The Oldest Religious Privilege of Sigismund of Luxembourg for the Hussites 103 I The change was brought about by a resolution of the Hussite diet dated to November 8, 1434. The demand that Utraquism should be the only eucharistic practice in Bohemia and Moravia remained at the forefront, arguing that the difference of rites was the mother of strife and that people sharing one language should also have one rite. The Hussites, however, now showed their willingness not to insist on this in exchange for the fulfilment of eight other partial requirements. First, the assembly demanded a permanent concession of the chalice to living persons and their descendants, while the communion in one kind would be suffered only in places where it was customary. In practice, this meant that Catholics would not be allowed to settle in Hussite towns. Second, no one was to be vilified for upholding the Prague Articles. Anyone who would try to lead the Hussites away from them was to be punished. Third, the Church was to confirm an archbishop and two auxiliary bishops elected by the (Hussite) clergy and people. Fourth, the said bishops, together with the people, would promise to obey the Church only in accordance with the law of God. Fifth, the Hussites would reserve to themselves the authority to examine the meaning of the three (non-eucharistic) Articles of Prague, regardless of what is contained in the Compactata. Sixth, clerical and lay persons would be judged only by the archbishop and his officials within the diocese and the kingdom. Seventh, ecclesiastical benefices would be granted only to the inhabitants of the kingdom. Eighth, infant communion under both kinds would be legitimate pending deliberations on it, along with the necessity of the chalice, at the council.18 The representatives of the Church, however, adamantly refused these demands. According to a special bull in February 1434, the council had already decided not to deliberate on any changes or additions to the Compactata before they had entered into force and been confirmed. The Fathers wanted first to make sure that the Hussites would indeed unite sincerely with the Church on this basis.19 That is why, when a new round of negotiations between the legates, the representatives of the Hussite Estates, and the emperor began in Brno on July 2, 1435, the legates did not budge an inch in their official response to the November demands and basically presented the position of the council bull of February 1434.20 The Hussites were disillusioned by this. Their spokesman, Jan Rokycana, argued on July 6 that the legates were trying to create a mixture (mixtura) of a double rite among them. He added that the Bohemian King Wenceslas IV thought he could establish a similar mix. Therefore, he reserved one church for the rite sub una and the other for sub utraque, but he was unable to keep the people quiet.21 utilis et salutaris; et quia admittebantur ad ostendendum in concilio, utrum esset de precepto; et quod petebant per concilium effectualiter induci omnes regnicolas Bohemos ad ritum communionis sub utraque specie.” We are better informed about the wording of the demands during the negotiations in Regensburg, see especially the text of August 23, 1434, in “Aegidii Carlerii Liber de legationibus”, no. 197, 513, and Thomas Ebendorfer, Diarium sive Tractatus cum Boemis (1433–1436), ed. Harald Zimmermann, MGH Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, NS, 25 (Hannover, 2010), 127–28. 18 “Aegidii Carlerii Liber de legationibus,” no. 210, 634–35; Thomas Ebendorfer, Diarium, 147–48; Urkundliche Beiträge, vol. 2, no. 931, 435–36. 19 The bull Auditis et intellectis is dated in the sources to either February 25 or 26, 1434. Among the numerous editions, see, e. g., “Ioannis de Segovia Historia gestorum,” no. 55, 601–2. 20 Cf. “Aegidii Carlerii Liber de legationibus,” no. 214, 642–43, and Thomas Ebendorfer, Diarium, 165–67. 21 “Aegidii Carlerii Liber de legationibus,” 588. Rokycana was referring to the events in Prague in 1415–19, and especially at the beginning of 1419, cf. Šmahel, Die hussitische Revolution, vol. 2, 991–92.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyNjA1