| Abstrakt: |
The spring and summer of 1412 saw large-scale protests in Prague against the crusading indulgences of Pope John XXIII. Bohemian Wycliffites led by Jan Hus objected to the purpose of the campaign and to the very concept of indulgences. Their disapproval materialized in demonstrations, street riots, as well as a backlash in written form. Advocates of the pope’s right to proclaim a crusade and grant indulgences reacted with written defences of the campaign. While a series of Hus’s polemics Contra cruciatam and his extensive disputation of indulgences have been well known to scholars, a number of other polemical writings pertaining to the same controversy remained largely unknown. This study presents some manuscript sources dealing with indulgences that can be placed within the context of the Prague dispute of 1412. The pamphlet Vobis asmodeistis is a sharp attack on the indulgence campaign. The pope is called the Antichrist, the preaching of the Cross is denounced as bloodthirsty and acquisitive and any assistance provided to the campaign is categorized as abetting a crime. The pamphlet was edited by Constantin Hofler in 1865, but his edition is only based on a single manuscript and diminished by a number of mistakes. A new critical edition using all three known manuscripts is presented in the appendix to this article. The texts testify to three stages in its history. The codex M is closer to an expert opinion, while the codex T represents a reworking of the text for the purposes of a pamphlet campaign and the codex P contains further additions that were added when the text was disseminated on the pages of manuscript books. According to a manuscript comment, the pamphlet was found in the indulgence collection box at Prague Castle on 20 June 1412. Prague theologian Maurice Rvačka was among the first defenders of the indulgence campaign. His Articuli contra impedientes have recently been discovered and edited (see BRRP 8, 2011, pp. 77-97). It is a twofold polemic arguing for the papal right and duty to defend the Church and to finance such a war with indulgences. It was written at the request of a high-ranking prelate, probably in the first half of June 1412. We can date another defence of indulgences to the same time: the Probacio et fundacio doctorum. It was included somewhat later in the memorandum by anti-Wycliffite doctors of theology known as the Tractatus gloriosus. It’s possible to hypothesize that Stephen Paleč was the author of the text. Both Rvačka and Paleč ranked among prominent opponents of Jan Hus. Another of Hus’s adversaries, an anonymous canonist, wrote a text known as Replicacio contra Hus in which he addressed the issue of excommunication and indulgences. He advocated for the pope’s power to grant remissions that are, according to the author, automatically valid. The involvement of two other eminent anti-Hussite authors in the indulgence controversy, Andrew of Brod and Stanislav of Znojmo, cannot be confirmed. Previous scholarship suggested that each of them might have authored a statement on indulgences. However, the Tractatus de indulgenciis et de cruciata in the O 8 manuscript at the Metropolitan Chapter Library in Prague is not a work by Brod, but a large excerpt from the Tractatus fidei contra diversos errores by Benoit d’Alignan dating to 1240-1261. Similarly, the text De indulgenciis in the N 50 manuscript at the same library is not a separate work by Stanislav from 1412, but a paragraph from his refutation of Wyclif’s 45 articles written in 1413-1414. An intriguing testimony about the indulgence dispute of 1412 is the Motiva pro defensa prelatorum et indulgenciarum, which has eluded the attention of scholars thus far. The text, edited in the appendix of this article, argues that prelates should not be criticised by their subjects. When dealing with misdemeanours, it is always better to show mercy. Also, a good and pious cause should not be dismissed because of the misconduct of a few individuals. Given the number of citations from canon and Roman law, the author of the Motiva was apparently an anti-Hussite lawyer that we are unable to identify by name. A Wycliffite reply is attached to the work, written apparently by an artist rather than a lawyer or a theologian. While it acknowledges that many principles quoted by the author of the Motiva are correct, it differs in the main point: the indulgences cannot be considered good and pious. The treatise with the incipit Peccatum in Scriptura sacra multipliciter accipitur was preserved in five manuscripts in Prague, Brno, and Cracow. It deals with some issues conventionally associated with indulgences, such as who is authorized to grant them; whether they are cumulative and transferable; or whether they benefit souls in purgatory. Only a remark close to the end of the treatise reveals that it comes from 1412: it mentions that Wycliffites have recently attacked the preachers of indulgences. In sum, the manuscript polemics suggest the events of 1412 may have influenced written output in more than one way. While some works undoubtedly originated in the turbulent weeks surrounding the indulgence scandal, others reflected on the controversy after the passage of a period of time. Still other manuscript texts, composed, excerpted, or copied decades later, may vaguely mirror the fact that the events of 1412 made indulgences one of the chief points of friction in terms of fifteenth-century religious controversy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
