked faith because he died, saying that the
Holy Spirit will never die and the Son of God would be of the Holy Spirit.5
Also, their law is based on pimping, as it says [Matthew 21:31]: Pimps and
prostitutes will precede you on the way to the heavenly kingdom.6 Therefore
they did not want to accept anyone who was not a pimp or a whore. Even any
servant girl whom they accepted among themselves had to be spoiled and
fornicate with them. They implemented their law like this: All of them, men
and women, undressed, and danced naked around a bonfire and sang the Ten
Commandments as an accompaniment to the dance. Then standing at the fire,
they looked at each other, and if any of the men were covered, the women
pulled his clothes off and said: ‘Relieve the prisoner, give me your spirit and
receive my spirit.’ They run to sin, any man with any woman and any woman
with any man. But first they enkindled and inflamed themselves in sodomiti-
cal lusts, calling this act love and the will of God, they performed the Devil’s
acts, and then they bathed in the river. But after some time they were giving
of themselves with Moses, and they were never ashamed in front of each other
as they were sleeping together in one hutch.
Likewise, then they said that they were opening the graves of saints. In like
manner, at the time of pouring out the seventh vial of the angel, as is written
in the Revelation of St. John [14:20], they said that there will be blood all
over the earth up to the height of horses’ bridles. They declared that the scythe
has already been sent into the whole world, and they called themselves God’s
angels sent to carry out vengeance on all the world to drive out of the King-
dom of God all bad blood [harm, corruption]. They offered forgiveness to no
one, yet they were murdering everyone, men, women, and children. They were
burning down villages, towns, and small hamlets as well as people during the
night, substantiating it with the Scripture that says [Matthew 25:6]: ‘There
was a loud cry at midnight.’
Similarly, they committed murder and lust during the night [519]. Also, they
called their murders and fighting holy, but they considered fighting for the law
of God damned. Likewise, they called our priests the embodiment of the Devil
and therefore they killed the priest Jan. In like manner, the receiving of the
body of the Lord they called bread meal.7
240
Also, one woman called herself Mary, and after she had spent one night with
one man, she paid for it by her head, because they decapitated her. Likewise,
they said about Zdena that she was persuading some of them to return to the
true faith, and she was burned with others in Příběnice. In like manner, they
say that Zykmund [Sigismund] from Řepany is a faithful fellow, except in his
marriage. Similarly, they said to their faithful ones that when their enemies
would march against them, they would be blinded and would be unable to
harm them if they only stand in their father. Also, they were not afraid of cold
or hot weather, they ran around naked like Adam and Eve in paradise. They
lied through their teeth; therefore they died a shameful death on Tuesday after
St. Luke’s Day [21 October] in the year of the Lord 1421.8
While the aforementioned errors and heresies were springing up, as has been
described, through the actions of these people, without any impediment, it hap-
pened that one Austrian lord, called Lord Krajír, together with the burgesses of
Budějovice, surrounded the Castle of Lomnice, in which Žižka had quartered his
men. When Brother Žižka learned of this, though he was blind in both eyes, taking
helpers from the Čáslav region, he promptly rushed to the Castle of Lomnice to
aid his men. The aforementioned Krajír, hearing this news, abandoned the battle-
field without waiting to encounter him. Then Žižka, after strongly fortifying the
castle, returned whence he had come, and while riding toward the island of the
Pikarts to destroy that sect, he conquered the stronghold of the lord of Rožmberk
[520], called Poděhusy, burned it down, and demolished the walls of the town of
Soběslav, together with the tower of the church, which likewise belonged to the lord
of Rožmberk. Finally he arrived at the aforementioned island of the Pikarts, and,
motivated by zeal for the law of God, immediately attacked them, without stopping
to rest, catching them by surprise; and though all of them defended themselves,
both women and men, and managed to kill a certain noble who was a vassal of
Žižka’s, on the Tuesday before the feast day of St. Luke [14 October] they captured
40 of them of both genders, and killed all the rest, sparing only one man, so that
he might be alive to tell of what had been done; of which, with one exception, they
say that none of them had even a loincloth covering them.9 Glory to you, Lord!10
Similarly, in the same year, around the time of the feast of All Saints [31 O
ctober],
the Prague army arrived at the town of Kutná Hora. When the inhabitants begged
for no harm to come to Kutná Hora, the captains ordered their infantry, who were
with the wagons outside the city, to redirect themselves to the town of Čáslav. But
some who were near the gates shouted out and gave a signal to their brethren to
come and demand that the town give them some provisions. Thus on the eve of
All Saints’ Day, before noon, they entered the town in defiance of the orders of all
their captains, broke into the houses of Jews, and took away by force all they could
find.11 The same day, around the hour of Vespers, they smashed to pieces icons and
organs in a large church, not sparing the horns of the altars, and without any hes-
itation threw out consecrated relics, enclosed in the altars, as is customary; which
caused great shock, weeping, and sorrow to the people of Kutná Hora.12
241
Doctrinal disputes and negotiations

Likewise, since after the death of King Václav of blessed memory, Master
Křišt’an, a parish priest from the Church of St. Michael in the Greater Town of
Prague, had frequent arguments about the rites of the church with the priest Jan,
on the Saturday before the feast of St. Martin [8 November], after some articles
had been presented against the priest Jan by Master Křišt’an, the burgomaster
reconciled them in the town hall before the councilors, making them agree to love
each other, to defend each other, and to look out for each other’s best interest. But
despite this agreement, the following day, that is on the Sunday after the feast day
of St. Martin [9 November], after the midday sermon, the disciples of the priest
Jan instigated each other to break into the vicarage and the Church of St. Michael
and to attack Master Křišt’an and his priests [521].13 The aforementioned priest
Jan heard about this, and presumably consented, since he did not prevent them.
Soon several hundred people surrounded the parish priest’s vicarage and church,
and were shouting out that Master Křišt’an should be drowned, and the church
should be demolished. However, by the grace of God, although they had the will
to do this, they were unable to, and merely uttered many slanderous words before
going away in peace.
At the same time, the councilors, at the instigation of the aforementioned Lord
Jan, appointed the priest Vilém, who had been disgraced by his involvement in
the Pikart heresy, as a preacher in the Church of St. Michael, to the displeasure
of Master Křišt’an. This preacher was more divisive than edifying in his daily
sermons.
Also, in the same year, on account of the conflicting opinions being expressed
in their sermons by the priests of Prague, the community of all the preachers
in the whole city of Prague was divided, to great harm, into several factions, so
that each faction defended their own priest. Therefore, the elders of the town
came to the conclusion that masters and priests should come together to treat
of the matters that were the cause of strife and division in the community, and,
having reached an agreement in their opinions, that they should not divide
and agitate the common people with their disputes any further. Therefore, by
order of the councilors, on the day of the five brothers [12 November], the
masters and priests were gathered together in Charles College, and the articles
presented below, written by Master Jakoubek and Master Peter English, were
read aloud:14
Recommendations put forth by Jakoubek of Stříbro and Peter Payne

In order that errors and heresies may not spread or make unimpeded progress, and
to do something to restrain those who are trying to resist the truth and impugn the
Christian faith, by the unanimous approval of the clergy and the Prague commu-
nity, while in no way intending to detract from the recently promulgated general
and local ordinances, we have decided among ourselves, and hereby decree, that
242
the following articles are to be held without question by all the clergy of the afore-
mentioned city:
First, that each and every one in this assembly, brought together for the glory
of God, should first of all swear in sincere faith that he is willing to preserve
and tirelessly adhere to all the points of doctrine established and published by
this assembly [522], at least so long as they do not in any way contradict the
perfect law of God or the certain dictates of reason.
Likewise, every priest residing in Prague should promise, upon the purity of
his conscience, to render due obedience to the directors of the clergy of the
Czech kingdom lately elected unanimously, in whatever they command that
does not conflict with the law of God, which contains all truth.
Likewise, no one, of whatever rank or title, shall obstruct the directors of the
clergy by word, act, or any other means from proceeding against those who
are disobedient, in error, or suspected of heresy, or display sympathy towards
any one of these rebels, protect them, or defend them publicly or in private,
preventing the directors from being able to prosecute and correct such people,
as the Christian faith and infallible reason demand. God forbid, should anyone
attempt to act against them, and should they be proven to have done so before
the aforementioned directors, he should be punished by being banished from
the town, as justice dictates. Similarly, God forbid, should any priest sinfully
resist the directors of the clergy, all other priests will be obliged to denounce
him publicly and openly, according to the regulations of the Gospel, insofar as
such things have been given to them to know by the aforementioned directors.
Likewise, no priest should presume to propose any new doctrine, or nullify
any doctrine that was observed in the primitive church, whether reasona-
bly maintained or lapsed, unless he first offers to appear in person before
the aforementioned directors and prove the correctness of his doctrine by
making reference to Holy Scripture and the law of God; and, if ordered to
desist by the aforementioned directors, he must be ready to appear in the
schools and defend and support publicly whatever new idea or practice he
is trying to introduce, and he must also be prepared to respond to all those
who wish to oppose him, on the basis of the standing decree, informed by
reason, of the directors of the clergy concerning all the things that he has
said on the matter.
Likewise, no priest should be appointed to any church in Prague or permit-
ted to reside there at anyone’s instigation, unless he has first been judged to
be suitable, both in knowledge and morality, and capable of taking up the
position of governing souls, by the righteous and careful deliberation of the
aforementioned directors. Finally, in order for him to be appointed [523],
those same directors, or one of them belonging to the church in question,
must render the final judgment on his suitability and capability.
243
Likewise, it is to be announced before the community of Prague that no one,

under the penalty imposed by the same community, intercede on behalf of
a priest who is not willing to obey the orders and the instruction of those
directors. A priest should only receive someone’s support if he has promised
sincerely to that person, and manifestly shown, that he is willing to obey the
aforementioned directors in each and every one of their orders, so long as it is
not contrary to the law of God.
Reaction of Jan Želivský and his supporters

Moreover, when these articles were announced, in the form in which they have
been reproduced here, all of the clergy there present were satisfied that they should
all be adhered to and put into practice, and in particular that none other than the
four masters elected in the synod on the feast day of St. Prokop [4 July] were to be
the directors of the whole clergy.15 When the priest Jan heard about these things,
he said, mockingly: ‘The articles that have been announced are aimed against me
and the priest Vilém.’ When the discussion turned to the subject of purgatory, he
said: ‘I want to see clear evidence from the Holy Scriptures and be persuaded.’
Then on the third day [14 November], when some priests who had been chosen
for this purpose came to the town hall and read those articles to the community,
to which the whole clergy had agreed, the followers of the priest Jan were crying
out in loud voices that they did not agree with the directors of the priests, but
rather considered that Jan alone should manage and govern all of the priests, and if
necessary he should invite whatever masters he would choose. In reply to this, the
priest Jan stood up and gave a sign with his hand for everyone to be quiet. He then
said that he was not suitable to manage the whole clergy, feigning a hypocritical
humility, it is feared. Rather, he said that Master Jakoubek and Jan Kardinál, mas-
ters of liberal arts, should be the directors, and that he wished to sit at their side
as their disciple and to carry the burden, however heavy, which was imposed on
him.16 Then when the article on purgatory was read, many who were sympathetic
to the same sect blasphemed and muttered saying: ‘Again they bring in the matter
of purgatory to instigate new conflicts’ [524]. One of them, whose name was Gyra,
who was called ‘the glove maker’, said: ‘For our part, we do not know if there is
such a thing as purgatory or not, yet blessed be the name of the Lord!’ Another
man, with a mocking tone, stood up and said:
The priests used to fill their purses with indulgences for souls in purgatory;
now their purses are empty, and they lack an offertory, and so therefore they
want to start filling their purses with indulgences again. But they won’t fool
us, although they have heretofore deceived us with this idea of purgatory.
After these and many more blasphemous speeches against the idea of purgatory,
no official conclusion was reached and they left the town hall. However, they
prohibited the ringing of bells for the dead or singing by clerics in the course of
244
officiating at funeral rites; everyone was to bury their dead without any church
ceremonies. When these things had been done, they conveyed to the army, which
was then in Čáslav, the news of everything that had been going on in the town hall,
saying how the community would assent to the priest Jan, and not anyone else, as
the director of the clergy, seeking likewise the approval of the whole army. Though
there was discord among the soldiers, they agreed with the proposal of the priest
Jan being the director, and three masters, Jakoubek, Jan Kardinál, and Peter Eng-
lish, were nominated to assist him.
Fight on Vladař Hill and other developments

Furthermore, in the same year, on the feast day of St. Martin [11 November], at
one o’clock in the morning, several thousand cavalry and foot soldiers set out
marching from Prague towards Karlštejn Castle to seize the victuals that were
stored in sheds below the castle for the use of the inhabitants. Therefore, the peo-
ple of the castle, being warned, took to the castle the best portions of the provi-
sions, and, when the army arrived, they resisted them courageously. Therefore, the
people of Prague burned down the farmer’s sheds below the castle and returned
to Prague on the day of the holy five brothers [12 November]. Some from their
number, infected with the heresy of the Pikarts, ransacked the church and sacristy
near the castle with its balustrades and dumped out the body of Christ from a sil-
ver vessel, which they brought back to Prague with them, causing a great scandal.
At the same time, the people of Plzeň, with all of their allies, surrounded the
Castle of Krasikov, which had been taken by Žižka. Having heard of this, Žižka,
even though he had lost both of his eyes, prepared to relieve the castle quickly with
his host. He plundered the villages [525] and towns that were adjacent to the castle
against the will of all of the people in the vicinity, and if Lord Plavno had not come
to their aid with his hosts, many of the people of Plzeň, who had turned their backs
to flee, would have been killed. After the Lord of Plavno’s force of several hundred
horsemen arrived, Žižka hastened to Žatec with his own force. Lord Plavno’s force
and the army of Plzeň constantly pursued Žižka’s troops, and there were frequent
skirmishes on the road. Once Žižka and his forces reached the mountain called
Vladař, near Žlutice,17 and climbed it with his wagons and horse, he surrounded
himself with the wagons and makeshift cannon and manfully defended himself
from his enemies. Despite unfavorable weather, cold, gales of wind, and hunger,
for three days they courageously defended themselves, and there was no open
path up the mountain for the enemies. On the third day, on account of the hunger
of both the men and the animals, they descended the mountain and drove towards
Žatec in a powerful formation, and the people of Žatec met them on the way and
led them to the city.
Likewise, while these things were happening, Čeněk of Veselá, Oldřich of
Rožmberk, Ralsko of Vartemberk, Jan Městecký, and so many other lords and
barons of the Czech kingdom disastrously broke with the Praguers, with whom
they had heretofore joined forces for the defense of the law of God.18 That was
245
on account of the faithlessness of which some of the Prague priests accused the
lords, and that they were not ceasing to proclaim before throngs of people, so that
they brought about a rupture between the people and the lords. At the same time,
some sectarians overcame the elder community at the time with their outcries, and
began, inspired by the Devil, to hate all of the masters; and they did not cease to
impugn the masters by day and night.19 They also sought for the masters, whom
they considered false leaders and persecutors of the true priests, to be murdered,
drowned, or chased out of the city of Prague with dogs under the standard of Lord
Čeněk [526], and never to be allowed to return to the town.20 Thus, presumably,
some of their priests, with the people who adhered to them, would be able to
spread their errors and heresies without any resistance on the part of the masters;
but with the help of God their blind intention came to nothing and they could not
accomplish what they desired. Then, on the Thursday before the feast day of St.
Othmar [14 November], the people of Prague surrounded the Castle of Malešov
near Kutná Hora. After negotiating a peaceful surrender, on the feast day of St.
Elizabeth [19 November] they occupied it.
Notes
1 The time of the execution would have been around 18:00. Jan Sádlo was from Kostelec on the
Sázava River, though originally he was from Smilkov, halfway between Benešov and Tábor. He
had been employed in the royal service of King Václav IV since 1407 and in 1419 had been
appointed as master of the mint in Kutná Hora.
2 Mikeš was lord of Žampach, signed the protest in opposition to the burning of Hus, and in 1421
participated in the national assembly at Čáslav.
3 It is likely that the island must have been in the Nežárka River (as opposed to the Lužice River)
but it is no longer possible to locate it. I rely here on Josef Bujnoch, ed., Die Hussiten: Die
Chronik des Laurentius von Březová 1414–1421 (Graz: Verlag Styria, 1988), p. 346; and František
Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u
Domažlic (Prague: Svoboda, 1979), p. 374, who are more definite in suggesting that ‘the seat of
the Adamites was most likely the island at the mouth of the Řečice stream to the Nežárka.’
4 Petr Kániš was a Táborite priest who came from the village of Kanice near Hradec Králové. He
gravitated to the Pikart point of view and perished at Klokoty in April 1421 at the hands of Žižka.
Apparently, Mikuláš was a simple farmer, sometimes called ‘the Blind’ but being designated
leader in the sect his dévotees were also called followers of Mikuláš/Nicholas (Nicolaitans). On
the latter, Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 374.
5 This is theologically obscure. ‘Of the Holy Spirit’ seems to better fit the unstable and uncertain
context. The Czech preposition ‘z’ in the sentence ‘že Duch sváty nikdy neumře a z Ducha
svatého má býti syn Boží’ can be translated as ‘from’ or ‘out of’ as well as ‘of.’ While the Pikarts
allegedly held to some interesting theological views it is not clear from this text that they were
saying that Christ proceeded from the Holy Spirit, which would suggest an innovation on the
later theological dispute over the later Nicene addition and the filioque doctrine controversy that
convulsed relations between the medieval Greek and Latin churches.
6 The Latin publicani et meretrices does not reflect the procuring suggested in the Czech but
implies tax collectors. Both professions were loathed.
7 The Czech word is chlebnice and might be understood as a derogatory reference to Utraquism.
8 Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 374 are muddled about the
date. See Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1967), p. 431 for an evaluation of the document.
246
9 There remains considerable debate about the nature of Adamite religious practice. Some suggest
that the alleged orgies were exaggerations on the practice of the New Testament ‘love feasts.’ In
other words, while abuses may have crept in (and they did in the early church) the practice itself
was not an endorsement of sexual experimentation or a version of medieval ‘free love.’ This is an
argument advanced by Zdeněk Nejedlý and summarized in Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z
10 Another example of where narrative and chronology do not match.
11 Occasionally sources suggest conspiracy between Jews, Hussites, and Waldensians. This was discussed
by University of Vienna theologians who mentioned the possibility of a confederation of these three
groups on 9 June 1419. Paul Uiblein, ed., Die Akten der theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien
(1396–1508), 2 vols. (Vienna: Böhlau, 1978), vol. 1, p. 37. The suggestions are topoi.
12 The ‘large church’ refers to the parish church of St. James.
13 The dates may be confused here. In 1421, the Sunday after the feast of St. Martin was 16
November. The text refers to the ‘following day’ after the Saturday before St. Martin. It appears
one of these dates must be wrong. Either the chronicler means 8 and 9 November or 15 and
16 November. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 375. I have
followed Goll in subscribing to the earlier dates.
14 The day of the five brothers possibly refers to the murder of five religious slain on the night 10–11
November 1003 at their house at Międzyrzecze (or Kazimierz) in what today is western Poland.
Their assailants seized vestments and other items from the chapel. Having killed the brothers,
the invaders tried to conceal their crime by burning down the monastery over the bodies of the
decedents. The attempt failed as neither the monastic house nor the cadavers would burn. Bishop
Unger of Poznań presided over the funeral Mass. Four of the brothers, Benedict of Benevento
and John of Cervia (Italians), Isaac, and Matthew (who were Slavic), were buried in the church.
Christian (their Slavic servant), having defended himself with a stick, was thought less holy than
the others and in consequence was laid to rest in the cloister outside the church. Robert E. Alvis,
White Eagle, Black Madonna: One Thousand Years of the Polish Catholic Tradition (New York:
Fordham University Press, 2016), p. 13. The victims are recalled as the Five Martyr Brothers.
Bruno of Querfurt wrote an account Vita quinque fratrum eremitarum shortly thereafter (1006–
1008). There is a translation: Thomas Martus, The Mystery of Romuald and the Five Brothers (Big
Sur, CA: Hermitage Books, 1994), pp. 77–149. In 1039 the Czech duke Bretislav I led a Bohemian
invasion and carried away many church treasures including the remains of these martyrs. There is
much debate about the location of the abbey where the hermits died. It cannot be resolved.
15 These four masters were: the conservatives Prokop of Plzeň and Jan Příbram, the moderate but
increasingly conservative Jakoubek of Stříbro, and the radical Jan Želivský.
16 Jan Kardinál of Rejnštejn (c.1375–c.1428) had been a friend of Jan Hus. He accompanied him to
Constance in October 1414. On 25 January 1417 he was characterized as a master of arts and a
bachelor of law, therefore a canon lawyer, and he had also served as a university rector. František
Palacký, ed., Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam in constantiensi concilio
actam et controversias de religione in Bohemia annis 1403–1418 motas illustrantia (Prague:
Tempsky, 1869), pp. 654–5.
17 (B) Prague, NK MS XI D 8, fol. 99v ends here. The last 2,700 words of the chronicle are missing.
18 It would be wrong to understand the chronicler as suggesting these men all left the Hussite
movement at the same time or for the same reasons.
19 On the masters, see Howard Kaminsky, ‘The University of Prague in the Hussite Revolution:
The Role of the Masters,’ in John W. Baldwin and Richard A. Goldthwaite, eds., Universities in
Politics: Case Studies from the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period (Baltimore, MD and
London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), pp. 79–106.
20 While the Latin clearly says ‘cum canibus’ (with dogs), the Czech has ‘jako psi se psy’ (like dogs
with dogs). Goll, FRB, vol. 5, p. 525. This is adjusted to ‘se psy’ (with dogs) in Heřmanský and
Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 269. Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 283 renders it
‘mit Hunden’ (with dogs).
247
15
H E R E T ICS AND CRUS ADERS AT THE

BATTLE F OR KUT NÁ HORA
Likewise, at that time, Pipo Spano, on behalf of the Hungarian king, arrived in
Moravia with many thousands of men in arms, burning properties belonging to
Lords Petr of Strážnice, Lacek of Ostrov, and others who supported the citizens of
Prague in their defense of the Four Articles, and pillaging and murdering like hea-
thens. Considering these events, the aforementioned Petr of Strážnice turned his
heavily fortified castle at Heštejn over to a Silesian duke, with the understanding,
set down in writing with notaries present, that the duke, who was named Přemek,
would not surrender the castle, unless the aforementioned Lord Petr had in hand
an agreement between himself and the king. In the meantime, the aforementioned
Lord Petr, knowing that King Sigismund was about to arrive with a large army,
asked Master Zikmund and the other priests who were giving communion in the
Utraquist manner to retire from the town of Strážnice. Therefore, the aforemen-
tioned Master Zikmund went with the blessed sacrament and the faithful people
of the town to Ostroh, seeking protection from Lord Hašek. The aforementioned
Lord Hašek, even though he had suffered great damage to his properties from
the Hungarian army, continuously held fast to Christ like an unshakeable rock of
the truth. During the night he attacked some of the battalions of the king’s army
with his troops, and several times he himself charged through their ranks, killing
hundreds of them. However, his peasants, who were engaged in looting, suffered
considerable losses. The young son of Lord Petr Strážnice, who was named Lord
Václav, refusing to abandon the Four Articles, made friends with the aforemen-
tioned Lord Hašek, promising to die with him for the truth of the Gospel.
Sigismund and Czech barons at Brno

After these events took place, King Sigismund [527], with a larger host of Hun-
garians and Tartars, albeit many of them unarmed, marched through Moravia,
destroying and burning the properties of both his allies and his enemies. Finally
arriving in Brno, he summoned all the lords and knights, issuing to them a guar-
antee of safe conduct. Trusting in this guarantee of safety, after the feast day of
St. Martin [11 November], the nobles of the region came together to Brno, with
the exception of Lord Hašek and the son of Lord Petr, who are mentioned in the
248
foregoing. In the meantime, the king set a trap for the barons, surrounding the
town with his hosts of armed men, and then announced to the lords and knights
what his intentions and demands were, saying that he had summoned them because
he wanted them to abandon the Four Articles referred to so often above, on the
grounds that they were erroneous and heretical, and, forswearing the articles, to
accept an appropriate punishment from the deputy legate, who was then present.1
They deliberated for several days as to what they should do, and, finally seeing that
the king, enraged over this matter, desired an immediate response, and also seeing
the Hungarian army ready to fall upon them, stricken with fear, they bowed to the
will of the king and promised to aid the king in the struggle against the obstinate
defenders of the Four Articles. These are the words of the oath that they were made
to swear:
I swear by the passion of the Lord, that I will no longer cling to those Four
Articles, which I have falsely observed along with others. That is, the preach-
ing of various priests about taking the communion of the body and blood of
the Lord, committing [or minimizing] obvious sins, confiscating the belong-
ings of priests, and also demolishing churches, annihilating priests and the
people who are lawfully in their positions. I will no longer adhere to any her-
esy, deviating from the holy Roman Church, and in particular, what has been
held and preached or written by Master John Wyclif and Master Jan Hus and
their followers. I no longer wish to hold, lead, or follow them by word, deed
or advice.2 Further, I also swear that I will hold with the Christian beliefs in
all articles, as it is held and will be held by the holy Roman Church. I will
obey the pope and my bishop and the priests appointed by them, in matters
of faith and in other matters, to which they are entitled. I also swear that I
will vilify and fight [destroy] all heretics and people who are ignorant about
the Christian faith using all my force, and especially those who hold with
the aforementioned heresies, whether they are clergy or laity, whenever I
find them on my property or learn about their whereabouts anywhere else.
[The same] as well for all of their accomplices or those who wish them well.
I will not shelter them, help them, or defend them, even if I should lose my
life. May God help me through his holy blood and the Holy Scriptures!
Then followed the absolution, which was given in the following words.
I, Fernando, by the authority entrusted to me in this matter by almighty God,

the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and our most holy father in Christ [528],
Pope Martin V, and also Lord Fernando, bishop of Lugo, his nuncio, absolve
you from all peril of excommunication or censure to which you have made
yourselves liable by adhering to a condemned heresy, remove the interdiction
inflicted upon you because of this, and because you accepted the articles of
John Wyclif, Jan Hus, or whatever other heresy, and favored and protected
those who adhered to heretical doctrines or such articles as these or others,
249
and I remove any interdict placed upon you because of this by any man or
statute. Likewise, I absolve you from the sentence of excommunication to
which you have made yourself liable because of your obstinacy, which you
demonstrated when you were exhorted to add your seal to certain documents
at the Council of Constance, on the order of the Pope, and you did not heed
his command, and also for any other obstinacy and disobedience. Further,
I absolve you from all sins for which you have true contrition and that you
have just now confessed to me, and I return and restore you to the bosom of
the holy Mother Church and her communion, as well as your former status,
dignity, and honor. This I do in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit. Amen.3
But because Lord Václav, son of Lord Petr of Strážnice, did not obey the sum-
mons of King Sigismund, and was unwilling to take the oath, the king at the court
in Brno ordered that Lord Václav should be deprived of his paternal inheritance
for eternity, and ordered that this decision be entered into the baronial register, to
the perpetual memory and disgrace of disobedient sons.
Žižka and the Táborite army come to the aid of Prague

About the same time, the king’s Hungarians and Tartars conquered the city of
Polička through betrayal, and they brutally killed about 1,300 people, both men
and women.4 Likewise, after the barons and nobles of Moravia, who had been sup-
porters of the truth, had denounced the Four Articles, with the exception of Hašek
of Ostroh and Master Václav, son of Master Petr of Strážnice, lords of the same
province [529], King Sigismund came to Jihlava with a host commonly estimated
to have consisted of over 60,000 infantry and cavalry, and disguised himself, so
that he might then enter Kutná Hora by deceit. The Prague army, which was at
the time encamped in Čáslav and Kutná Hora, heard about this, and they reason-
ably concluded that it would be impossible to march against such a strong force
on account of their own numerical disadvantage. Therefore, on St. Catherine’s
Day [25 November], having fortified the cities, they returned to Prague by way
of Hradec Králové. Straight away the city councilmen dispatched a delegation
with letters to Žižka and his Táborite brethren, as well as all other partisans of the
truth, nobles, commoners, and peasants asking that they hasten to Prague in order
to meet the heretical king on the battlefield, for their love of faith, honor, and the
liberation of the law of God.
While numerous delegations, as has been mentioned previously, were going out
into various regions, on 1 December, Brother Žižka, although blind in both eyes,
arrived at the city of Prague along with his brethren, his troops of horses, and his
wagons of war and priests, carrying the blessed sacrament of the body of Christ, as
is customary, and the great bells in the town hall and the churches were rung, and
the people ran up to meet him, both clergy and lay of both genders, likewise car-
rying the sacrament of the altar. He was received by everyone as though he were
250
a prince of the land, and was supplied with plenty of provisions, so that he would
loyally support the Praguers in driving the cruel king out of the country. Brother
Žižka negotiated with the Praguers on many points, and on the feast of the Immac-
ulate Conception [8 December], he started out with all his men on the march from
Prague to Kutná Hora, and the army of Prague followed him the next day.
The inhabitants of Kutná Hora, however, got wind of the arrival of Brother
Žižka and the Táborites and rode out to meet him on horseback. As they did this,
they feigned as though they were welcoming the arrival of the Táborites, although
inwardly they were reproaching him in their hearts, and not without good cause.
For they knew that the host of Tábor was unconquered in battle, prone to pillaging,
fierce in slaughter, and that their priests did not observe the proper ecclesiastical
rites in performing the divine office.5 Thus, it happened on the following day that
the Táborite priests entered the Church of St. John and held the service in their
usual manner.6 Many of the people of Kutná Hora flocked to the church with a
desire to take in the spectacle. When they saw how one of the priests held the
church service [530], as was their custom, wearing only his own clothes without
any of the ecclesiastical vestments and completely disregarding the priestly cus-
tom, but only bowing his head to the ground and lifting up his backside for a short
time as though it were the Lord’s Prayer, before straightening up and speaking
immediately in a loud and clear voice the words of consecration over the hap-
hazardly broken host and the goblets of iron or tin filled with wine, saying [Luke
22:19]: ‘When supper was ended, the Lord Jesus took the bread, blessed it, and
broke it,’ etc., and thus breaking the host, which he held in his hands. When this
consecration, which was unheard of as far as the people were concerned, was
finished, he first gave communion to himself. Then the other priests stepped up to
him and each gave communion to himself. Finally, the brothers and sisters knelt
down and began to take communion separately. It was done so that one of the
priests administered the venerable body of Christ to the people, while a second
administered to the people the precious blood, without any of the reverence that
is proper for a sacrament of such great dignity. Seeing this, the people of Kutná
Hora, both men and women, having been further scandalized by the Czechs, spat
on the ground and left the church grumbling and saying to one another, ‘Now we
believe, what thus far we have only heard, that these Czechs are indeed heretics,
and most vile, and they deserve to be persecuted by every faithful Christian.’7
Because of this, they continued to favor King Sigismund all the more, and more
fervently desired his arrival.
Continued disagreements in Prague

Likewise, in those days, since none of the elders of the town of Prague dared to
publicly oppose the many excesses that were being perpetrated, because of the
sectarians of the priest Jan, a meeting of the community took place at the town hall,
and a conclusion was reached that is plainly heterodox and contrary to the Chris-
tian faith: namely, that no priest should dare to hold or publicize any beliefs that
251
are not strictly necessary for the salvation of the human race, and that everything
that Christ and his apostles did not explicitly teach was to be abandoned and thor-
oughly abolished in the religious practice of the community, on the grounds that
in the New Testament Christ sufficiently laid out all things that are necessary for
salvation. Therefore, they were attempting to nullify all church rituals [531].
Furthermore, the aforementioned sectarians, reacting against the liberties taken
by the masters, who were pointing out their heresies by reference to the Holy
Scriptures, concluded and recommended at that same meeting that the masters be
ordered to publicly defend the privileges they assumed, the theological foundations
of their desires, and the decisions they had arrived at, at the town hall, where they,
the sectarians, could examine them, to see whether there was anything contrary to
the law of God in them, so that, after examining the masters’ positions, they might
eliminate the things that needed to be eliminated, and correct the things that needed
to be corrected. But this order was never actually carried out, because the sectar-
ians were prevented by others from bringing it to pass, and so it was abandoned.
Atrocities committed by Sigismund’s armies

At the same time, while King Sigismund was delaying in Jihlava with his hosts,
Čeněk of Vartemberk, Jindřich of Rožmberk, Vílem Zajíc, Jan Městecký, Půta,
and a great number of other barons of the Kingdom of Bohemia came to wait
upon the king under a letter of safe conduct.8 They vowed loyalty to him, declaring
that they wished to accept him as king and to be allied to him, rendering him both
counsel and material aid. At the same time, they desired that he should cease the
burning and destruction of the kingdom and its inhabitants. It is said that the king
promised to do this, but it was his nature neither to keep his promise nor to fulfill it.
Instead, he multiplied his evildoing when he marched with all the aforementioned
barons, both those who were friendly to him and those who were his enemies, to
Kutná Hora by way of Humpolec and Ledeč. His treacherous and wicked army
burned villages, towns, and castles in a whirlwind of fire, defiled girls and women,
ravishing them until they breathed their last, cut off the hands and feet of children
and threw them to the ground in front of their mothers, and stripped the moth-
ers naked, together with other women, and drove them like cattle before hanging
them up on fences by their breasts, from which their children had once sucked. O
wicked and contaminated race, which neither by the sighs of the women, nor by
great streaming of tears and cries of the children, could be moved to mercy, but
that rather, crueller than the heathens, perpetrated every evil that they were able to,
as the sins of the Czechs demanded, blaspheming joyously, believing all the while
that by committing such great evil they were demonstrating to God their obedi-
ence and would gain an indulgence for their sins! O deranged prince! Why do you
behave like a heathen and persecute the children of the country whom you ought
rather to protect? Why don’t you stop shitting in your own nest? [532] Why do
you not cease to shed the blood of the innocent? Why do you desire to exterminate
these people, who oppose you only because they fight for the law of God? Wait just
252
a little while and take heed, because the Lord will succour those who fear him, and
will put you to flight with a small force, you who trust in your great hosts. For the
sake of the most true chalice of the blood of Christ, which you seek to destroy by
persecuting its adherents, very soon rabid dogs will lick up the blood of your cruel
beasts! So take it to heart and realize that it is difficult for you to kick against the
goad, do penance, and cease to do so many and such great evil deeds, and perhaps
God will someday have pity on you and forgive your evil deeds.9
Preparations of Hussites and crusaders

When word of the arrival of the king in Ledeč got around in Kutná Hora, Brother
Žižka, together with his Táborites and the Praguers, encamped on the battlefield.
Above Kutná Hora they drew up their forces around a cottage called Tábor, which
had recently been set up by the king, and there they planned to wait for the king
to arrive.10 But when the king delayed his coming by some time, they marched to
Čáslav in order to acquire additional forces. When Lord Boček, Lord Hašek, and
Lord Václav of Kravař, the son of Lord Petr of Strážnice, barons of Bohemia and
Moravia, came to Čáslav, having strongly fortified the city, they then returned to
Kutná Hora. On the feast day of St. Thomas [21 December], which was a Sun-
day, the aforementioned lords, along with Žižka and the Praguers, at the conclu-
sion of the morning Mass, ordered the priests to announce on the pulpit and by
heralds in the streets that they should all be prepared to march against the king,
steadfastly keeping the faith, which they had vowed to God and to the citizens of
Prague for the defense of the Gospel truth; nor should they be stricken with fear by
the king’s arrival, for the captains intended to keep their promise, and the lords and
knights, as well as the entire army of Prague, would sooner lose their lives together
with them than desert them. After a small meal and the ringing of bells, they left
the mountains, leaving behind the master of the mint and marched through the
gate leading in the direction of Kouřim.11
When they had barely gone a half mile from the town, the king and his army
[533] began to approach the Praguers in battalions. In the larger battalion of the
king, among the multitude of armed cavalry, there were also hundreds of cows
and oxen, in order to frighten and put to flight whoever might see them. However,
God, who never sends his warriors into battle without his aid, granted to all who
fought for his truth abundant steadfastness of spirit.12 For without fear of the size
of the king’s host, they entered the battlefield and enclosed themselves within
the wagons on all sides. All of the infantry, as well as the citizens of Kutná Hora
who had joined them, some to aid their brethren, others to observe the spectacle
of the battle and see who would win, were put into position within the wagon
fortresses with their flails and other weapons, and numerous guns were prepared
within the circle of wagons to fire upon the enemies. After a short exhortation by
the priests, all of the soldiers prostrated themselves on the ground and poured out
fervent prayers to God. Rising from prayer, they officially recognized the many
new recruits to the army in order that they might defend the truth even more
253
courageously and prepare themselves to fight against the king in the meantime.
Although some of the king’s squadrons attempted to storm the wagon fortresses,
they were beaten back by the guns and suffered considerable casualties. Such
skirmishes and attacks by the enemy continued until nightfall.
Treachery inside Kutná Hora

As these skirmishes continued, both sides fighting in the manner of knightly com-
bat, at the same time many hundreds of the king’s men, along with the former
inhabitants of Kutná Hora who had fled from the city, were treacherously allowed
into the city through the Kolín Gate. As these troops entered the town, the other
citizens of Kutná Hora who had allied with them and the miners who were hiding
in the cellars of the houses came out and began to cut down everyone who did not
bear the correct insignia and who did not know the password.13 The refugees also
entered their former houses and summarily executed as heretics anyone who sup-
ported the Praguers. A certain disfigured [or ugly] cleric ran into the vicarage and
asked repeatedly for the rector of the church, Master Petr. When he was told that
he was with the army, he proceeded to eat and drink there. At length he ran off and
returned with the insane brigands, and they cut down with the sword the adminis-
trator and all of the priests they could find. Some of them fled to the church tower
in an effort to save their lives. They were not, however, spared, and together with
a certain priest, whose name was Lord Matěj of Slovakia, they were killed and
thrown down from the tower [534]. Another priest, an old man with white hair who
deserved more respect, was found kneeling in front of an altar and the body and
blood of Christ. Without any shame whatsoever they assaulted him and wounded
him until he breathed his last. Then they seized the tabernacle, newly installed and
handsomely worked, carried it out of the church, and smashed it to pieces. In truth,
it is not known what became of the body and blood of Christ, but it is rumored
that someone ran up and pierced the body of Christ with a lance. However, a mon-
strance with the body of Christ was found in the chapel of the Court of the Mint,
and it was reported, to the great scandal of all Christians, that the body of Christ
had been trampled upon by the soldiers.14 As this insensate catastrophe was being
perpetrated by the citizens of Kutná Hora, as previously noted, various pictures of
Christ or the saints, which had previously been hidden, were set up outside virtu-
ally every home as an indication to those that saw them that they were not and had
never been part of the sect of the heretical Praguers. With immense joy they once
again set these pictures up on the altars in churches while heaping various curses
upon the Táborites, the Praguers, and all followers of Wyclif.
Military strike by night

When, as noted previously, the fighting had continued on in the field by both armies
until night fell, the army of the king encamped close by the army of the Praguers,
so that they could be supplied with food from Kutná Hora. The Táborites and
254
Praguers, however, had very little to eat, and fasted in the cold in the name of God.
And, then rising, they approached the place that the king had occupied with his
army, and having smashed the king’s cannon, they drove the king, together with his
entire army, from their position [22 December].15 And when morning came …16
Addendum
1. Žižka, besieged by Emperor Sigismund on a certain mountain, which is

called Turkaňk in Czech, having drawn up his battle line, on this day made an
assault on the imperial army and, smashing all the enemy hosts, proceeded to
march with his wagons and other instruments of war all the way to the Labe
[River] and Kolín.17
2. Emperor Sigismund burned and laid waste Kutná Hora, a notable city of the
Czech kingdom, which from the time of King Václav had poured out a very
great wealth of silver, with its great natural resources.18 Moreover, the fury,
insanity and savagery of his soldiers was such that even small children and
innocents were not to be spared in that war.19
3. Žižka gathered the people around Jičín from Turnov to come back again
to Kolín and from there he went out with the horses and opposed [or stood
against] the emperor’s people between Horau and Kolín near Nebovidy and
here they fought [attacked each other].20
Notes
1 This posture should be contrasted with the king’s written representation five months earlier to the
national assembly at Čáslav, noted above, in response to the indictments lodged against him, to
wit, that he was amenable to discussion and declaring that he maintained an open mind on the
matter.
2 Inclusion of this clause in the oath and reflected also in the absolution indicates that the teachings
and memory of Hus and Wyclif were thought to lie at the core of the Hussite faith.
3 The absolution conforms to the style and language of the Latin church. Josef Bujnoch, ed., Die
Hussiten: Die Chronik des Laurentius von Březová 1414–1421 (Graz: Verlag Styria, 1988),
p. 347. The Czech translation has this addition: ‘Ha ha, happy now would be the one whom these
strange and dangerous incidents could punish and destroy even the holy teaching. The serpent
must be taken up carefully.’ Goll, FRB, vol. 5, p. 527.
4 The Latin text provides a very precise figure of 1301. The Czech version says 130.
5 In concert with Eucharistic doctrine and liturgical vestments, the practical function of the divine
office remained a bone of contention among the religious communities in Bohemia.
6 Possibly a reference to the Church of St. John the Baptist, a tenth-century foundation.
7 The representation suggests that the people of Kutná Hora were Germans.
8 The Latin text as well as the fifteenth-century Czech text is faulty in referring to ‘Henricus de
Rosis’ when it should be Oldřich of Rožmberk. The German edition makes the correction without
comment. Bujnoch, Die Hussiten, p. 290.
9 This lament might be compared with that which followed the narrative of the fight at Vyšehrad.
Goll, FRB, vol. 5, p. 441. These passages reveal another side of Laurence’s writing that is more
poetic than the normal text of a medieval chronicler.
255
10 The use of the term ‘Tábor’ requires some commentary. The Latin text reads ‘circa tugurium
Thabor.’ The word can imply a canopy mounted over a tomb or a sacred place. J.F. Niermeyer,
Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden: Brill, 1960–1964), fasc.11, p. 1047. It may simply
indicate a ‘shed’ or a ‘hut.’ The Czech text makes it out to be rather more grand with the phrase
‘the fortress called Tábor.’ A number of scholars have puzzled over this structure erected by
King Sigismund during his previous stay at Kutná Hora. It is possible that the structure was
located near the famous mine shaft that the people of Kutná Hora derisively mocked with the
appellation ‘Tábor’ when Hussites were thrown into the mines as part of the anti-heresy purge in
1416 mentioned earlier in the chronicle. In the absence of any helpful comment in contemporary
sources, this ‘Tábor’ was probably a kind of fortification erected in front of the city walls. No one
knows where. Some postulate it may have been west of the city in the direction of Přítoky. Others
suggest it was at the Church of St. Martin behind the Kouřim Gate. Still others speculate it may
have been situated on the promontory of Suk Hill to the north of the town. František Heřmanský
and Marie Bláhová, eds., Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u Domažlic
(Prague: Svoboda, 1979), p. 377.
11 The master of the mint in Kutná Hora was Mikuláš of Prague (or of Dědibab). He was a New
Town burgher, painter, and woodcarver. He remained in the abandoned town and may have been
murdered. Heřmanský and Bláhová, Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, p. 377.
12 Deuteronomy 20:1–9.
13 It is not clear what either the appropriate signum (sign) or the predetermined proverbium
(password) were.
14 The Vlašský Dvůr (Italian Court) was built as a fortified castle in the late thirteenth century. After
silver was discovered nearby, the fortifications provided a secure storage area and housed the
mint. The chapel of the mint, dedicated to St. Wenceslas, was built in 1396.
15 It has been suggested that Žižka’s tactics provide the first definite proof of the ‘use of fire weapons
for a tactically offensive operation.’ Frederick G. Heymann, John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution
(New York: Russell & Russell, 1969), p. 295. This is questionable. In 1382 during the battle of
Beverhoutsveld outside Bruges, the Ghentenaars used guns on the advancing Brugeois militia.
Kelly DeVries and Robert Douglas Smith, Medieval Military Technology, 2nd ed. (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2012), p. 144.
16 MSS (W), (A), (E), (A2), and (Cz) end here. See Thomas A. Fudge, The Crusade Against Heretics
in Bohemia, 1418–1437: Sources and Documents for the Hussite Crusades (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2002), pp. 141–9 for translations of Polish, German, and Czech sources that pick up the rest of
the story and elaborate on what happened when morning came.
17 Václav Flajšhans, ‘M. Vavřinec,’ České časopis historický 39 (1933), p. 572. Attributed to 23
December 1421. The three extracts in this addendum do not appear in Goll.
18 One of the results of the Hussite victory at Kutná Hora was that the important mines came under
the control of the Táborites and remained so over the course of the next 12 years until the battle of
Lipany in May 1434. Over the course of this period, which spans the bulk of the crusading period,
the mines remained strategically important and the currency produced there remained a financial
asset for the Hussite cause.
19 Flajšhans, ‘M. Vavřinec,’ p. 574. Attributed to 6 January 1422.
20 Flajšhans, ‘M. Vavřinec,’ p. 573. This is allegedly early January 1422.
256
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary sources
Manuscripts
Brno, Moravian Library
R 432, fols. 221r–234r (olim Rajhrad Monastery Library MS D/K.I.b.21)
Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek
Thott 688 2°
Edinburgh, University Library
P.C.73
Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek
Cod. St. Georgen 63
Prague Castle Archive
0 74
Prague, National Library
I D 10, fols. 258r–344v
III G 16
IV E 16
XI D 8, fols. 19r–99v
XVII F 47
Prague, National Museum Library
IV B 24
Rome, Vatican Library
Vat Lat 7307
Stockholm, National Library of Sweden
A 148
Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
3062
4520
suppl. Mus. Sam. MS 15492
Wrocław, University Library
I F 561, fols. 169v–171r
257
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Printed editions of Laurence

Bujnoch, Josef, ed. Die Hussiten: Die Chronik des Laurentius von Březová 1414–1421.
Graz: Verlag Styria, 1988.
Dolenský, Antonín, ed. Vavřinec z Březové: Kronika husitská. Prague: František Strnad,
1940.
Goll, Jaroslav, ed. Laurentii de Brzezowa Historia Hussitica. In Jaroslav Goll, ed. Fontes
rerum bohemicarum, vol. 5. Prague: Nákladem nadání Františka Palackého, 1893,
pp. 327–534.
Heřmanský, František, ed. Vavřinec z Březové: Husitská kronika. Prague: Státní
nakladatelství krásné literatury, hudby a umění, 1954.
Heřmanský, František and Marie Bláhová, eds. Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň
o vítězství u Domažlic. Prague: Svoboda, 1979.
Höfler, Konstantin von, ed. Geschichtsschreiber der husitischen Bewegung in Böhmen, 3
vols. Vienna: Aus der Kaiserl. Königl. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1856–1866, vol. 1,
pp. 321–527.
Ludewig, Johann Peter von. Reliqviae manvscriptorvm omnis aevi diplomatvm ac
monvmentorvm, vol. 6. Frankfurt and Leipzig: impensis Orphanotrophei, 1724,
pp. 124–216.
Sokolov, V.S., ed. Gusitskaia khronika. Moscow: Akad. nauk SSSR, 1962.
Tsepkov, A.I., ed. Gusitskaia khronika. Ryazan: Aleksandriya, 2009.
Other primary sources

Anon. Historia et monumenta Ioanii Hus atque Hieronymi Pragensis, 2 vols. Nürnberg:
Montanus & Neuberus, 1715.
Bláhová, Marie, ed. Staročeská kronika tak řečeného Dalimila v kontextu středověké
historiografie latinského kulturního okruhu a její pramenná hodnota; Historický
komentář; Rejstřík. Prague: Academia, 1995.
Boubín, Jaroslav, ed. Jan z Příbramě: Život kněží Táborských. Příbram: Státní okresní
archiv Příbram a Okresní muzeum Příbram, 2000.
Bowersock, G.W. trans. Lorenzo Valla On the Donation of Constantine. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 2007.
Buchon, J.A.C., ed. Collection des Chroniques Nationales Français, 47 vols. Paris:
Verdière, 1824–1828.
Buck, Thomas Martin, ed. Chronik des Konstanzer Konzils 1414–1418 von Ulrich
Richental. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 2010.
Corpus Christianorum, series Latina, 222 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953–2019.
Corpus juris canonici emendatum et notis illustratum. Gregorii XIII. pont. max. iussu
editum, 4 vols. Rome: In aedibus Populi Romani, 1582.
Daňhelka, Jiří, ed. Husitské skladby budyšínského rukopisu. Prague: Orbis, 1952.
Długosz, Jan. ‘Historiae Polonicae.’ In Aleksander Przezdziecki, ed. Joannis Długossi,
Opera Omnia, vols. 10–13. Kraków: Josepho Liskocinski, 1873–1878, pp. 1–733.
Döllinger, Ign. V. Beiträge zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, vol. 2. Munich: C.H.
Beck, 1890.
Emler, Josef. ed. ‘Cronica Przibiconis dicti Pulkaua.’ In Josef Emler, ed. Fontes rerum
bohemicarum, vol. 5. Prague: Nákladem nadání Františka Palackého, 1893, pp. 3–326.
258
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Erasmus. ‘De recte pronuntiatione.’ In J.K. Sowards, ed. Collected Works of Erasmus, vol.
26. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985, pp. 347–475.
Fejér, György, ed. Codex diplomaticus Hungariae, vol. 10, pt. 4. Buda: typis typogr. Regiae
Universitatis Hungaricae, 1841.
Fischer, B. and Robert Weber, eds. Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.
Friedberg, Emil, ed. Corpus iuris canonici, 2 vols. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879–1881.
Fudge, Thomas A. The Crusade Against Heretics in Bohemia, 1418–1437: Sources and
Documents for the Hussite Crusades. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.
Hall, Bert S. The Technological Illustrations of the So-Called ‘Anonymous of the Hussite
Wars’: Codex Latinus Monacensis 197, Part 1. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag,
1979.
Hardt, Hermann von der, ed. Magnum oecumenicum constantiense concilium, 7 vols.
Frankfurt and Leipzig: C. Genschii, Helmestadi, 1699–1742.
Havránek, Bohuslav, Josef Hrabák, and Jiří Daňhelka, eds. Výbor z české literatury doby
husitské, 2 vols. Prague: Českoslovenká academie věd, 1963–1964.
Higley, Sarah L. Hildegard of Bingen’s Unknown Tongue: An Edition, Translation, and
Discussion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Horace, Ars Poetica, 132–134. Horace: Satires, Epistles, Art of Poetry. Trans. H.R.
Fairclough [Loeb Classical Library, vol. 194]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1926.
Jenks, Stuart, ed. Documents on the Papal Plenary Indulgences 1300–1517 Preached in the
Regnum Teutonicum. Leiden: Brill, 2018.
Kaminsky, Howard, Dean Loy Bilderback, Imre Boba, and Patricia N. Rosenberg, eds.
Master Nicholas of Dresden: The Old Color and the New. Philadelphia: Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 55, 1965.
Kerler, Dietrich, ed. Deutsche Reichstagsakten, vol. 8. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes,
1883.
Macek, Josef. Ktož jsú boží bojovníci: Čtení o Táboře v Husitském revolučním hnutí.
Prague: Melantrich, 1951.
Martínková, Dana, ed. Aeneae Silvii Historia Bohemica. Prague: Koniasch Latin Press, 1998.
Martus, Thomas. The Mystery of Romuald and the Five Brothers. Big Sur: Hermitage
Books, 1994, pp. 77–149.
Mladoňovice, Petr of. ‘Relatio de Magistro Johanne Hus.’ In Václav Novotný, ed. Fontes
rerum bohemicarum, vol. 8. Prague: Nákladem nadání Františka Palackého, 1932,
pp. 25–120.
Molnár, Amedeo and Romolo Cegna, eds. Confessio Taboritarum. Rome: Istituto storico
italiano per il Medio Evo, 1983.
Momolková, Milada and Michal Dragoun, eds. Tabule stare a nové barvy Mikuláše z
Drážďan ve staročeském překladu. Prague: Scriptorium, 2016.
Nejedlý, Zdeněk. Dějiny husitského zpěvu, 6 vols. Prague: Československá akademie věd,
1954–1956.
———. Prameny k synodám strany pražské a táboré. Prague: Nákladem Královské České
Společnosti Náuk, 1900.
Neumann, P. Augustin. Nové prameny k dějinám husitství na Moravě. Olomouc: Nákladem
matice cyrilometodějské, 1930.
Palacký, František, ed. Archiv český, 6 vols. Prague: Kronberg & Riwnáče, 1840–1872.
259
BIBLIOGRAPHY
———, ed. Documenta Mag. Joannis Hus vitam, doctrinam, causam in constantiensi
concilio actam et controversias de religione in Bohemia annis 1403–1418 motas
illustrantia. Prague: Tempsky, 1869.
———, ed. Scriptores rerum bohemicarum, vol. 3. Prague: J.S.P., 1829.
———, ed. Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkrieges, 2 vols. Osnabrück:
Biblio-Verlag, 1966.
Patrologiae Graeca, 161 vols. Paris: J.P. Migne Imprimerie Catholique, 1857–1866.
Patrologiae Latina, 217 vols. Paris: J.P. Migne Imprimerie Catholique, 1841–1855.
Pertz, George Heinrich, ed. Notae Altahenses in Monumenta Germaniae Historica,
Scriptores, vol. 17. Hannover: Hahnsche, 1869, pp. 421–7.
Příbram, Jan. ‘Contra articulos picardorum.’ In Ign. V. Döllinger, Beiträge zur
Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1890, vol. 2, pp. 691–700.
———. ‘On the Lives of the Táborite Priests.’ In Jaroslav Boubín, ed. Jan z Příbramě:
Život kněží Táborských. Příbram, Státní okresní archiv Příbram a Okresní muzeum
Příbram, 2000.
Ryba, Bohumil, ed. Magistri. Jo. Hus Quodlibet, revised edition. Turnout: Brepols, 2006.
Schmidtová, Anežka, ed. Iohannes Hus, Positiones Recommendationes, Sermones. Prague:
Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, 1958.
Sibly, W.A. and M.D. Sibly, eds. The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens: The Albigensian
Crusade and Its Aftermath. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003.
———, eds. The History of the Albigensian Crusade: Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay’s
Historia Albigensis. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1998.
Silano, Giulio, trans. Peter Lombard: The Sentences, 4 vols. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of
Medieval Studies, 2007–2010.
Šimek, František, ed. Jakoubek ze Stříbra: Výklad na zjevenie sv. Jana, 2 vols. Prague:
Nákladem Komise vydávání pramenů českého hnutí náboženského, 1932–1933.
———, ed. Staré letopisy české. Prague: Nákladem historického spolku a společnosti
Husova musea, 1937.
Spinka, Matthew. John Hus at the Council of Constance. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1965, pp. 87–234.
Tanner, Norman P., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. London: Sheed &
Ward, 1990.
Theiner, Augustin, ed. Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, vol. 2.
Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1859.
Torquemada, Juan de. Tractatus quidam de aqua benedicta. Rome: Stephan Plannck, 1491.
Uiblein, Paul, ed. Die Akten der theologischen Fakultät der Universität Wien (1396–1508),
2 vols. Vienna: Böhlau, 1978.
Valeriano, Giovanni Pierio. Pro sacerdotum barbis. Rome: Apud Caluum, 1531.
———. Pro sacerdotum barbis Ad clarissimum Cardinalem Hippolytus Medicem,
Declamatio. Frankfurt: Erasmus Kämpffer, 1613.
Williams, Frank, ed. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1987–1994.
Windecke, Eberhart. Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte des Zeitalters Kaiser Sigmunds.
Wilhelm Altmann, ed. Berlin: R. Gaertners Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1893.
Secondary sources
Adamska, Anna. ‘Orality and Literacy in Medieval East Central Europe: Final Prolegomena.’
In Else Mundal and Jonas Wellendorf, eds. Oral Art Forms and Their Passage into
Writing. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2008, pp. 69–83.
260
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aguiar, Thiago Borges de and Davi Costa da Silva. ‘A crônica hussita de Vavřinec z Březové
e sua auto-imagem nacionalista tcheca.’ Revista de História, vol. 174 (January–June,
2016), pp. 381–405.
Alvis, Robert E. White Eagle, Black Madonna: One Thousand Years of the Polish Catholic
Tradition. New York: Fordham University Press, 2016.
Atwood, Craig D. The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius. University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009.
Bartlová, Milena. ‘Understanding Hussite Iconoclasm.’ Bohemian Reformation and
Bartoš, F.M. ‘Z husitského i bratrského dějepisectví, IV: Z nových i starých spisů Vavřince
z Březové.’ Český časopis musea 94 (1920), pp. 1–9, 87–96, and 193–203.
Bartůněk, Václav. ‘Konrad von Vechta, Erzbischof von Prag.’ In Georg Schwaiger and
Josef Staber, eds. Regensburg und Böhmen: Festschrift zur Tausendjahrfeier des
Regierungsantrittes Bischofs Wolfgangs von Regensburg und der Errichtung des Bistums
von Prag. Regensburg: Verlag des Vereins für Regensburger Bistumsgeschichte, 1972,
pp. 173–219.
Birth, Kevin K. ‘The Regular Sound of the Cock: Context-Dependent Time Reckoning in
the Middle Ages.’ KronoScope 11, nos. 1–2 (2011), pp. 124–44.
Bláhová, Marie. ‘Laurentius of Březová.’ In Graeme Dunphy, ed. Encyclopedia of the
Medieval Chronicle, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2010, vol. 2, p. 1000.
———. ‘M. Vavřinec z Březové a jeho dílo.’ In František Heřmanský and Marie Bláhová,
eds. Vavřinec z Březové, Husitská kronika, Píseň o vítězství u Domažlic. Prague:
Svoboda, 1979, pp. 305–15.
———. ‘Vernacular Historiography in Medieval Czech Lands.’ Medievalia 19, no. 1
(2016), pp. 33–65.
The Book of Saints, compiled by the Benedictine monks of St. Augustine’s Abbey,
Ramsgate, 6th ed. Wilton: Morehouse Publishing, 1989.
Brandmüller, Walter. Das Konzil von Konstanz 1414–1418, 2 vols. Paderborn: Ferdinand
Schöningh, 1991–1997.
Brandon, S.G.F. The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Stein & Day, 1968.
Byng, Gabriel. ‘“In Common for Everyone”: Shared Space and Private Possessions in
the English Parish Church Nave.’ Journal of Medieval History 45, no. 2 (2019),
pp. 231–53.
Bynum, Caroline Walker. Wonderful Blood: Theology and Practice in Late Medieval
Northern Germany and Beyond. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.
Bysted, Ane L. The Crusade Indulgence: Spiritual Rewards and the Theology of the
Crusades, c.1095–1216. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Cable, Martin John. ‘Cum essem in Constantie …’ Raffaele Fulgosio and the Council of
Constance 1414–1415. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Cange, Charles du Fresne du. Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, vol. 6. Niort: L.
Favre, 1886.
Čapek, J.B. ‘Hnutí orebské a jeho vztahy k Táboru.’ Jihočeský sborník historický 40
(Supplement, 1971), pp. 68–72.
———. ‘K vývoji a problematice bratrstva Orebského.’ Jihočeský sborník historický 35
(1966), pp. 92–109.
Cassidy-Welch, Megan. ‘Refugees: Views from Thirteenth-Century France.’ In Celia
Chazelle, Simon Doubleday, Felice Lifshitz, and Amy G. Remensnyder, eds. Why the
Middle Ages Matter: Medieval Light on Modern Injustice. New York: Routledge, 2010,
pp. 141–53.
261
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cermanová, Pavlína, Robert Novotný, and Pavel Soukup, eds. Husitské století. Prague:
Lidové noviny, 2014.
Cheney, C.R. ‘The Earliest English Diocesan Statutes.’ English Historical Review 75, no.
294 (1960), pp. 1–29.
Chvojka, Miloš and Jiří, Skála. Malý slovník jednotek měření. Prague: Mladá fronta, 1982.
Clackson, James, ed. A Companion to the Latin Language. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Clarke, Peter D. The Interdict in the Thirteenth Century: A Question of Collective Guilt.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Cook, William R. ‘The Eucharist in Hussite Theology.’ Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte
66 (1975), pp. 23–35.
———. ‘The Question of Images and the Hussite Movement in Prague.’ Cristianesimo
nella storia 3 (October 1982), pp. 329–42.
Cooper-Rompato, Christine F. The Gift of Tongues: Women’s Xenoglossia in the Later
Middle Ages. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010.
Čornej, Petr. ‘Husitské Skladby Budyšínského Rukopisu: Funkce—Adresát—Kulturní
Rámec.’ Česká Literatura 56, no. 3 (2008), pp. 301–44.
———. Tajemství českých kronik: cesty ke kořenům husitské tradice, 2nd ed. Prague:
Paseka, 2003.
———. ‘Vavřincova vylidněná Praha.’ Česká literatura 52, no. 3 (2004), pp. 293–323.
Cossar, Roisin. ‘Clerical “Concubines” in Northern Italy During the Fourteenth Century.’
Journal of Women’s History 23, no. 1 (2011), pp. 110–31.
Dean, Jennifer Kolpacoff. ‘“Beguines’ Reconsidered: Historiographical Problems and New
Directions.’ Monastic Matrix (August 2008), available at https://monasticmatrix.osu.edu/
commentaria/beguines-reconsidered-historiographical-problems-and-new-directions.
———. ‘Did Beguines Have a Late-Medieval Crisis? Historical Models and
Historiographical Martyrs.’ Early Modern Women 8 (2013), pp. 275–88.
DeVries, Kelly and Robert Douglas Smith. Medieval Military Technology, 2nd ed. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2012.
Fiala, Zdeněk, ed. ‘The Life and Work of Peter of Mladoňovice.’ Trans. A. Nováková. In
Zdeněk, Fiala, ed. Petra z Mladoňovic Zpráva o Mistru Janu Husovi v Kostnici. Prague:
Universita Karlova, 1965), pp. 31–47.
Flajšhans, Václav. ‘M. Vavřinec.’ České časopis historický 39 (1933), pp. 564–76.
———. ‘Traktáty Husovy a Kronika Vavřincova.’ Listy filologické 61 (1934), pp. 54–66.
Fudge, Thomas A. ‘An Ass with a Crown: Heresy, Nationalism and Emperor Sigismund.’
In Thomas A. Fudge, Heresy and Hussites in Late Medieval Europe. Farnham: Ashgate-
Variorum, 2014, XII, pp. 199–217.
———. ‘Crime, Punishment and Pacifism in the Thought of Bishop Mikuláš of Pelhřimov.’
Variorum, 2014, XI, pp. 69–103.
———. ‘Die hussitische Bewegung im spätmittelalterlichen Böhmen.’ Religion &
Gesellschaft in Ost und West 43, no. 2 (2015), pp. 11–14.
———. Heresy and Hussites in Late Medieval Europe. Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum, 2014.
———. ‘Heresy and the Question of Hussites in the Southern Netherlands (1411–1431).’
Variorum, 2014, VI, pp. 1–30.
———. Hieronymus von Prag und die Grundlagen der Hussitischen Bewegung. Münster:
Aschendorff Verlag, 2020.
262
BIBLIOGRAPHY
———. ‘Hussite Infant Communion.’ In Thomas A. Fudge, Heresy and Hussites in Late
Medieval Europe. Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum, 2014, XIV, pp. 179–94.
———. ‘Hussite Theology and the Law of God.’ In David Bagchi and David C. Steinmetz,
eds. The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004, pp. 22–7.
———. Jan Hus Between Time and Eternity: Reconsidering a Medieval Heretic. Lanham:
Lexington Books, 2016.
———. ‘Jan Hus in the Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts.’ In Jens Meierhenrich and Devin O.
Pendas, eds. Political Trials in Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2016, pp. 113–33.
———. Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia. London: Tauris,
2017.
———. Jerome of Prague and the Foundations of the Hussite Movement. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2016.
———. ‘The “Law of God”: Reform and Religious Practice in Late Medieval Bohemia.’
Variorum, 2014, III, pp. 49–72.
———. The Magnificent Ride: The First Reformation in Hussite Bohemia. Aldershot:
Ashgate, 1998.
———. Medieval Religion and Its Anxieties: History and Mystery in the Other Middle
Ages. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
———. The Memory and Motivation of Jan Hus, Medieval Priest and Martyr. Turnhout:
Brepols, 2013.
———. ‘“Neither Mine Nor Thine”: Communist Experiments in Hussite Bohemia.’ In
Thomas A. Fudge, Heresy and Hussites in Late Medieval Europe. Farnham: Ashgate-
Variorum, 2014,VIII, pp. 26–46.
———. ‘Picturing the Death and Life of Jan Hus in the Iconography of Early Modern
Europe.’ Kosmas: Czechoslovak and Central European Journal 23, no. 1 (2009), pp.
1–18.
———. The Trial of Jan Hus: Medieval Heresy and Criminal Procedure. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2013.
———. ‘Waking the Dead: Discovering Jerome of Prague … and his Beard!’ Freiburger
Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 64, no. 2 (2017), pp. 445–61.
———. ‘Žižka’s Drum: The Political Uses of Popular Religion.’ In Thomas A. Fudge,
Heresy and Hussites in Late Medieval Europe. Farnham: Ashgate-Variorum, 2014, XIII,
pp. 546–69.
Goll, Jaroslav. Tak zvané Chronicon universitatis Pragensis a poměr jeho k Vavřinci z
Březové. Prague: Královská česká společnost nauk, 1884.
Grant, Gerard G. ‘The Elevation of the Host: A Reaction to Twelfth Century Heresy.’
Theological Studies 1, no. 3 (1940), pp. 228–50.
Greenberg, Moshe. ‘The Biblical Concept of Asylum.’ Journal of Biblical Literature 78,
no. 2 (1959), pp. 125–32.
Gutierrez, David. The Augustinians in the Middle Ages, vol. 1. Trans. Thomas Martin.
Villanova: Augustinian Historical Institute, 1983.
Hagen, K. ‘Hus’ Donatism.’ Augustinianum 11 (1971), pp. 541–7.
Hall, Bert S. Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and
Tactics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
263
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Heymann, Frederick G. John Žižka and the Hussite Revolution. New York: Russell &
Russell, 1969.
———. ‘The National Assembly of Čáslav.’ Mediaevalia et Humanistica 8 (1954),
pp. 32–55.
Hledíková, Zdeňka. ‘Řád Křížovníků s černým srdcemve středověku.’ Sborník prací
východočeksých archívů 5 (1984), pp. 209–35.
Hoffmann, Gustav. Metrologická příručka pro Čechy, Moravu a Slezsko do zavedení
metrické soustavy. Plzeň: Státní Oblastní Archív, 1984.
Holeton, David R. ‘The Bohemian Eucharistic Movement in Its European Context.’
Bohemian Reformation and Religious Practice 1 (1996), pp. 23–47.
———. ‘The Communion of Infants and Hussitism.’ Communio Viatorum 27 (1984),
pp. 207–25.
———. La communion des tout-petits enfants: Études du mouvement eucharistique en
Bohême vers la fin du Moyen-Âge. Rome: C.L.V. Edizioni Liturgiche, 1989.
———. ‘The Place of Children in Utraquist Liturgical Song.’ Bohemian Reformation and
———. ‘Revelation and Revolution in Late Medieval Bohemia.’ Communio Viatorum 36,
no. 1 (1994), pp, 29–45.
———. ‘Wyclif’s Bohemian Fate.’ Communio Viatorum 32 (Winter 1989), pp. 209–22.
Housley, Norman., ed. Crusading in the Fifteenth Century: Message and Impact. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
———. The Later Crusades: From Lyons to Alcazar 1274–1580. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1992.
———. Reconfiguring the Fifteenth-Century Crusade. London: Palgrave Macmillan,
2017.
———. Religious Warfare in Europe, 1400–1536. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Hruza, Karel and Alexandra Kaar, eds. Kaiser Sigismund (1368–1437): Zur
Herrschaftspraxis eines europäischen Monarchen. Vienna: Böhlau, 2012.
Iwańczak, Wojciech. ‘Hussite Prague in the Political Literature and Propaganda of the
Period.’ Trans. Aleksandra Rodzińska-Chojnowska. Acta Poloniae Historica 70 (1994),
pp. 5–28.
Izbicki, Thomas M. The Eucharist in Medieval Canon Law. Cambridge: Cambridge
Jakobson, Roman. ‘Remarks on the Poetry of the Hussite Era.’ In Stephen Rudy, ed. Roman
Jakobson Selected Writings, vol. 6. Berlin: Mouton, 1985, pp. 704–37.
Jefferson, John. The Holy Wars of King Wladislas and Sultan Murad: The Ottoman–
Christian Conflict from 1438–1444. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Kaar, Alexandra. Wirtschaft, Krieg und Seelenheil: Papst Martin V., Kaiser Sigismund
und das Handelsverbot gegen die Hussiten in Böhmen [Forschungen zur Kaiser- und
Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters Beihefte zu J. F. Böhmer, Regesta Imperii, vol. 46].
Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, forthcoming, 2020.
Kadlec, Jaroslav. Das Augustinerkloster Sankt Thomas in Prag vom Gründungsjahr 1285
bis zu den Hussitenkriegen, mit Edition seines Urkundenbuches. Würzburg: Augustinus
Verlag, 1985.
———. ‘Die Franziskaner in den böhmischen Länder und ihr Generalstudium in
vorhussitischer Zeit.’ Archiv für Kirchengeschichte von Böhmen—Mähren—Schlesien
8 (1987), pp. 84–91.
264
BIBLIOGRAPHY
———. ‘The Theological Faculty.’ In Ivana Čornejová and Michal Svatoš, eds. A History
of Charles University, Volume 1 (1348–1802). Trans. Anna Bryson. Prague: Karolinum
Press, 2001, pp. 123–45.
Kalivoda, Robert. Husitské myšlení. Prague: Filosofia, 1997.
———. Revolution und Ideologie: Der Hussitismus. Trans. Heide Thorwart. Cologne:
Böhlau Verlag, 1976.
Kalligas, Haris. ‘Monemvasia, Seventh-Fifteenth Centuries.’ In Angelika E. Laiou, ed.
The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh Through the Fifteenth Century.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2002, pp. 879–97.
Kaminsky, Howard. ‘Chiliasm and the Hussite Revolution.’ Church History 26 (March
1957), pp. 43–71.
———. A History of the Hussite Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1967.
———. ‘The Hussite Movement in History.’ Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of
Chicago, 1952.
———. ‘Nicholas of Dresden and the Dresden School in Prague.’ In Howard Kaminsky,
Dean Loy Bilderback, Imre Boba, and Patricia N. Rosenberg, eds. Master Nicholas
of Dresden, The Old Color and the New. Philadelphia: Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, n.s. 55, 1965, pp. 5–28
———. ‘The Prague Insurrection of 30 July 1419.’ Mediaevalia et Humanistica 17 (1966),
pp. 106–26.
———. ‘The University of Prague in the Hussite Revolution: The Role of the Masters.’
In John W. Baldwin and Richard A. Goldthwaite, eds. Universities in Politics: Case
Studies from the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. Baltimore, MD and
London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972, pp. 79–106.
Kantor, Marvin. The Origins of Christianity in Bohemia: Sources and Commentary.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1990.
Kejř, Jiří. Husitský pravník: M. Jan z Jesenice. Prague: ČSAV, 1965.
———. Husův proces. Prague: Vyšehrad, 2000.
———. ‘Master Štěpán of Páleč and Hus’s Trial.’ Kosmas: Czechoslovak and Central
European Journal 28, no. 2 (2015), pp. 89–107.
———. Mistři pražské university a kněží táborští. Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1981.
———. ‘The Prague Law Faculty and the Law University.’ In Ivana Čornejová and Michal
Svatoš, eds. A History of Charles University, Volume 1 (1348–1802). Trans. Anna
Bryson. Prague: Karolinum Press, 2001, pp. 149–68.
Kitts, Eustace J. Pope John the Twenty-Third and Master John Hus of Bohemia. London:
Constable, 1910.
Klaniczay, Gábor. ‘Orgy Accusations in the Middle Ages.’ In Mihály Hoppál and Eszter
Csonka-Takács, eds. Eros in Folklore. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2002, pp. 38–55.
Klassen, John Martin. ‘Images of Anti-Majesty in Hussite Literature.’ Bohemia 33 (1992),
pp. 267–81.
———.The Nobility and the Making of the Hussite Revolution. New York: Columbia
———. ‘The Public and Domestic Faces of Ulrich of Rozmberk.’ Sixteenth Century
Journal 31, no. 3 (2000), pp. 699–718.
———. Warring Maidens, Captive Wives, and Hussite Queens: Women and Men at War and
at Peace in Fifteenth Century Bohemia. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.
265
BIBLIOGRAPHY
———. ‘Women and Religious Reform in Late Medieval Bohemia.’ Renaissance and
Reformation, n.s. 5, no. 4 (1981), pp. 203–21.
Kolářová-Císařová, Anna. Posluchačky v kapli betlémské. Prague: Kalich, 1947.
———. Žena v hnutí husitském. Prague: Sokolice, 1915.
———. Žena v Jednotě bratrské. Prague: Kalich, 1942.
Kopičková, Božena. Česká královna Žofie: Ve znamení kalicha a kříže. Prague: Vyšehrad,
2018.
———. Historické prameny k studiu postavení ženy v české a moravské středověké
společnosti: (interdisciplinární pojetí studia). Prague: Historický ústav AV ČR, 1992.
———. ‘Žena a Rodina v husitství. Současný stav bádání.’ Husitský tábor 12 (1999),
pp. 37–48.
———. ‘Ženská otázka v českém středověku.’ Československý časopis historický 37
(1989), pp. 561–74, 682–96.
Krmíčková, Helena. ‘Kronikář Vavřinec z Březové.’ In Helena Krmíčková, Lucie Mazalová,
Petra Mutlová, and Pavel Ševčík. Pro defensa veritatis evangelice. Brno: Masarykova
univerzita, 2015, pp. 31–58.
Krzenck, Thomas. Johannes Hus: Theologie, Kirchenreformer, Märtyrer. Zürich: Munster-
Schmidt Verlag, 2011.
Kubíková, Milena. ‘The Heretic’s Cap of Hus.’ Bohemian Reformation and Religious
Practice 4 (2002), pp. 143–50.
Lahey, Stephen E. John Wyclif. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
———. ‘Matěj of Janov: Corpus Mysticum, Communionem, and the Lost Treatise of His
Regulae.’ Religions 9, no. 16 (2018). doi:10.3390/rel9010016.
———. ‘Peter Payne Explains Everything that Happens.’ In Jakoub Smrčka and Zdeněk
Vybíral, eds. Jan Hus 1415 a 600 let poté [Husitský tábor, supplementum 4]. Tábor:
Husitské Museum v Táboře, 2015, pp. 129–43.
Landau, Peter. Jus Patronatus: Studien zur Entwicklung des Patronats im Dekretalenrecht
und der Kanonistik des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts. Cologne: Böhlau, 1975.
Lášek, Jan B. ‘Priest Ambrož and East-Bohemian Utraquism: Hradec and Oreb.’ Bohemian
Levy, Ian Christopher. John Wyclif’s Theology of the Eucharist in its Medieval Context.
Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2014.
Loomis, Louise R. ‘The Organization by Nations at Constance.’ Church History 1, no. 4
(1932), pp. 191–210.
Lugt, Maaike van der. Le ver, le démon et la vierge: les théories médiévales de la génération
extraordinaire: une étude sur les rapports entre théologie, philosophie naturelle et
médecine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2004.
Lützow, Count. Lectures on the Historians of Bohemia. London: Henry Frowde, 1905.
McCartney, Eugene S. ‘Spontaneous Generation and Kindred Notions in Antiquity.’
Transactions of the American Philological Association 51 (1920), pp. 101–15.
Macek, Josef. Prokop Veliký. Prague: Naše Vojsko, 1953.
———. ‘Vavřince z Březové Husitská Kronika.’ In František Hermansky, ed. Vavřinec
z Březové: Husitská kronika. Prague: Státní nakladatelství krásné literatury, hudby a
umění, 1954, pp. 7–13.
Mályusz, Elemér. Kaiser Sigismund in Ungarn, 1387–1437. Trans. Anikó Szmodits.
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1990.
Mantello, F.A.C. and A.G. Rigg, eds. Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical
Guide. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1996.
266
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martínková, Dana. ‘Příspěvek k jazykové charakteristice latinských spisů Vavřince z

Březové.’ Listý filologické 105 (1982), pp. 228–32.
Meens, Rob. ‘Eating Animals in the Early Middle Ages: Classifying the Animal World and
Building Group Identities.’ In Angela N.H. Creager and William Chester Jordan, eds.
The Animal/Human Boundary: Historical Perspectives. Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press, 2002, pp. 3–28.
Merhaut, Luboš, ed. ‘Vavřinec z Březové.’ In Lexikon české literatury, Osobnosti, díla,
instituce, vol. 4, part 2, U–Ž. Prague: Academia, 2008, pp. 1266–8.
Mesqui Jean and Maxime Goepp. Le Crac des Chevaliers: Historie et Architecture. Paris:
Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 2018.
Miljan, Suzana, Alexandra Kaar, and Christopher Nicholson, eds. Ruling Composite
Monarchies: Sigismund of Luxemburg (1368–1437). Turnhout: Brepols, 2021.
Molnár, Amedeo. ‘Eschatologická naděje české reformace.’ In J.B. Souček, ed. Od
reformace k zítřku. Prague: Kalich, 1956, pp. 11–101.
Motz, Paul. ‘Die ehemalige Pfarrkirche St. Paul in Konstanz.’ Nachrichtenblatt der
Denkmalpflege in Baden-Württemberg 5 (1962), pp. 2–6.
Mutlová, Petra. ‘Radicals and Heretics: Rethinking the Dresden School in Prague.’
Unpublished PhD dissertation, Central European University, 2010.
Niermeyer, J. F. Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus. Leiden: Brill, 1960–1964.
Novotný, Robert. ‘Die Konfessionalität des böhmischen und mährischen Adels in der Zeit
der Regierung Sigismunds von Luxemburg.’ In Karel Hruza and Alexandra Kaar, eds.
Kaiser Sigismund (1368–1437): Zur Herrschaftspraxis eines europäischen Monarchen.
Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2012, pp. 57–74.
Odložilík, Otakar. ‘The Bethlehem Chapel in Prague: Remarks on its Foundation Charter.’
Studien zur Älteren Geschichte Osteuropas 2, no. 1 (1956), pp. 125–41.
——— The Hussite King: Bohemia in European Affairs, 1440–1471. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 1965.
Palmitessa, James R. ‘The Knights of the Cross with the Red Star and the Renewal of
Ecclesiastical Property in the Pre-White Mountain Age.’ Bohemian Reformation and
Religious Practice 5, no. 2 (2005), pp. 361–4.
Papo, Gizella Nemeth and Adriano, Papo. Pippo Spano: Un eroe antiturco antesignorno
del Rinascimento. Mariano del Fruili: Edizione della Laguna, 2006.
Pegg, Mark Gregory. A Most Holy War: The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for
Christendom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Pekař, Josef. Žižka a jeho doba, 4 vols. Prague: Vesmí, 1927–1928.
Percival, Henry R. ed. The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. Oxford:
James Parker & Company, 1900.
Perett, Marcela K. ‘A Neglected Eucharistic Controversy: The Afterlife of John Wyclif’s
Eucharistic Thought in Bohemia in the Early Fifteenth Century.’ Church History 84, no.
1 (2015), pp. 64–89.
———. Preachers, Partisans, and Rebellious Religion: Vernacular Writing and the Hussite
Movement. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018.
Petr, Jan and Sáva Šabouk, eds. Z tradic slovanské kultury v Cechách: Sázava a Emauzy v
dějinách české kultury. Prague: Universita Karlova, 1975.
Plummer, Marjorie Elizabeth. From Priest’s Whore to Pastor’s Wife: Clerical Marriage
and the Process of Reform in the Early German Reformation. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012,
pp. 11–50.
267
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pluskowski, A. ‘Where Are the Wolves? Investigating the Scarcity of European Grey Wolf
(Canis lupus lupus) Remains in Medieval Archaeological Contexts and its Implications.’
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 16, no. 4 (2006), pp. 279–95.
Polívka, Miloslav. ‘Nicholas of Hus: One of the Leading Personage [sic] of the Beginnings
of the Hussite Revolution.’ Historica 28 (1988), pp. 75–121.
Prajda, Katalin. ‘The Florentine Scolari Family at the Court of Sigismund of Luxemburg in
Buda.’ Journal of Early Modern History 14 (2010), pp. 513–33.
Reaves, Jamye R. Safeguarding the Stranger: An Abrahamic Theology and Ethic of
Protective Hospitality. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2016.
Research Infrastructure for Diachronic Czech Studies (RIDICS), available at http://
vokabular.ujc.cas.cz.
Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Crusades: A History, 3rd ed. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.
Risco, Manuel, ed. España sagrado: Teatro geográphico-histórico de la Iglesia de España, vol.
41, De la Santa Iglesia de Lugo. Madrid: En la Oficina de la Viuda é Hyo de Marin, 1798.
Rivkin, Ellis. ‘Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers, Hypocrites: A Study in Synonymity.’ Hebrew
Union College Annual 49 (1978), pp. 135–42.
Rogge, Jörg, ed. Killing and Being Killed: Bodies in Battle—Perspectives on Fighters in the
Middle Ages. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 2017.
Rollo-Koster, Joëlle and Thomas M. Izbicki, eds. A Companion to the Great Western
Schism (1378–1417). Brill: Boston, 2009.
Rubin, Miri. Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Rychterová, Pavlina. ‘Frauen und Krieg in Chroniken über die Hussitenkriege.’ In František
Šmahel, ed. Geist, Gesellschaft, Kirche im 13.-16. Jahrhundert. Prague: Centre for
Medieval Studies, 1999, pp. 127–43.
———. ‘Theology Goes to the Vernaculars: Jan Hus, “On Simony,” and the Practice of
Translation of Fifteenth-Century Bohemia.’ In Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup
eds. Religious Controversy in Europe, 1378–1536. Turnout: Brepols, 2013, pp. 231–49.
Sandt, Hubertus Walterus Maria. ‘An Explanation of Acts 15: 6–21 in the Light of
Deuteronomy 4: 29–35(LXX).’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 46 (1992),
pp. 73–97.
Schabel, Chris, Monica Brinzei, and Mihai Magna. ‘A Golden Age of Theology at Prague:
Prague Sentences Commentaries from 1375 to 1385, the Terminus post quem for
Evidence of Wycliffism in Bohemia.’ Acta universitatis carolinae-historia universitatis
carolinae pragensis 55, no. 1 (2015), pp. 19–40.
Schulz, Václav. ‘Bohemica knihovna v Hamburce, Kielu, Kodani a Roskoku.’ Věstník
královské české společnosti nauk. Třída filosoficko—historicko—jazykozpytná 29
(1897), pp. 1–14.
Sedláček, August. Hrady, zámky a tvrze království českého, 2nd ed., 15 vols. Prague:
František Šimáčk, 1880–1927, 1931–1936.
Sedlák, Jan. ‘Husův pomocník v evangeliu.’ In Studie a texty k životopisu Husovu, vol. 2.
Olomouc: Matice Cyrilometodějská, 1915, pp. 306–7.
Seltzer, Joel Daniel. ‘Framing Faith, Forging a Nation: Czech Vernacular Historiography
and the Bohemian Reformation, 1430–1530.’ Unpublished PhD dissertation, Yale
University, 2004.
Sherman, William H. ‘Toward a History of the Manicule.’ In William H. Sherman,
Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2008, pp. 25–51.
268
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Šmahel, František. Die Hussitische Revolution, 3 vols. Trans. Thomas Krzenck Hannover:
Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 2002.
———. ‘Die Vier Prager Artikel. Das Programm der Hussitischen Reformation.’ In
Winfried Eberhard and Franz Machilek, eds. Kirchliche Reformimpulse des 14./15.
Jahrhunderts in Ostmitteleuropa. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2006, pp. 329–39.
———. ‘The Idea of the “Nation” in Hussite Bohemia.’ Trans. R.F. Samsour. Historica 16
(1969), pp. 219–23.
———. Idea národa v husitských Čechách. Prague: Argo, 2000.
———. La révolution hussite, une anomalie historique. Paris: Presses universitaires de
France, 1985.
———. ‘The War of Symbols: The Goose and the Chalice against the Cross.’ Bohemian
Šmahel, František and Ota Pavlíček, eds. A Companion to Jan Hus. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Smith, Lesley. The Glossa Ordinaria: The Making of a Medieval Bible Commentary.
Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Soukup, Pavel. ‘“Pars Machometica” in Early Hussite Polemics: The Use and Background
of an Invective.’ In Michael Van Dussen and Pavel Soukup, eds. Religious Controversy
in Europe, 1378–1536: Textual Transmission and Networks of Readership. Turnhout:
Brepols, 2013), pp. 251–87.
———. Reformní kazatelství a Jakoubek ze Stříbra. Prague: Filosofia, 2011.
Soukup, Pavel and Ota Halama, eds. Jakoubek ze Stříbra: Texty a jejich působení. Prague:
Centrum medievistických studií, 2006.
Sparavigna, Amelia Carolina. ‘On the Rainbow, a Grosseteste’s Treatise on Optics.’
International Journal of Sciences 2, no. 9 (2013), pp. 108–13.
Spěváček, Jiří. Repertorium fontium historiae medii aevi, vol. 2. Rome: Apud Istituto
storico Italiano per il medio evo, 1967.
Spinka, Matthew. John Hus: A Biography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1968.
Spufford, Peter. Handbook of Medieval Exchange. London: Offices of the Royal Historical
Society, 1986.
———. Money and Its Use in Medieval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988.
Stephenson, F. Richard. Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation. Cambridge: Cambridge
Stitskin, Leon D. ‘From the Pages of Tradition: A Letter of Maimonides to Samuel ibn
Tibbon.’ Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought 4, no. 1 (1961), pp. 91–5.
Stotz, Peter. Handbuch zur Lateinische Sprache des Mittelalters, 5 vols. Munich: C.H.
Beck, 1996–2004.
Studt, Birgit. Papst Martin V. (1417–1431) und die Kirchenreform in Deutschland
[Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschichte des Mittelalters. Beihefte zu J. F.
Böhmer, Regesta Imperii 23]. Cologne: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Thomas, Alfred. A Blessed Shore: England and Bohemia from Chaucer to Shakespeare.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007.
———. Reading Women in Late Medieval Europe: Anne of Bohemia and Chaucer’s Female
Audience. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
Tomek, Václav Vladivoj. Dějepis města Prahy, 12 vols., 2nd ed. Prague: Řivnáč, 1892–1906.
Truhlář, Josef. Catalogus codicum manu scriptorium Latinorum qui in c.r. bibliotheca
publica atque universitatis Pragensis, 2 vols. Prague: Regiae Societatis Scientiarum
Bohemicae, 1905–1906.
269
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Uhlíř, Zdeněk, et al. Codex Gigas—The Devil’s Bible: The Secrets of the World’s Largest
Book. Trans. Kateřina Millerová and Sean Mark Miller. Prague: National Library of the
Czech Republic, 2007.
Urbánek, Rudolf. Z husitského věku: Výbor historických úvah a studii. Prague:
Československá akademie věd, 1957.
Vodola, Elizabeth. Excommunication in the Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1986.
Vooght, Paul de. Jacobellus de Stříbro (†1429), premier théologien du hussitisme. Louvain:
Publications universitaires de Louvain, 1972.
Werner, Janielle. ‘Living in Suspicion: Priests and Female Servants in Late Medieval
England.’ Journal of British Studies 55, no. 4 (2016), pp. 658–79.
Whelan, Mark. ‘Merchant, Administrator and General: Filippo Scolari in the Service of the
Hungarian King, c.1397–1426.’ Whispering Gallery 115 (2012), pp. 19–24.
Wieck, Roger S. Time Sanctified: The Book of Hours in Medieval Art and Life, 2nd ed. New
York: George Braziller, 2001.
Winter, Eduard. Tausend Jahre Geisteskampf im Sudetenraum: Das Religiöse Ringer
zweier Völker. Leipzig: Müller, 1938.
Wolverton, Lisa. Cosmas of Prague: Narrative, Classicism, Politics. Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 2015.
Zeman, Jarold K. The Hussite Movement: A Bibliographical Study Guide. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, 1977.
270
INDEX
Entries for Bohemia, Prague, Utraquism, Hussites, Táborites, theological subtleties, doc-
trinal differences, and aspects of late medieval warfare are selective on account of the
fact that these subjects are woven into the fabric of the book and in consequence are quite
numerous. There is no attempt at comprehensive entries for obscure persons appearing in
lists of participants at meetings or signatories to documents, or those named as being killed
in pitched battles, or arbitrarily murdered by Hussites or crusaders (and their supporters).
As a normal rule, proper names of persons, places, or ideas appearing only once have been
omitted unless there is special significance. Decisions are subjective. Popes, ecclesiastical
synods, and specific churches are listed alphabetically under those headings. Abbeys, con-
vents, cloisters, monasteries, and priories are noted under the heading of religious houses.
Unless otherwise noted, the churches and religious houses specifically identified are in
Prague. Some entries apply equally to a town, region, or castle. Medieval people are gen-
erally listed under places of origin. Lesser known figures have been identified according to
their chief role in connection with the subject at hand. With few exceptions, members of the
nobility are not distinguished between higher nobles and gentry (as in the work of August
Sedláček) but are simply noted as barons while intellectuals are routinely designated as
masters. Czech proper names have generally been given in their native form. The main
exception is Prague rather than Praha.
absolution 101, 249–50, 255n2 animals 59, 107, 144, 145, 147, 177, 183,
Adamites 30, 246, 247; see also Pikarts 239, 245; birds 135, 141, 161, 178;
Adlary, Valkoun of (baron) 78, 86 calves 167, 189, 190; cows 52n2, 117,
adultery 59, 116, 118, 131; see also sexual 252, 253; dogs 65, 108, 130, 144, 147,
deviance 161, 246, 253; fox (epiphet) 172; horse
Adventism 151n19; see also chiliasm; 73, 74, 84, 85, 88, 90, 92, 94, 95, 98–9,
eschatology 100, 108, 110, 111, 125, 155, 157, 163n3,
Albigensians see Cathars 171, 174, 191, 209, 245, 250, 255; oxen
alcohol 56, 63, 72, 79, 92, 100–1, 106, 253; pigs 117, 144, 161, 196; scorpions
118, 119, 123, 125, 138, 224 177; sheep 84, 94, 109, 134, 146, 149,
altars 98, 101, 111, 116, 119, 128, 129, 231; snakes 31, 49, 177, 255n3; wolves
130, 133, 162, 180, 192, 195, 216, 241, 149, 161, 164n16, 190, 217
254 Antichrist 8, 98, 110, 116, 119, 127, 144,
ambassadors see messengers 190, 192, 196, 203n18
Ambrose, St. 114, 115, 126 anticlericalism 1
anathema and curses 51, 133, 135, 156, Antoch (priest) 196, 203n16
163, 177, 195, 224, 254 Aquileia (papal patriarchal see) 61, 107, 120
angels 114, 135, 136, 137, 147, 188, 240 Aquinas, Thomas, and Thomism 10, 114
271
index
archbishops 2, 51, 53, 68n46, 72, 107, 250–1, 253–5; Most 230–1; Nebovidy
225–6n2, 234, 236n7; see also prelates 255; Nový Hrad 187–8; Plzeň 78–9,
Aristotle and Aristotelianism 151 192; Poříčí 94; Prachatice 166–7; Prague
armies 5, 9, 10, 11, 26, 150n1, 159–62, Castle 99–100; Prague (Lesser Town)
173, 188, 191–3, 198, 211, 214n14, 73–4; Prague (Vítkov) 5, 110–11, 112;
226n4, 229–30, 230–2; crusade 107–10, Sudoměř 86; Turkaňk 255; Vladař 245;
117, 233–5; Hussite 89, 90, 101, 110, Vyšehrad 89, 156, 159–62; Žatec 233–5
112, 117, 157, 160, 171–2, 188, 195–6, battle lines 86, 99, 168, 255
197–200, 229, 232, 237–8, 241, 245, Bavaria 57, 58, 76, 81n18, 107, 144, 234;
250–1, 253–5; royalist 85, 86, 99, 113, Johannes of (duke) 58
135, 148, 160, 162, 191, 201, 248–9, beards 95, 128, 129, 130, 150n7, 188, 193,
252, 253–5 226n4
armor 90, 93, 108, 112, 159, 161, 230 Bechyně (castle and region) 48, 69, 78,
Arnoštovice, town 48, 108 124, 161, 168
assemblies 53, 60, 204–11, 212–13, 218, Bede, the Venerable 35, 114
221, 222, 223, 233, 237 Beguines 129, 144, 188
atrocities of crusaders and anti-Hussites bells 72, 73, 79, 107, 109, 110, 116, 119,
75, 76, 85, 102, 111, 144, 155, 166, 196, 201, 217, 235, 237, 244, 250, 253
167–8, 206, 211, 212, 233, 234, 252–3 benches 111, 121n15, 176, 183, 184
astrological allusions 34, 126, 130, 157, benefices and prebends 25, 52n2, 116, 224,
161, 163n8, 165n18, 218, 226n5 227n19
Auctor Hussiticus 18, 21, 30, 31, 46, 52, Benešov, town 48, 80n12, 89, 94, 246n1
65, 80 Beroun, town 48, 155, 156, 157, 194, 196
Augustine, St. 35, 114, 115, 126, 134, 182, Bethlehem Chapel see churches
227n14 betrayal 58, 61, 89, 90–1, 100, 103, 108,
Austria 57, 101, 107, 108, 111, 121n7, 111, 112, 117, 159, 167, 214n6, 232,
193, 235, 236n13, 239, 241; Albrecht of 250, 254
121n7, 235, 236n13 Bibfeldt, Franz (theologian) 48, 54, 70,
authority, religious 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 16, 59, 153n42
139, 141, 151n15, 174n3, 227n14, 249; Bible 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, 35, 82n32, 104n8,
biblical 7, 10, 56, 130, 139, 151n15, 104n14, 121n9, 122n34, 126, 127, 134,
183, 205–6; conciliar 58, 59, 68n46; 150n1, 151n17, 151n19, 152n21, 181,
episcopal 53, 67n45, 56, 84, 153n34, 185n4; see also scripture
158, 182, 186n22, 225–6n2, 234; papal Bílina, town 48, 229, 233
8, 174n3, 227n14, 249–50; university Bláhová, Marie 17, 33, 38, 246n3
and masters 3, 4, 8, 113, 134, 170, 242; blasphemy 52, 58, 71, 75, 76, 77, 84, 97,
see also conciliarism 98, 118, 166, 201, 244
Avignon 64n1 blindness 32, 145, 148, 182, 239, 241, 246,
246n4, 250
Balbín, Bohuslav (Czech scholar) 17 blood 109, 119, 135, 144, 145, 152n23,
banishment 30, 62, 77, 79, 100, 143, 149, 167, 177, 183, 199, 210, 211, 240, 252,
219, 233, 237, 239, 243, 246 253
banners 91, 94, 100, 105n30, 112, 200, boats 155, 156
246 Bodensee 54, 55
baptism 1, 3, 8, 52n3, 56–7, 116, 127, 131, Bohemia, kingdom of 12, 31, 32, 49, 55,
132, 134, 137, 151n14, 151n19, 154, 57, 60, 113, 130, 212, 252
181, 182, 186n17, 225, 227n20 book burning see fire, burning
barons see nobility books, church 95, 127, 130, 150n5, 169,
barrels 117, 167, 197, 217, 231 193, 203
Bartoš, František M. 28, 37, 45n109 books, government 74, 207, 210, 212, 250
battles 93–4, 97, 99, 103, 199–200, 241; Botice (river and area near Vyšehrad) 88,
Bor 159; Kutná Hora 26, 27, 48, 248, 92, 131, 154
272
index
Bracciolini, Poggio 47 cavalry 86, 91, 93, 94, 95, 99, 101, 109,
Bratislava, city 81n18, 226n4, 236n13 110, 146, 171, 187, 192, 200, 229, 230,
Breslau see Wrocław 234, 245, 250, 253
Březová, Laurence of (chronicler) 25–31, cellars 56, 100, 167, 254
34, 36, 49, 105n23 České Budějovice, town 48, 109, 146
bribes and bribery 55, 60, 61, 93 Český Brod, town 48, 197, 232, 233
bridges 54, 190; see also Charles Bridge chalice, lay 1, 2, 3, 7, 9–10, 14, 28, 29,
Brno, city 48, 76–7, 123n44, 192, 248–9, 32, 52n1, 56–7, 66n18, 67n32, 69, 75,
250 77, 79, 85–7, 92, 97, 101–2, 107, 109,
Brod, Ondřej of (academic) 150n11, 153n37; as symbol 112, 121n7
150–1 Chalice (Žižka’s fort) 200, 203n27, 233–4
Brüel Field (Constance) 54, 66n29 Charles IV (king/emperor) 12, 14, 80n4,
Bruska 107, 108, 120n1 81n17, 104n15, 209, 210
Bubny 62, 67n39 Charles Bridge (Prague) 70, 72, 73, 80n9,
Buchov, Zbyněk of (Táborite captain) 88, 81, 92, 112, 119, 121n10, 131
95, 206 chasubles 95, 127, 129, 130, 132, 169, 170,
Buda, city 79n1; see also Hungary 171, 176, 183–4, 185, 188, 189–90, 191,
Bujnoch, Josef 16, 104n14, 106n32, 196, 219
120n4, 121n9, 152n21, 152n31, 164n15, Chelčický, Petr (lay writer) 7, 11
202n1, 202n10 childbirth 136, 137, 142, 154, 180, 185n11
bulls, ecclesiastical 5, 53, 104n4 children 3, 9, 56, 57, 69, 77, 86, 87, 89, 94,
109, 110, 111, 125, 133, 136–7, 142,
cannons see weapons 146, 149, 154, 180, 198, 218, 227–8n21,
canon law 35, 122n34, 153n34, 163n3, 231, 252; killed 109, 112, 155, 167,
225–6n2, 247n16 209, 235, 240, 255; mutilated 211, 252;
Čapek, Jan (priest) 18, 111, 121n14, 221, pilgrims 69, 78, 79, 125, 135; singing
226n9 18, 35, 111, 121n14, 139; see also
capital punishment 56, 60, 63–4, 75, 85, eucharist, infant communion
88, 109, 209, 237, 238, 241, 254; see chiliasm 2, 7, 16, 17, 151–2n19; see also
also fire, burning eschatology
captives, hostages 88, 113, 117, 230, 239 Chlum, Jan (knight) 105n16, 214n2
Čáslav, town 35, 48, 131, 147, 152, 157, Chomútov, town 48, 191, 193, 195, 231, 233
197, 204–13, 241, 245, 246n2, 250, Chotěboř, town 48, 191
253, 255n1; diet of 35, 152n32, 204–11, Chotěšov, town 48, 131, 159, 190, 192,
212–13 202n4
Carolinum (Charles College) see Chronicon universitatis Pragensis 13, 16,
University of Prague 43n64, 164n11
castles and fortresses 48, 52, 57, 67n39, Chrudim, town 48, 191, 198–9, 216, 238
69, 70, 76–8, 89–90, 95, 101–3, 117, Chůdek, Jan (priest) 76, 77, 82n27
124, 131, 135, 144, 146–7, 157, 159, Chudoba, Jan, aka Ralsko (baron) 72, 204
168, 170–1, 172–3, 177, 178, 187, 190, church: architecture 80n4, 104n15,
192, 195–6, 197, 198, 199, 201, 229–30, 119, 121n15, 133, 201, 241, 254;
233, 234, 238, 241, 245, 248, 252; see theologies of 8, 56, 135–7, 140–4, 182,
also Bechyně; Gottlieben; Karlštejn; 184–5, 243, 249–50; treasuries 151n12,
Kozí; Krakovec; Nový Hrad; Prague; 152n32, 210
Příběnice; Vyšehrad churches 51, 53, 57, 62, 69, 70, 85, 116,
Častolovice, Půta of (baron) 191, 207, 208, 136, 180, 218; Bethlehem Chapel 2,
238, 252 8, 9, 25, 29, 51, 52n2, 55, 70, 81n18,
Cathars 10, 11, 83n35, 174n3 184, 221, 237; Church of the Mother of
Cato 63 God before Týn 70, 220, 226n9; Mother
Causis, Michael de (attorney) 52n2, 55, 59, of God at Luže 72; Mother of God
61, 66n27 of the Snows 70, 120, 188, 217, 237;
273
index
Olomouc Cathedral (Moravia) 202n9; convents see religious houses

Psáře (parish) 62, 67n39, 154, 174; St. Cossa, Baldassare 53, 58; see also Popes,
Apollinaris 69, 70, 90, 96, 104n15, 146, John XXIII
153n37; St. Clement 70, 119; St. James councils, ecclesiastical 151n15, 225; Basel
131, 176, 247n12; St. Martin-in-the (1431–1449) 10, 26, 226n4; Nicaea
Wall 51, 52n2, 70; St. Michael 51, 52n2, (325) 222, 224; Nicaea (787) 227n18;
72, 111, 146, 176, 199, 218, 219, 242; Pisa (1409) 64n1; Trullo (692) 227n18;
St. Nicholas (Lesser Town) 74, 81n19, see also Constance, Council of
92; St. Nicholas (Old Town) 219, 238; crime, criminal activity 34, 49, 59, 71, 75,
St. Pancras 70, 154, 155, 157, 158, 160; 88, 89, 116, 118, 127, 145, 147, 163,
SS Peter and Paul 70, 123n50; St. Peter 167, 192, 195, 218, 230, 231, 240, 248,
at Poříčí 130, 219, 220; St. Stephen 254
69, 237; St. Valentine 108; St. Vitus crusades against heretics 1, 5–6, 18, 26,
25, 82n23; St. Vojtěch (Adalbert) 51, 28, 31, 34, 36, 67–8n45, 83n35, 104n4,
52n2, 55, 59, 70; see also Constance 105n20, 105n25, 107–11, 116–7,
Cathedral; religious houses 174n3, 229–35, 236n10, 236n12, 248,
cities of refuge, five 78, 82–3n32, 135, 253–5; motivations 3, 5, 66n18, 67n32,
146, 177, 180, 203n15 85, 209
Clairvaux, Bernard of 35, 115 Cyprian 114, 182, 227
clothing 63, 95, 102, 108, 109, 112, 119, Czech language 12, 34, 167, 168, 174n4,
127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 135, 146, 147, 205, 206, 209
161, 169, 171, 172, 180, 184, 190, 193, Czech texts in Chronicle 13, 35, 38; appeal
194, 229, 240, 241, 244, 251; burned to reject Sigismund 167–8; Čáslav
63, 88, 90, 127; ostentatious 90, 95, declaration 205–7; childrens’s song
97, 118, 172, 190; underwear 161, 199, 111; indictments against Sigismund
203n25 209–11; Krása’s death 85; letter about
coercion 3, 61, 84, 97, 102, 105n19, 117, Pikarts 239–41; oath of the barons 249;
131, 146, 153n34, 158, 166, 249 Sigismund’s reply to indictments 212–13;
Colonna, Odo 64, 67n45; see also Popes, Sigismund’s statement 207–8; womens’s
Martin V letter 219–21; Vyšehrad garrison
communion, holy see eucharist surrender 157–8; Žižka’s stand 255
communion in both kinds see utraquism
common chests 6–7, 119 d’Ailly, Pierre 61
communism see Tábor dancing 79, 96, 111, 119, 198, 240
conciliarism 26, 58, 61, 68n46 Daucher, Eberhard (chronicler) 65n5
condemnation, judicial 66n28, 76, 83n35, Děčín, town 16, 17, 48, 230, 233
153n34 defenestration 6, 69–71, 80n4, 81n15
confession, auricular 9, 60, 97, 116, 125, devil, demons 30, 34, 56, 59, 61, 63, 93,
127, 132, 145, 151n15, 161, 182, 225, 116, 126, 130, 148, 239, 240, 246
227n19 dice, games of 96, 125, 224
conscience 63, 118, 207, 243 Dionysius 35, 57, 114, 159, 182, 223
Constance cathedral 54 diplomacy 5–6, 91, 93, 112, 156, 204–11,
Constance, city 53, 54, 57, 59–60, 67n37, 212–13, 226n4, 232–3, 242–4
67–8n45; see also Bodensee; Brüel disease and illness 58, 75, 132, 175n9,
Field; Gelting Gate; Gottlieben 175n10, 182, 199, 203n23, 221, 223,
Constance, Council of 2, 3, 4, 10, 25, 29, 233, 235
51, 53–64, 75, 76, 84, 105n16, 150n11, distance, calculations of 39, 66n19, 163n1
168, 183, 202n9, 209, 212, 214n2, 250; divorce 9, 180, 195
ruling on utraquism 3, 64, 150n11 doctors 51, 53, 61, 64, 84, 148; Holy
Constance, Lake see Bodensee Scripture 55, 59; law 53, 55, 146;
contumacy 108, 183, 203n17; see also medicine 80n10, 146, 174, 232;
heresy theology 53, 107, 113, 146
274
index
Dolenský, Antonín 19, 39, 43n66, 45n127 excommunication 51, 225, 249–50
Domažlice, town 26, 28, 48, 125, 192, 200; excrement 98, 132, 156, 202n12, 252
song of victory 14, 26 extermination policies 5, 68n46, 79,
Dominici, Giovanni (cardinal) 68n46, 82n24, 236n11
79–80n1
Donínský, Václav (royalist) 74, 94 fasting 127, 133, 150n6, 157, 182, 255
Dragon, Order of the 86, 104n8, 104n13, Fathers of the church 35, 127, 128,
105n20, 236n14 134, 151n15, 182, 185, 223; see also
Dresden, Nicholas of (German master) 4 Ambrose; Augustine; Basil; Cyprian;
Dresden, Peter of (German master) 14, 29, Dionysius; Gregory; Jerome; Origen
51, 52n1 fire, burning 34, 64, 74, 88, 92, 95, 96,
drowning (intentional), 5, 82, 98, 145, 99, 101, 108, 109, 112, 116–17, 119,
153–4n34, 169, 199, 242, 246 120, 145, 146, 156–7, 167, 177, 188,
Dubá, Jan Roháč of (knight) 183, 191–2, 195, 217, 230, 231, 235, 236n12,
186n20 240; books 12, 54, 73–4, 92, 95, 127,
Dubá, Václav of (knight) 105n16, 123n44 130, 193; castles 88, 89, 90, 135, 144,
230, 234, 241, 252; churches and
economic/trade sanctions 12, 105n25 monasteries 72, 74, 80, 89, 90, 92, 94,
education 4, 24, 26, 49, 109, 127, 174n9, 95, 101, 130, 131, 133, 144, 145, 193,
182, 214n4, 223, 225 200, 229; execution by 34, 60, 85, 90,
Elizabeth, Sigismund’s daughter 121n7, 96, 98, 99, 109, 112, 117, 144–5, 146,
235, 236n13 155, 157, 159, 166, 167, 173, 191, 192,
Emmaus Monastery see religious houses, 193, 196, 197, 199–200, 230, 234, 235,
Na Slovanech 240, 241; heretics 56, 87, 108, 194–5,
emotions: anger 52, 71, 75, 78, 95, 110, 216–17, 231; Hus 10, 17, 54, 60, 209,
116, 135, 156, 177, 203n17, 221, 231, 212, 246n2; Jerome 63–4, 209, 212;
235, 238, 249; disgust 90, 110, 196, monks and priests 90, 96, 98, 99, 109,
226n8; fear 55, 61, 63, 71–3, 77, 85, 145, 157, 159, 166, 173, 191, 192, 193,
87, 91, 92, 93, 101, 110, 134, 145, 146, 195–6, 197, 200; theological references
149, 162, 193, 195–6, 211, 214n14, 112, 134, 138, 141, 151n19, 179, 182;
221, 229, 230–1, 234, 235, 236n4, 249, towns, houses 75, 79, 89, 90, 92, 94,
253; grief 31, 49, 56, 71, 73, 75–6, 87, 95–6, 101, 112, 133, 135, 144, 146, 155,
89, 93, 102, 110, 111, 133, 145, 146, 156–7, 159, 161, 162–3, 177, 178, 180,
148, 161–2, 167, 174, 182, 193, 195, 187, 212, 233, 234, 235, 238, 240, 245,
198, 230, 235, 241, 252; joy 60, 63, 77, 248, 252, 255; vanities 88, 90, 92, 95,
87, 95, 102, 103, 111, 147, 149, 198, 98, 111, 127, 128, 130, 132–3, 135,178,
254, 255n3 191, 194, 200, 201; whirlwind of 60, 63,
England 37, 60, 107, 123n41 64, 72, 75, 79, 84, 88, 92, 133, 144, 166,
eschatology 1, 2, 6, 9, 32, 34, 82n32, 86, 194, 195, 197, 234, 252
164n13, 240; see also Antichrist Flajšhans, Václav 27–8
eucharist 51, 57, 113–14, 124, 125, 129, Flaška, Arnošt (baron) 91, 191, 204
133, 137, 151n19, 162, 181, 188, 193, food 58, 65n10, 71, 72, 89, 90, 94, 95,
223; controversy over 8, 10, 227n15; 96–8, 102, 103, 105n25, 108, 125,
heresy and 148–9; infant communion 131, 133, 149, 154–6, 157, 158, 155,
3, 10, 21, 23, 56–7, 66n16, 132, 133, 163n3, 183, 187, 200, 220, 241, 245,
153n37, 223, 225; lay chalice and 251, 254
1–2, 3, 7, 9–10, 14, 28, 29, 32, 52n2, foot soldiers see infantry
56–7, 67n32, 69, 75, 76, 77, 79, forests 48, 79, 145, 147, 159, 194
85–6, 93, 101–2, 107, 109, 153n37; fornication see sexual deviation
transubstantiation 8, 10, 227n15; Wyclif fortifications 74, 76–7, 79, 82n28, 87, 89,
and 8–9, 10, 186n14, 227n15; see also 93, 95, 96, 98, 108, 110, 111, 112, 154,
remanence; utraquism 155, 160, 161, 169, 256n10
275
index
Four Articles of Prague 6, 9, 32, 35, Heymann, Frederick G. 82n28, 175n10,

96–7, 112, 113–16, 121n18, 123n40, 203n17
148, 155–6, 172, 192–3, 196, 200, historiography 12, 14, 29, 36, 37, 41n42,
201, 204, 205, 207–8, 211, 213, 238, 50n1
248, 249 Hlaváčov, Prokop Lupáč of (humanist
Froissart, Jean (chronicler) 36 writer) 17, 28, 44n83
Fulštejn (knight) 187–8 Höfler, Konstantin von 13, 14, 16, 18
Hospital Field 70, 109, 110–11, 121n10
gallows 108, 110, 121n6 Hradčany see Prague Castle
gates and doors, 54, 57, 70, 73, 75, 87, 92, Hradec Králové, city 25, 48, 90, 102–3,
93, 94, 96, 100, 103, 160, 166, 169, 196, 104n14, 106n37, 125, 131, 149, 156,
241, 253, 254 163n6, 187, 211, 221, 226n4, 227n12,
Gelting Gate (Constance) 54 246n4, 250; Ambrož of (priest) 73, 90,
genuflecting, sacramental 149, 181, 194, 163n6, 211, 216
195, 200, 217, 254 Hradiště (fortress) 6, 79, 86, 88, 89, 93, 94,
Germans 1, 4, 5, 34, 61, 73, 82n24, 82n31, 101, 102, 146, 158, 168, 192, 194; see
87, 91, 98, 100, 101, 105n31, 107, also Tábor
112–13, 117, 121n12, 123n46, 145, 160, Humpolec, town 48, 80n4, 252
195, 230, 232, 233–4, 255n7; opposing Hungary, Hungarians 31, 34, 81n22, 96–7,
Hussites 31, 35, 75, 77, 89, 111, 168, 107, 111, 121n7, 121n12, 123n43, 155,
197, 233 160, 162, 163, 168, 187, 193, 235,
glossolalia 113, 122n20 236n14, 248, 249, 250; see also Buda;
Goll, Jaroslav 13–14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, Sigismund
29, 38, 43n64, 80n11 Hus, Jan (priest/martyr) 2, 32, 53–6,
Gottlieben Castle and fortress 54, 66n19, 59–61, 71–2, 136, 209, 212; followers
66n22 2, 62, 63, 69, 85; memory 17, 60–1, 63,
grace and mercy, divine 111, 135, 136, 75, 76, 85, 87, 136, 209; reformer 53–5,
139, 142, 149, 159, 171, 177, 180, 181, 64; trial and execution 59–61, 63, 75,
198, 212, 231, 234, 242 76, 84, 209, 212
Gratian see canon law Hus, Mikuláš (baron) of 69, 73, 88, 95,
graves, mass 5, 75, 99, 161, 167, 195, 198, 101, 155, 158, 161, 170, 171, 173–4
256n10 Húska, Martin (priest) 11, 32, 134,
Gregory, St. 114, 126, 182 152n21, 183, 184, 191, 193–4, 216,
guerilla warfare 73, 79, 102, 117, 120, 144, 239
146, 156–7, 187, 240 Hussite Chronicle 12–39; authorship
25–31; composition 13; ending 16,
Hažmburk, Vilém Zajíc of (baron) 72, 91, 26–7; Latinity 23–5; manuscripts
96, 252 13–23; prologues 31–3; significance
heathen (slur) 112, 127, 161, 188, 194, 36–7; sources 35; transmission 13–19
231, 232, 234, 248, 252 Hussites 1–12, 26, 28, 37, 56, 69, 71,
heresy 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 37–8, 56, 77, 79, 98, 122n19, 176–85, 216–25,
60, 65n12, 76, 116, 126, 128, 167, 227n12; myth 2, 4, 6
177–83, 185n3, 194, 196, 210, 214n6, hymnody 9, 107, 109, 111, 114, 121n13,
219–20, 225n1, 249; eucharistic 125, 127, 130, 150n5, 183, 235, 237
134, 137, 148–9, 181, 191, 194, 216, hypocrisy 55, 126, 130, 139, 180, 244
217, 220, 239, 245; Utraquism as 56,
57, 85, 87, 108, 109, 124, 249; see iconoclasm 1, 11–12, 71–2, 88, 92, 95,
also anathema; excommunication; 98, 119–20, 123n52, 127, 130, 132–3,
Hussites; interdict; Lollards; simony; 150n8, 166, 191, 194, 200, 201, 203n20,
Waldensians 213, 241, 245, 254; see also fire,
Heřmanský, František 19, 26, 38, burning
82n22 idolatry 119, 128, 220, 132–3
276
index
images, pictures 4, 71, 72, 74, 117, 118, knights 53, 67, 105n16, 107, 109, 113,
119, 127, 128, 132–3, 162, 166, 188, 117, 145, 147, 156, 157–8, 161, 164n15,
210, 212, 213, 254 167, 196, 204, 206, 207, 210, 211,
incarceration see prisons 232–3, 248–9, 253
indulgences 53, 107, 116, 227n19, 234, Knín, town 74, 81n21
236n9, 244, 252; see also money Kolín, town 48, 146, 147, 197, 198, 232,
infantry 74, 94, 101, 146, 161, 171, 187, 255
192, 200, 229, 230, 233, 234, 239, 241, Kopičková, Božena 41n42, 81n18
245, 250, 252 Korybut, Zygmunt (regent) 26, 34
inquisition, inquisitors 56, 65n12, Kostelec, town 48, 77, 246n1; Jan Sádlo of
227n19 (baron) 77, 232, 238, 246n1
interdict 19, 62, 76, 80n11, 249–50 Kouřim, town 48, 76, 77, 82n27, 146, 162,
islands 94, 95, 105n21, 155, 158, 163n4, 188, 197, 253
193, 239, 241, 246n3 Kozí Hrádek (Czech castle) 48, 98
Izbicki, Thomas 153n34 Krakovec Castle 48, 164n14
Krása, Jan (merchant/martyr) 84, 85,
Jan “the Iron” see Železný, Jan 103n3, 209
Janov, Matěj of (master) 8, 9 Krasikov, town and castle 48, 190, 245
Jaroměř, town 48, 199, 200 Křížek’s mountain 72
Jerome of Prague (master/philosopher) Krmíčková, Helena 21, 44n96, 46n135
3, 4, 5, 23, 29, 54, 57–8, 61–2, 62–4, Kroměříž, Jan Milíč of (priest) 3, 9
66n30, 67n37, 76, 84, 87, 209, 212, Krušina, Hynek (baron) 90, 91, 92,
214n8, 215n16 104n14, 154, 157–8, 160, 161, 169, 171,
Jerome, St. 105n17, 114, 115, 126, 134, 198, 200, 201, 204, 206, 211–12
182 Kutná Hora, city 5, 26, 27, 48, 75, 77,
Jesenice, Jan (attorney) 106n36 82n24, 82n31, 85, 86, 88, 93, 96, 117,
jewelry 89, 97, 118, 195 131, 146, 147, 157, 162, 190, 198–9,
Jews 36, 81n16, 82–3n32, 104n14, 150n1, 232, 241, 248–55; decree of 3–4; mines
194, 195, 241, 247n11 5, 75, 77, 93, 198, 256n10
Jičín, Jan (academic) 134, 193, 194
Jihlava, town 48, 123n44, 250, 252 Ladví, village 48, 72, 80n12
Jindřichův Hradec, town 48, 239; Oldřich landfríd 117, 123n44, 192
of 172, 173, 174n9, 185, 191, 204, 232, latae sententiae see excommunication
233 Latin 5, 9, 12, 13, 23–5, 27, 37, 47n161,
judges 61–2, 141 82n29, 112, 113, 122n20, 149, 153n37,
judgment, divine 58, 60, 64, 73, 136, 139, 164n10, 176, 202n5, 255n3
145, 151n19, 155, 177–8, 230, 231 laughter and mockery 77, 84, 89, 194–5,
judicial murder 66n28 217, 244
laws, secular 1, 7, 59, 118, 128, 180, 189,
Kamenice, town 80n12, 159 192, 210, 224, 235n3; Faculty of Law
Kaminsky, Howard 16, 27, 28, 33, 37, (Prague) 4, 25, 70
175n10, 203n17 law of God, law of Christ 9, 10, 30, 32, 34,
Kaniš, Petr (Pikart priest) 194, 240, 35, 49, 75, 84, 91, 97, 115, 119, 126,
246n4 129, 131, 134, 135, 146, 149, 161, 179–
Karlštejn Castle 48, 77, 98, 156, 210, 245 80, 182, 196, 198, 199, 204, 238, 243;
Kingdom of God 2, 132, 134, 135–6, 137, defense of 74, 81n14, 88, 92, 93–5, 100,
143, 145, 159, 178, 179, 180, 240 103, 124, 126, 128, 144, 166, 168, 170,
Kladruby, castle and monastery 48, 131, 178, 187, 241, 245, 250, 252; enemies
190, 192, 202n4 of 34, 35, 56, 97, 102, 132, 145, 147,
Klatovy, town 48, 75–6, 78, 121n14, 131; 151n19, 177, 205, 224, 240; principle
see also cities of refuge of 2, 33, 118, 146, 172, 185, 198, 207,
Klokoty, village 194–5, 246n4 239, 243, 244, 252; promotion of 76,
277
index
100, 124, 127, 168, 197, 204, 211, 253; Meißen, Misnians 107, 110, 111, 121n12,
relation to Scripture 219, 225, 243 201, 229, 230–1, 232, 233
Ledeč, town 93, 105n19, 252, 253 Mělník, town of, 48, 157, 196
legates 84, 85, 93, 98, 101, 147 mercenaries 88, 92, 95, 101, 112, 132, 154,
Lenfant, Jacques 17 155, 156–7, 159, 161, 171, 197, 233
Leštno, Václav of see Dubá, Václav merchants, trade 53, 54, 67n45, 95–6, 118,
Libočany, Václav Hájek of (chronicler) 226n4
17 messengers 53, 78, 85, 155–6, 159, 168,
Lipany, village and battlefield 28, 48, 170, 192, 193, 206, 238–9
104n6, 226n4, 256n18 Městecký, Jan (baron) 190, 191, 199, 200,
Litoměřice, town 48, 96, 98, 146, 147, 155, 238, 245, 252
192, 200, 233 Michalec, Jan of Michlšperk (baron) 95,
Litomyšl, city 48, 199, 202n9, 214n2 238
liturgy 8, 9, 11, 12, 25, 76, 127, 129, 132, Mikuláš (Bethlehem student) 85
150n5, 153n37, 227n16, 255n5 Milevsko, town 48, 89, 131, 169
liturgical hours 39, 127, 129, 150n5, 225 Millenarianism 1; see also eschatology
Lollards 10, 52n4; see also Wyclif and mills 108, 121n5, 192
Wyclifites Mindelheim, Hermann Schwab of (bishop)
looting and plundering 73, 75, 88–90, 95, 3, 145, 152–3n34, 169, 174n7
101–2, 109, 117, 119, 123n52, 144, 146, mint (Kutná Hora) 81n22, 82n24, 86,
159, 170, 172, 178, 188, 191, 195, 200, 123n44, 172, 175n9, 190, 198, 201, 233,
201, 230–1, 245, 248, 251 246n1, 253, 254, 256n11, 256n14
Louny, town 25, 48, 78, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, miracles 5, 108, 111, 122n20
131, 154, 155, 196, 203n15, 229, 231, Mladoňovice, Petr of 25, 66n30, 176,
232; see also cities of refuge 185n2, 188
Lucifer see Devil, demons moats and trenches 70, 88, 92, 96, 98, 108,
Ludewig, Johann Peter von 18 110, 112, 154, 155, 160, 161, 167, 187,
Lugo, Fernando de Palacios (bishop) 79n1, 193, 195, 197, 199
84, 93, 98, 101, 103n1, 123n40, 147–8, Mohammed 51, 62
249–50 monasteries see religious houses
Luther, Martin 10 money 6, 53, 75, 78, 81–2n22, 82n23, 89,
90, 101, 117, 131, 132, 158, 172, 178,
Macek, Josef 30 195, 202n9, 210, 224, 227n19
Machovice, Chval see Řepice, Chval of monks and nuns 51, 59, 62, 71–2, 77,
madness, insanity 24, 78, 111, 123n44, 80n11, 90, 95, 96, 99, 102, 111, 117,
137, 144, 149, 161, 194, 196, 201, 252, 131, 144, 146, 193, 196, 201, 203n22,
254, 255 205, 212, 229, 235n1
Maimonides, Moses (philosopher) 39 monstrances 88, 94, 117, 127, 130, 131, 133,
manifestos 3, 121n18 147, 149, 154, 169, 194, 197, 231, 254
manuscripts 12, 106n38 morals, morality 9, 10, 31, 32, 59, 243;
Marches, James of the (papal legate/ see also prostitution; sexual deviance,
inquisitor) 65n12, 227n19 misconduct
Markolt see Zbraslavice, Markolt of Moravia 6, 21, 32, 49, 52, 60, 75, 76, 78,
marriage 9, 116, 131, 135, 137, 189, 103, 107, 124, 125, 134, 147, 159,
227n19, 241; see also divorce 160–1, 193, 204, 210, 211, 216, 219,
martyrdom 63, 84, 85, 98, 108–9, 114, 235, 248, 250, 253; see also nobility
147, 151n19, 153n39, 236n9, 247n14 Most, town 48, 191, 201, 229–30, 232
Mass see eucharist mountains/hills 6, 9, 69, 72, 75, 76, 79, 86,
medical issues, 80, 86, 90, 92, 93, 95, 101, 89, 93, 102, 104n14, 105n22, 107, 108,
104n5, 109, 110, 146, 159, 161–2, 164n12, 110, 120, 124, 125, 135, 137, 143, 156,
174, 175n10, 190, 191, 197, 203, 232, 234, 177–8, 179, 180, 191, 192, 194, 206,
236, 254; see also disease and illness 229, 230, 253, 255; see also Oreb
278
index
murder 32, 59, 66n28, 75, 105n18, 116, Ostrov, Lacek of (baron) 235, 248
145, 147, 164n15, 167, 169, 171, Ovenec (village) 62, 67n39, 107
206, 231, 240, 246, 247n14, 248,
256n11 pacifism 7, 117, 140, 142, 147
music and musical instruments 53, 71, Palacký, František 17, 21, 37
87, 90, 110, 111, 125, 137, 143, 162, Páleč, Štěpán (theologian) 55, 59, 61,
230, 241; see also hymnody; songs, 82n27
popular papal schism 2, 3; see also conciliarism;
mutilation (physical) 76, 79, 83n35, 88, Constance, Council of; Pisa, Council of
133, 199, 211, 252 parousia 78, 134, 135, 136, 138–40, 178,
179; see also eschatology
Nákvasa, Jan (priest) 75, 164n15 Pardubice, town 48, 102, 104n14
nation, nationalism (Czech) 1, 3, 10, 12, patronage 2, 9, 82n27, 121n10, 227n12
31, 34–5, 46n145, 174n4 Payne, Peter (English) 123n45, 187, 242–4,
Náz, Jan (Czech diplomat) 61, 67n38 245
Nebovidy, town 48, 255 peasants 5, 7, 12, 71, 79, 89, 90, 93–4, 95,
Německý Brod, town 27, 48, 146, 161, 96, 98, 102, 107, 109, 110, 112, 126,
162 127, 130, 144, 145, 147, 149, 157, 159,
nobility, Czech 2, 26, 30, 53, 80n8, 90, 160, 178, 191, 193, 211, 231, 233, 248,
101, 102, 112–13, 123n44, 126, 153n35, 250
157, 159–61, 173, 174–5n8, 193, 205, Pekař, Josef 27, 37, 121n18, 152n31
211, 212, 232–3, 245, 248–50, 252, Pelcl, Franz Martin (historian) 16–17
253; against Tábor 78, 126, 237; defend Pelhřimov, Mikuláš (bishop) 32, 158,
Hussite doctrine 74, 172, 192, 200, 238; 164n12, 183–4, 193, 194
Moravian 76, 147, 159, 160, 161, 193, penance 53, 56, 108, 163n3, 167, 182, 196,
204, 215n18, 250, 253; protest Hus’s 225, 236, 253
execution 2, 3, 60, 67n34, 67n35; rejects philosophy 2, 4–5, 62–3, 182
Hussite cause 90–1, 101–2, 212, 245–6; Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius (humanist/
relation to Sigismund 76–7, 79, 103, pope) 5, 226n4
107, 117, 131, 147, 148, 156, 167–8, Pikarts 8, 30, 149, 187, 193–5, 197, 199,
248–9 202n12, 216, 217–18, 219, 221, 225n1,
nominalism see philosophy 239–41, 242, 245, 246n4, 246n5
notaries 17, 214n7, 248 pilgrimages 126, 178, 179, 182
notices, public 55, 57 Písek, town 7, 48, 81n20, 86, 104n7, 125,
Nový Hrad 48, 69, 70, 71, 98, 102, 159, 131, 166
187–8 plague 128, 134, 135, 175n9, 177, 178,
Nymburk, town 48, 131, 146, 147, 157, 179, 199, 203n23, 235; see also disease
163, 197 and illness
Plato 63
oaths 87, 118, 131, 234, 249–50 Plumlov, Jindřich of (baron) 160–1,
Ofen see Buda 164n15
Olomouc, city 48, 123n44, 193, 202n9 Plzeň, city 48, 78–9, 82, 86, 89, 90,
orarions see vestments 123n44, 125, 148, 159, 190, 192, 193,
ordination 3, 25, 52n2, 97, 121n14, 195, 203n15, 231, 239, 245; Prokop of
145, 150–1n11, 153n34, 169, (academic) 176, 185n2, 221, 222, 233,
225 247n15; Václav Koranda of (priest) 10,
Oreb (mountain) 48, 90, 96, 187 32, 78, 83n34, 86, 111, 119, 134, 145,
Orebites (Orphans) 28, 96, 104n14, 168–9, 174n5, 188–91; see also cities of
106n37, 154, 187 refuge
Origen 35, 142, 182 Poděbrady, Boček, Viktorin of (baron)
ornamentals, ornates see vestments 154, 158, 162, 169, 171, 187, 222, 235,
Orsini, Giordano (cardinal) 61 238, 253
279
index
Poland 169–70, 187, 247n14; embassy to 100; Old Town Hall 19, 70, 72, 73, 87,
169–70, 187, 205 96, 203n26, 218, 219–21
Polička, town 48, 199, 211, 250 Praguers 28, 31, 32, 34, 72, 76, 77, 85,
Popes: Alexander III 122n37; Alexander V 88–9, 92–3, 95, 97, 98–9, 108, 109,
64n1; Benedict XIII 53, 57, 58, 64n1; 112, 117, 119, 131, 144, 147–8, 154,
Eugenius III 115, 236n9; Gelasius I 35, 160, 187, 200, 216, 230–1, 235, 239,
114; Gregory IX 122n37; Gregory XII 251, 254–5; anti-royalist 73–4, 77,
53, 57, 58, 64n1; Honorius III 186n15; 87, 112–13, 147, 155, 159–60, 160–2,
Leo I 35, 114; John XXIII 53, 57, 167–8, 192; conflict with Tábor 30,
58–9, 64n1, 67n45; Martin V 4, 5, 64, 129, 153n38, 170, 171–2, 173, 196;
67–8n45, 68n46, 151n12, 214n3, 249; traditional 7, 10, 28
see also Colonna, Odo prayer 6, 55, 84, 110, 116, 128, 129, 132, 134,
Poříčí, street in Prague 70, 130, 219–20 140, 142, 150n5, 167, 180, 182, 183, 200,
Poříčí, town 48, 94 204, 217, 220, 224, 225, 231, 251, 253
poverty 30, 58, 67n35, 125, 142, 144, 146, preaching 2, 3, 6, 9, 25, 51, 52n2, 55, 56,
162–3, 191, 210, 221, 224, 231 60, 62, 78, 86, 94, 97, 102, 113, 114,
Prachatice, Křišťán of (priest) 32, 52n2, 116, 121n14, 125, 131, 178, 188, 189,
153n37, 218 196, 211, 220–1, 226n9, 223, 242, 249;
Prague 4, 34, 39, 51, 87, 103, 107, 113, see also Four Articles of Prague
158, 211, 235, 242, 250; Lesser Town predestination 8; see also salvation
70, 73–4, 75, 80n3, 81n17, 92–3, 96, prelates 3, 51, 55, 57, 59, 62, 64, 84,
101, 161; magistrates 69, 71, 77, 79, 107, 123n44, 136, 146, 148, 151n19,
80n6, 87, 91, 96, 97, 103n3, 112, 113, 227n19
117, 118, 120, 148, 154, 158, 170, 174, Příběnice Castle 48, 102, 145, 168–9, 174,
176, 187, 194, 196, 217–18, 219–21, 241
222, 226n9, 232, 237–8, 242; New Příbram, town 48, 81n21
Town 14, 17, 21, 25, 26, 34, 51, 55, 59, Příbram, Jan (theologian) 28, 30, 194, 207,
69–71, 73, 74, 80n3, 87–8, 91, 93, 95, 221, 222, 233, 247n15
96–7, 100, 105n21, 110, 118, 119, 158, priesthood 7, 59, 145, 224–5
159, 170, 173, 201, 206, 217, 218–19, prisons and prisoners, medieval 2, 37, 51,
222, 237; Old Town 19, 52n2, 70, 71–2, 55, 57–8, 60, 61–2, 63, 65n10, 67n37,
74, 80n3, 87–8, 92, 93, 96, 100, 110, 85, 88, 95, 117, 146, 159, 161, 164n12,
118, 119–20, 121n5, 154, 170, 173, 190, 200, 216–7, 224, 230, 234, 237,
185n1, 187, 196, 201, 203n26, 206, 239
217–8, 221, 231, 237; priests of 2, 10, processions 35, 69, 72, 80n4, 90, 94, 107,
51, 56, 57, 62, 69, 86, 87, 91, 129–30, 125, 149, 162, 196, 198
170, 171, 173–4, 176, 183–4, 205, 218, Prokop the Notary 17
219–20, 226n9, 242, 246; royal game propaganda 4, 26
preserve 67n39, 120n1; street violence prostitution 9, 23, 53, 65n5, 118, 128, 129,
and unrest 76, 77, 93, 95; synods 82n23, 180, 240
221, 226n9, 227–8n21, 244; under Ptáček, Petr (royalist) 74
interdict 62, 80n11; university see pubs 97, 118, 152n22, 224
University of Prague; see also Charles pulpits 5, 29, 52n2, 188, 253
Bridge; Prague cathedral purgatory 128, 132, 147, 182, 244
Prague Castle (Hradčany) 70, 71, 72, 73, pyxes 98, 105n28, 127, 129, 133, 149, 194,
74, 77, 87, 89–93, 95, 98–9, 99–100, 254
107, 117, 154, 163, 200
Prague cathedral chapter 12, 82n23 quodlibet (Prague) 26
Prague, town halls 77, 87, 91, 93, 109, 117,
119, 120, 133, 171, 173, 174, 176, 200, Radenín, Přibík Pulkava of (chronicler)
217, 218, 237, 238, 242, 244–5, 250, 12, 14
251–2; New Town Hall 69, 70, 71, 73, Ralsko see Chudoba, Jan
280
index
rape 98, 102, 163, 167, 187, 209, 235; religious orders 54, 61, 70, 80n4, 80n8,
see also sexual deviance, misconduct; 80n11, 81n17, 89, 105n17, 105n22,
women 105n24, 105n25, 106n38, 151n13,
real presence see eucharist 153n34, 185n1, 202n4, 202n8, 203n22,
realism see philosophy 203n24, 235n1
refugees 81n18, 142, 174n2, 254 remanence, 227n15, 236n4; see also
Rejnštejn, Jan Kardinál of (master) 187, eucharist
244, 245, 247n16 Řepany, Zykmund of (baron) 149, 241
relics 77, 98, 130, 162, 241 Řepice, Chval of Machovice and
religious houses 11, 12, 48, 51, 54, 62, (Táborite captain) 74, 81n20, 88, 95,
70, 71, 72, 74, 78, 80–1n14, 89, 90, 183, 186n20
96, 119, 123n52, 131, 144, 151n12, rewards, incentives 5, 75, 107
151n13, 190, 202n4, 203n24, 210, Rhineland 107, 226n4, 234
212, 235n1, 247n14; Apostolic Gate Říčany, town and castle 48, 80n7, 145,
(Benedictine) 95, 105n24, 131; Aula 170–1, 172–3
Regia (Cistercian) 71, 99; Břevnov Richental, Ulrich (chronicler) 65n5, 65n6,
(Benedictine) 70, 95, 99,105n22, 131; 66n30
Dominican Monastery (Constance) 54, rivers 48, 80n8, 93, 105, 137, 193, 202n8,
55; Franciscan Monastery (Constance) 240, 246n3; Labe (Elbe) 48, 98, 105n26,
54; Holy Cross (Crosiers with the Red 206, 255; Lužnice 48, 145, 152n34, 169,
Heart) 14, 70, 92, 108; Holy Spirit 246n3; Rhine 54, 60, 63, 66n19, 66n22,
(Benedictine) 131; Holy Virgins, 66–7n30, 106n32, 226n4; Sázava 48,
Doksany (Praemonstratensian) 131, 94, 105n19, 246n1; Vltava 48, 52n2,
229, 235n1; Hradiště (Holy Field) near 67n39, 80n8, 88, 95, 105n21, 108,
Valečov (Cistercian) 90; Kartouzy 121n5, 121n10, 155–6, 157, 163n4
(Carthusian) 70, 72, 131; Kladruby roads 80n7, 80n12, 94, 105n22, 105n25,
(Benedictine) 131, 190, 192, 202n4; 121n10, 154–5, 160, 170, 190, 199,
SS. Peter and Paul, Zderaz (Knights 245; roadblocks 74, 155, 187
of the Holy Sepulchre) 119, 123n50; Roudnice, town 48, 200, 216–17, 221
Milevsko (Praemonstratensian) 48, Rožmberk, Jindřich of (baron) 252, 255n8;
89, 131, 169; Mother of God of the Oldřich of (baron) 73, 81n18, 89, 101,
Snows (Carthusian) 69, 70, 120, 188, 102, 106n36, 152n32, 154, 159, 165n17,
217, 237; Na Slovanech (Benedictine) 168, 169, 176, 191, 192, 204, 205–6,
70, 96, 105n17, 155, 105n17; Rajhrad, 222, 241, 245, 255n8; Rožmberk, Racek
Moravia (Benedictine) 21, 44n95; of 76
Sedlec, Kutná Hora (Cistercian) 131, Ruprecht, Palatine elector, 57, 58, 66n21,
198; St. Ambrose (Benedictine) 72, 234
94, 100, 111, 131, 133; St. Anne
(Dominican nuns) 99, 131, 201; St. sacraments 8, 9, 35, 56–7, 69, 114, 146,
Clement (Dominican) 119, 131; St. 151n19, 180, 181, 202n12, 212, 223,
George (Benedictine) 70, 117, 201; 224; see also eucharist; utraquism
St. Katherine (Augustinian nuns) 70, Sádlo, Jan of see Kostelec
96, 131; St. James (Franciscan) 131, safe conduct, letters 55, 58, 65n8, 91, 93,
176; St. Mary Magdalene (Penitent 196, 200, 209, 211, 214n8, 238, 248,
sisters) 70, 99, 101, 131; St. Thomas 252
(Augustinian) 73, 81n17, 92, 99, 131; salvation 8, 57, 108, 124, 125, 126, 128,
Strahov (Praemonstratensian) 70, 72–3, 148, 151n19, 168, 177, 178, 185, 207,
92, 105n25, 131; Velehrad, Uherské 219, 221, 252
Hradiště, Moravia (Cistercian) 193, salvus conductus see safe conduct, letters
202n8; Virgins, Teplice (Benedictine) Satan see devil, demons
229, 235n1; Zbraslav (Cistercian) 48, Saxon House (Prague) 70, 73, 81n17, 110,
71, 80n8, 98, 119, 131 159, 161
281
index
Saxony 73, 81n17, 92, 110, 226n4 136, 167, 169, 178, 181, 205, 211, 224,
Scalia, Bartolomeo (Florentine chancellor) 225, 249, 252
47n161 Slaný, town 48, 78, 95–6, 97, 98, 105n24,
scribes, medieval 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 53, 155, 196, 203n15, 231, 234; see also
67, 197, 203n19 cities of refuge
Scripture 6, 7, 10, 11, 24, 51, 55, 59, 63, Šmahel, František 29, 37, 45n118
104n14, 111, 112, 115, 120, 129, 139, Soběslav, town 48, 159, 191, 241
146, 160, 168, 170, 179–80, 197, 213, Sodom, ancient city 78, 135, 177
219, 237, 238, 249, 252; hermeneutics songs, popular 4, 11, 26, 95, 107, 111, 119,
56, 78, 108, 116, 126, 130, 134, 137, 141, 125, 235
148, 156, 182, 184, 188–90, 211, 216, Sophia (Czech queen) 2, 9, 25, 72, 73,
223, 224, 243, 244; Utraquism and 56, 74, 76, 78, 79n1, 81n18, 97, 102, 149,
57, 108; see also authority; law of God 153n40, 202n7
seals, official 60, 71, 88, 89, 113, 120, 158, Spano, Pipo (military leader) 94, 235,
170, 192, 207, 213, 218, 250 236n14, 248
second coming of Christ see parousia Spěváček, Jiří 21
Sedláček, August 39, 271 Spufford, Peter 39, 81n22, 82n24
Seneca 63 St. Paul’s Cemetery (Constance) 54, 58
sermons 72, 80n14, 85, 86, 90, 91, 118, Šternberk, Petr of (baron) 86, 94, 161
132, 188, 194, 214–15n14, 242; Strakonice, town 81n20, 86, 104n5
Bethlehem Chapel 9, 81n18 Strážnice, Petr of (baron) 204, 248, 250,
sextern 183, 184–5, 186n21 253
sexual deviance, misconduct 55, 59, 63, Strážnice, Václav of (baron of Kravař) 248,
75, 97, 115–6, 118, 131, 193–5, 202n13, 250, 253
224, 240, 247n9 Stříbro, town 48, 190, 192; Jakoubek
Sezimovo Ústí see Ústí of (priest/academic) 3, 4, 8, 10, 14,
shouting 71, 72, 77, 101, 112, 160, 161, 28, 29, 32, 35, 51, 52n2, 57, 184–5,
173, 192, 218, 241, 242 194, 218, 221, 222, 242–4, 245,
sieges 72–3, 78–9, 89, 117, 157–8, 163n3, 247n15
192–3, 200–1, 233–5, 236n10, 238, stumbling blocks 135, 136, 137, 143,
255; see also battles; weapons 178, 180
Sigismund (king, emperor-elect) 4, 5, 7, supplies 72, 74, 97, 98–9, 105n25, 155,
10, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 49, 57, 76–7, 156, 157, 229, 251, 254
79, 84, 85, 96, 98, 99, 107, 147, 158, Švamberk, Bohuslav (baron) 78, 90, 159,
159–62, 165n17, 191, 205–11, 213, 190
234–5, 239, 248, 252–3, 255; convenes Svidnický, Jan (royalist) 74
Council of Constance 53; Czech barons Švihov, Břeněk of (Táborite baron) 74,
and 87, 101, 117, 123n44, 131, 167–8, 78, 86
170, 215n18, 248–50; Hussite hearings symbols, on clothes and banners 86, 94,
91, 148, 156, 168, 208, 213, 226n4; Jan 104n8, 105n20, 112
Hus and 55, 59, 75; negative reputation
34, 86, 117, 123n41, 144, 147, 152n32, Tábor (mine shaft) 75, 77, 256n10
163, 167–8, 203n18, 209–11; safe Tábor, town 1, 4, 6, 7, 10–11, 30, 48, 69,
conducts 55, 57–8; Queen Sophia and 79, 86, 93, 96, 104n14, 125, 192, 193,
76, 81n18, 97, 147, 149, 192; see also 206, 227n12
Constance, Council of Táborites 6, 7, 10, 23, 28, 30, 31, 32, 37,
Silesia 93, 104n4, 211–12, 226n4, 238, 49, 74–5, 86, 88, 89, 94–5, 124–5,
248 127–8, 134–7, 158, 164n12, 170, 173,
simony 10, 55, 59, 75, 97, 116, 119, 130, 184–5, 190–1, 193, 219, 227n15, 253–5;
133, 153n34, 180 priests 78, 79, 90, 118, 129, 130, 145,
sins, mortal 5, 6, 55, 56, 63, 77, 84, 89, 96, 151n19, 159, 176, 183–4, 193, 217, 220,
97, 100, 113, 115–16, 127, 132, 135, 226n4, 239, 251
282
index
Tachov, town 48, 191, 192 87, 113, 119, 129, 134, 146, 147, 156,
tactics, military 226n4, 254–5, 256n15; see 157, 172, 176, 183, 196, 205, 221, 238,
also sieges 242, 244, 247n15, 252
taxation 116, 131, 142, 159, 178, 179, Urbánek, Rudolf 37, 45n118
246n6 Ústí, town 79, 88, 94, 101, 125
Te Deum Laudamus 111, 121n13, 162, utraquism 2, 3, 6, 10, 14, 19, 21, 23, 29,
196, 198, 201, 205; see also hymnody 35, 51–2, 52n3, 56–7, 62, 64, 69, 71,
tents 34, 96, 101–2, 107, 116, 124, 154, 72–3, 75, 77, 84, 86, 96, 100, 108,
161, 181, 187, 234, 235 131, 145, 159, 161, 163, 193, 199, 238,
Theobald, Zacharias 17 246n7, 248; see also eucharist
theology 2, 4–5, 7–8, 10–11, 30–1, 113–
16, 118, 122n9, 151n19, 173–4, 176–85, Václav IV (king) 2, 4, 5, 17, 23, 25, 51, 62,
251–2; see also baptism; chalice; 69, 71, 73, 76–7, 85, 126, 150n3, 208,
church, theologies of; eschatology; 209, 242
eucharist; law of God; purgatory; Václav (priest in Arnoštovice) 108–9
sacraments; salvation; utraquism Vartemberk, Čeněk of (baron) 72, 74, 76,
Tibbon, Samuel ibn (rabbi) 39 80n13, 89–92, 100, 104n13, 105n30,
time, calculations of, 39, 59, 66n25, 73, 153n34, 169, 200, 201, 204, 206,
81n16, 110, 119, 123n51, 157, 158, 160, 211–12, 214n2, 232, 245, 246, 252
163, 202n1 Vechta, Konrad of (archbishop) 3, 4,
Tomek, V.V. 37, 39, 164n15 7, 51, 98, 196, 202n9, 203n18, 204,
tonsures 127–8, 129, 130, 180, 193, 224 211, 216, 220, 221–2, 226n2, 226n8,
torture 63, 75, 76, 102, 109, 144, 197, 226n9
217 Veleslavín, Daniel Adam of (writer) 17, 28,
towers 54, 58, 66n22, 67n37, 70, 91, 92, 44n83
98, 100, 103, 109, 110, 159, 168–9, vernacular 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 37, 122n20,
171–2, 190–1, 196, 197, 203n27, 241, 131, 202n10; see also Czech language
254; see also castles and fortresses vestments, ecclesiastical 8, 92, 95, 102,
translation 39, 122n20, 134, 164n15, 119, 127–8, 129–30, 132, 146, 169,
246n5 170, 171, 176, 180, 183–4, 185, 188–9,
transubstantiation see Eucharist 190–1, 196, 200, 219, 223, 224, 247n14,
treason see betrayal 251; see also chasubles
Trinity, doctrine of 14, 16, 17, 23, 32–3, vicarages 94, 242, 254
49, 151n15 vigils 101, 116, 120, 127, 132, 133, 150,
troops 7, 78, 93, 95, 98, 101, 110, 117, 171, 172, 196, 212, 227
147–8, 157, 160, 165n17, 187, 191, Vilém (priest) 219, 242, 244
192–3, 198, 201, 202n9, 229–30, 231, violence 3, 7, 34, 35, 73, 105n27, 109,
235, 236n8, 239, 245, 248, 250, 254; 144, 162, 167, 230
see also battles Vladař Hill 19, 48, 245–6
truces 72, 74–5, 78, 87, 88, 91, 92–3, 103, Vodňany, town 109, 125, 145, 159
112, 147, 148, 158, 170, 192, 200–1, Vyšehrad (castle/fortress in Prague) 48, 62,
205, 207 67n39, 70, 72, 73, 87, 88, 89, 104n11,
Truhlář, Josef 19 154–5, 156–8, 159–62, 165n17, 213
truth 8, 10, 30, 35, 52, 76, 85, 102, 109,
156, 178, 188, 205, 232, 243, 253–4 wagons, war 86, 94, 95, 99, 100, 155,
Trutnov Dvůr, town 48, 199, 211 187–8, 192, 241, 245, 250, 253–4,
255
Uničov, Albík of (archbishop) 72, 80n10 Waldensians 10, 132, 151n19, 247n11
Unity of Brethren 17 walls: church and monasteries, 72, 133,
University of Prague 4, 26, 43n64, 49, 70, 154, 180; cities, 52n2, 66n29, 67n37,
122n19, 134, 174, 176, 183, 196, 221, 72, 79, 93, 103, 121n10, 146, 166–7,
223, 242; masters of 2, 3, 8, 51, 55, 57, 168, 172, 185n1, 192, 197, 198, 199,
283
index
233, 241, 256; fortifications, 99 108, Wrocław, city 5, 13–14, 21, 82n31, 84, 85,
110, 162, 168–9, 188, 230 87, 89, 104n4, 209
washing hands or feet 61, 135, 145, 177, Wyclif, John 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 35, 52n4,
185, 189 60, 63, 65n13, 249, 254, 255n2
wealth of the clergy 6, 79, 97, 128, 134, Wyclifites 4, 5, 7–8, 38, 51, 56, 69, 71, 77,
139, 180, 205, 224 79, 123n44, 186n14, 227n15
weapons 73, 96, 99, 108, 109, 158, 177,
201, 230, 245, 253, 255; artillery 99, yeomen 67n35, 123, 192, 193, 195, 197,
166, 187; bows 100, 145, 231; cannons 200, 206
73, 93, 94, 96, 102, 131, 154, 163n1,
166, 187, 192, 201, 229, 231, 245, 255; Zabarella, Francesco (canon lawyer) 61
catapults 99, 102, 154, 163n1,187, 192, Žatec, town 48, 78, 95–6, 97, 99, 131, 148,
229, 231; crossbows 90, 99; firearms, 154, 155, 159, 191, 195–6, 203n15,
personal 58; flails 88, 90, 94, 99, 108, 221, 227n12, 229, 231, 233–5, 236n10,
110, 144, 160, 161, 167, 196, 197, 211, 236n12, 245; see also cities of refuge
230, 253; gunpowder 99, 110, 131, 158; Zbraslav (district near Prague) 48, 71,
guns 158, 253, 254, 256n15; halberds 80n8, 98
94, 133; lances 94, 145, 231, 254; Zbraslavice, Markolt of (priest) 86, 104n6,
maces 94; pitch 166, 167, 195; slingers 134, 183
89, 166, 173; spears 110, 133; stones Zbyněk, Zajíc of Hazmburk (archbishop)
93, 110, 120, 166, 169; swords 10, 76, 2
87, 134, 135, 144, 145, 151n19, 160, Žebrák, village and castle 45n109, 48, 98,
177, 195, 197, 226n4, 231, 235, 254; 101, 192
Trebuchet 163n1 Železný, Jan (bishop) 202n9
weather 116, 161, 177, 187, 241, 245 Želivský, Jan (priest) 4, 6, 8, 28, 30, 32,
Witołd (Polish duke) 205, 214n3, 233, 35, 80n4, 86, 87, 104n9, 120, 153n37,
238–9 198, 200, 201, 207, 217, 218, 221, 230,
women 1, 7, 19, 41n40, 41n42, 53, 59, 232, 237, 242, 244–5, 247n15, 251
65n5, 78, 85, 87, 88, 89, 98, 110, 111, Žižka, Jan (military commander) 4, 5, 7,
116, 118, 121n7, 124, 126, 129, 132, 17, 27, 30, 32, 110, 159, 166–7, 170,
136–7, 148, 149, 171, 180, 192, 198, 174, 176, 194–5, 199, 206, 217, 226n4,
199, 219–21, 224, 229, 231, 235, 234, 236n5, 250–1, 256n15; defends
236n13, 239, 241, 251, 252; activists Hussitism 86, 200, 203n27; hatred of
96, 100, 110, 130, 219–21; eucharist priests/monks 159, 173, 194, 196, 217,
9, 125, 133, 150n11, 162, 220; killed 246n4; liquidates Pikarts 8, 30, 94–5,
110, 112, 154, 155, 195, 211, 212, 230, 199, 216, 239–41, 246n4; military
240, 250, 252; military participation 9, commander 108, 112, 159, 166, 190–2,
94, 95, 110, 112; sexuality 6, 59, 65n5, 200, 216, 226n4, 232, 245, 253–5;
137, 180, 194, 195, 224, 240; Táborite one-eyed/blind 88, 95, 232, 236n5,
79, 86; victimized 34, 102, 117, 146, 241, 245, 250; relation to King Václav
155, 163, 167, 172, 173, 187, 195, 209, 69, 73, 78, 80n3, 88; reputation 90, 95,
230, 252 112, 166
wood 60, 63, 76, 109, 148, 155, 229; Zmrzlík, Petr (master of the mint) 19,
battlements 110, 112, 200; images 117; 70, 172, 174, 176, 177, 190, 198, 201,
liturgical utensils 129, 147, 154 203n28
wounds see medical issues Znojmo, Stanislav of (theologian) 44n105
284

Origins of The Hussite Uprising The Chronicle of Laurence of Březová (1414 - 1421)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Origins of The Hussite Uprising The Chronicle of Laurence of Březová (1414 - 1421)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OR IGIN S O F T H E H U S S IT E UP RI S I NG

Thomas A. Fudge is Professor of Medieval History at the University of New

In the same series:

Guta Law and Guta Saga edited by Christine I. Peel

Selections from Ṣubḥ al-A’shā by al-Qalqashandi, Clerk of the Mamluk Court

The Liber legis Scaniae edited by Ditlev Tamm

ISBN: 978-0-367-43811-1 (hbk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

List of figures and maps viii

Introduction: text and context of the Hussite Chronicle 1

otherwise) is best accessed by means of Latin (or whatever language is pertinent).

A 12-month sabbatical from my duties at the University of New England allowed

Background and context

council in Basel in 1433 wherein Hussites negotiated and obtained concessions

This was communism and a community of goods in replication of the biblical

understanding of the eucharist made serious inroads into theological thought at

Historical writing in medieval Bohemia

Composition of the chronicle

This is a chronicle written by Master Laurence of Březová, sometimes scribe

Auctor Hussiticus Æ P 16th c

Ludewig 1724 Cz 15th c

Figure 2 Laurence of Březová chronicle: a stemma

the following diagram, which is rudimentary, makes no pretense at investigative

Antonín Dolenský (1884–1956) who worked in the National Museum library in

The Prague manuscripts (A) and (B)

20 November 1421. In consequence the last month of activities noted in other

The Copenhagen manuscript (K)

narrative. Laurence held a teaching post at Charles University in Prague though

Laurence fits in well with them [enemies of the regent]

The prologues and the chronicler

Although as I consider the ruin, as varied as it is enormous, of the one-time

An attempt to reconcile these divergent prologues may be resolved by considering

It is also important to recognize the chronological emphases within the narra-

identity and national consciousness. If Czechs were considered heretics, Laurence

Uses and citation of other sources

Significance of the work

Laurence of Březová stands out from the normal framework of medieval

The chronicler writes with verve as a ‘master storyteller.’154 The availability of

‘heresy’ nomenclature is inappropriate. These terms and concepts have been

Dolenský edition. While admittedly modern impositions upon a medieval nar-

Religious houses attacked by Hussites

Postoloprty Dvůr Králové

Rožmberk nad Vltavou

Map 1 Bohemia and Moravia during the Hussite movement 1415–1437

Marginalia: comment in a scribal hand (A)

Prologue 1 (W) and (K)

be left without knowledge of this awful, no spectacular, tragedy and thereby on

B E GINNINGS OF UTR AQUI SM I N

H E R E SY, UTRAQUISM, AND THE

Map 2 Constance during the council

Master Jan Hus at Constance

Condemnation of the lay chalice

divine Eucharist in both species, with Master Jakoubek of Stříbro, bachelor of

Deposition of Pope John XXIII

Arrest and imprisonment of Master Jerome of Prague

Charges against Pope John XXIII

Culmination of the legal process against Jan Hus

Complaint of the Czech kingdom over the death of Jan Hus

Recantation of Jerome of Prague

I am surprised at you, most reverend fathers, that your excellencies should

Interdict imposed on the city of Prague

Dear children, my faith is as I have just sung. However, I am going to die

Election of a new pope

List of figures and maps viii

Introduction: text and context of the Hussite Chronicle 1