I 102 Dušan Coufal to whether the chalice was necessary for the communicant for salvation and commanded by Christ was to be definitively discussed at the council. This took place in the autumn and winter of 1437 at Basel, when the council also issued the decree Ut lucidius, by which it rejected the Hussite doctrine. In the third and final stage, the council was to permit the Hussites to use the chalice generally and presumably permanently (this is not directly expressed in the Compactata) if they would persist in their desire for Utraquism and ask the council for permission again. Although this second concesion of the chalice was prepared at Basel at the end of 1437, its promulgation never took place.14 The Compactata was thus not a one-time issue, but a process, and the contracting parties could only argue in 1433 whether and how it would be fulfilled. What is significant for us is that on the Hussite side there was already in January 1434 a minor group of conservatives who accepted this “road map” to return to the Roman Church for themselves and were considered reconciled or united (reconciliati, uniti).15 Most of the Utraquists, however, led by the head of Prague Utraquism, Jan Rokycana (d. 1471), refused for a long time to seal the Compactata, convinced that without further written guarantees the agreement was disadvantageous for them and not bringing unity or peace to the country.16 Therefore, during the year 1434, representatives of the Hussite Estates in Prague, Basel, and Regensburg repeatedly submitted a set of additional demands to the representatives of the Church, as well as to Emperor Sigismund, from whom they asked for cooperation in this matter. These requests mostly went beyond the scope of the Compactata: the Hussites wanted written assurances that the chalice would be obligatory for all inhabitants of Bohemia and Moravia, that it would be allowed to their followers abroad, and that they would be able to defend the chalice as a command of Christ before the Council together with infant communion.17 14 The fact that the Compactata presuppose two concessions of the chalice has not yet been properly appreciated in the literature. This is discussed in more detail by Adam Pálka, “The Basel Compactata and the Limits of Religious Coexistence in the Age of Conciliarism and Beyond,” Church history 92 (2023): 179–80. It is worth noting that for the second, general concession the designation concessio generalis appears in the sources, see “Aegidii Carlerii liber de legationibus”, 589: “Legati sacri concilii credebant, quod statim domini de Boemia mitterent ad sacrum concilium, in quo fieret concessio generalis sacerdotibus etc. pro omnibus petentibus ex decovione.” On the contrary, the first concession was called by Thomas Ebendorfer in his treatise indultum personale, see Vienna, Austrian National Library, MS 4704, f. 292v: “Ipsi pacta violant in hoc, quod indultum personale nituntur facere conmune et generale contra pactorum verba et intencionem sacri Basiliensis concilii,” for according to him, it applied only to persons living and receiving under both kinds at the time of the conclusion of the Compactata in 1436. Such an interpretation was not unique on the Catholic side, but was rejected by the Hussites. On this, e.g. Adam Pálka, “The Compactata of Basel in Enea Silvio Piccolomini’s Letters, Speeches and Official Documents,” Studia Mediaevalia Bohemica 11 (2019): 191–205. 15 See the report of Juan Palomar on the Prague negotiations, delivered in Basel on February 15, 1434, “Ioannis de Segovia Historia gestorum,” 595, and the document dated January 28, 1434 in Cheb, Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkrieges, vol. 2, Von den Jahren 1429–1436, ed. František Palacký (Prague, 1873), no. 900, 401–2. 16 See the letter of Jan Rokycana to the rural priesthood about the negotiations with the legates and the freedom of the chalice, dated January 13, 1434, Urkundliche Beiträge, vol. 2, no. 899, 399–401. 17 Unfortunately, we have only sketchy information about the exact wording of the Hussite demands from January and February 1434, which Martin Lupáč presented on behalf of the Hussites in Prague and Basel, from the conciliar sources. For January 3, 1434 see “Aegidii Carlerii liber de legationibus”, 470: “Et requisiverunt per Martinum, quod in scriptis poneretur, quod si probarent illam comunionem secundum iudicem in Egra cadere sub precepto; item eciam quod haberent in scriptis, quod comunionem parvulorum possent consequi in concilio, quod maxime cordi habebant; item similiter libertatem pro toto regno et marchionatu”; for February 1434, see “Ioannis de Segovia Historia gestorum”, 597: “Ultimate ingeste fuissent difficultates quatuor: de adherentibus, de parvulis, et quia obmissa verba
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyNjA1