The Conflict over Confession and Power at the University of Prague in the 1450s – 60s 173 I The second step was taken in the same year, already under the deanship of Václav Křižanovský,28 originally apparently an Utraquist, and perhaps a protégé of Jan Rokycana.29 To “swear” remained compulsory for bachelors, and the oath according to the faculty statutes was first ordered for masters. Yet it turned out that Křižanovský, as dean, had corrected the word promittet in the statutes to iurat in the article concerning masters, without consulting the faculty.30 This deception was exposed at the assembly of the masters at the end of June 1458, when it was decided that the magistri would only take vows (promittere), as was originally the custom according to the memory of the older masters.31 The Utraquist position was thus partially implemented. The struggle for influence at the university between interest groups also manifested itself on other levels, escalating confessionally with a stronger effect on the church’s sphere. Václav Křižanovský (28 years old) himself avoided responsibility for his interference with the statute book by going on a study trip to Italy in 1456. When he returned to Prague after three years, the power and confessional conditions had already shifted slightly, and Master Václav now faced unfavorable circumstances. The confessional crystallization of the university began at the assembly of masters at the end of June 1458 when, in addition to the matters already mentioned, the advocacy of the lay chalice was also discussed. It was resolved that the members of the university should adhere to the university decree which recommended the administration of the chalice to the laity—this was evidently the decision of March 10, 1417.32 This was reflected in the rules for the admission of masters to the faculty council and to the colleges, and finally in the awarding of degrees—candidates had to confirm that they accepted the resolution.33 However, proof of the swearing of the oath comes only from 1462. 28 Ibid., 56. 29 On Křižanovský, see Holá and Holý, Profesoři pražské utrakvistické univerzity, 366–67 (by Ivan Hlaváček). On his confession and conversion, see Tomáš Kalina, “Václav Křižanovský,” Český časopis historický 5 (1899): 336–38. 30 According to Šmahel, „Die ältesten Statuten“, XCVIII – XCIX, Křižanovský received permission for this modification of the statutes from the rector, Stanislav of Velvary. 31 Cf. “Liber decanorum”, vol. 2, 64–65, and Statuta et acta rectorum universitatis Carolinae Pragensis 1360–1614, eds. František Šmahel and Gabriel Silagi, Documenta Historica Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis, 1 (Prague, 2018), 244– 45. For more on the sources, see Zilynská, “Die Beendigung der Konfessionalisierung,” 69. 32 František Šmahel, Die hussitische Revolution, vol. 2, trans. Thomas Krzenck, MGH Schriften, 43 (Hannover, 2002), 963. There are differing views on the identification of the referenced document: Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. 9, 189–90, followed by Kalina, “Václav Křižanovský“, 342 and Urbánek, Věk poděbradský, vol. 4, 236, identify the reference as a university resolution of August 1, 1420, when all the masters pledged themselves to defend the four Articles of Prague. On the contrary, Tomek, Dějepis města Prahy, vol. 4, 93, linked the decree to the declaration of 1417, as did also Miroslav Boháček, “Pražská universitní statuta a jejich boloňský vzor,” Studie o rukopisech 8 (1969): 11–64, and Šmahel, „Die ältesten Statuten,” CII, note 97. 33 “Liber decanorum” uses the following terms in the record of June 27, 1458: “Facta convocatione per rectorem universitatis [...] ad tractandum et concludendum de modo praescriptionis novi statuti [...] et ad audiendum, si qui reperientur contradictores rationales literae universitatis nostrae dudum editae pro communione utriusque speciei sub poena non contradicendi [...] conclusum est, ut membra universitatis teneantur ad protectionem praetactae literae universitatis, recomendantis communionem utriusque speciei ad vulgus, ad quod faciendum monere nos debet non solum sigillum nostrae universitatis, sed principaliter et maxime lex divina, et praxis ecclesiae primitivae.” See ibid., vol. 1, 58–60; and vol. 2, 64–65.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyNjA1