Preaching in 14th-Century Bohemia

263 Pages·2011·1.25 MB·English

Preaching in Fourteenth-century Bohemia

The life and ideas of Milicius de Chremsir (+1374)
and his significance in the historiography of Bohemia

Peter C.A. Morée

1
Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 3

Introduction 4

I. An Island of Stability in a Turbulent Europe:
Bohemia in the Third Quarter of the Fourteenth Century 8

II. Milicius’ Life and Biographies 21

III. The Place and Significance of Medieval Preaching and Sermon Collections 69

IV. The Problem: Church and Society on the Brink of Collapse 110

V. The Answer: The Word of the Preacher and the Example of the Saints 153

VI. Milicius in the Mirror of Historiography in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries 197

Conclusions 247

Bibliography 252

2
Acknowledgments

This study began to take its shape in 1986-87, when I had the opportunity to study at the
Prague Comenius Theological Evangelical Faculty for a year. My experiences from this stay
in the milieu of the Evangelical Church of the Czech Brethren in then Communist
Czechoslovakia laid the foundation for my involvement with many contacts on the church
level in this country and the Netherlands. The lectures of Amedeo Molnár awakened my
interest in the history of fourteenth-century Bohemia and especially in the preacher Milicius
de Chremsir. When in 1993 the Dean of the Faculty Jakub Trojan offered me the possibility to
do research in Prague, I gratefully started work on this project. The organizational framework
of my study was established as a result of vivid co-operation between the Theological
Faculties of Prague and Amsterdam. A stipend from the Dutch Reformed Church enabled the
study to take place, for which I express many thanks.
This study is based on the support of many people both in the Czech Republic and the
Netherlands. I wish to thank Peter Raedts, who guided me on my journey of scholarly work
over the last decade. His support and our many discussions on the extensive topics of history,
church and society were a great encouragement to me. I am grateful to Zdeněk Uhlíř of the
Department of Old Manuscripts of the National Library in Prague for his help with the
medieval manuscripts and his remarks on my texts. I thank Burcht Pranger from the
Theological Faculty in Amsterdam for being the link on church history between Prague and
Amsterdam. The Department of Church History in Prague in the person of Noemi Rejchrtová
has been very benevolent in giving me the space to do this research. I owe special thanks to
Deborah Michaels, who in an odd twist of events was present at the start of my research and at
the end corrected the English text and proof read the final draft. I am grateful to Jan ter Laak,
who, not being an expert in the field, always commented on my texts from a different point of
view.
I owe many thanks to those who made me feel at home in Prague. The community of Prague
Spořilov provided me with a home where I could work productively. I am grateful to friends
and family, who followed my efforts with interest and care. Last but not least, I thank
Angelique for her support, patience and love, which brought me nearer to the source of life.

Prague, September 1998
Peter C.A. Morée
3
Introduction

Research on late medieval Bohemia and developments in the church and spirituality at that
time is generally dominated by Johannes Hus, the Hussite movement and the Bohemian
Reformation. This is not surprising when we take into account the range and influence the
movement had inside and outside Bohemia during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The
Hussites became an impressive power in Central Europe, which for the first time in medieval
history seriously threatened the unity of the church and the authority of the hierarchy, thus
forcing the church to negotiate compromises and solutions. The movement has the effect of a
magnet in and on historiographical research, radiating a field of influence that has colored
interpretation of preceding and succeeding periods and events. This is not only the case in
Czech scholarship, where moreover the long years of Communist rule stimulated a focus
primarily on Hussitism, not wanting to draw attention to other periods in the history of the
church and spirituality. Also Anglophone and German research concerning late medieval
Bohemia concentrates mainly on Hus and his followers, frequently viewing them as the
forerunners of the Lutheran and Calvinist Reformation.
Milicius de Chremsir we encounter predominantly as one of the so-called pre-Hussites or even
as the „Father of the Bohemian (Czech) Reformation.“ In nationalist Czech historiography he
is practically depicted with an aureole for being the first person to embody the true Czech
spirit. He is understood to be the one who prepared the way for the work of Johannes Hus by
founding the community „Jerusalem,“ of which „Bethlehem,“ the chapel where Hus’ disciples
gathered, was simply a continuation. From this perspective, Milicius was the first Czech to
make an independent appearance in European history after the Middle Ages.
One might suppose that titles such as „the Father of the Bohemian (Czech) Reformation“ were
given to Milicius on the basis of large editions of his writings or at least on solid research of
them. Unfortunately this is not the case. From Milicius we have two large postils with 271
sermons for the whole liturgical year, a letter to Pope Urban V, a sermon on the Last
Judgment, a treatise about Antichrist and some liturgical prayers. Furthermore, we have two
biographies, one hagiographic with substantial detail on his activities and the other depicting
him as Elijah revealing the Antichrist and other enemies of truth. Only a handful of writings
has been edited (the letter to the pope, the sermon on the Last Judgment, the Treatise on
Antichrist and three sermons to the Prague Synod), together with the two biographies.
Research has been based on those editions and on the liturgical prayers. No systematic
4
attention has been paid to the vast bulk of Milicius’ work, which, moreover, is structurally
connected to his concept of practical evangelical life. Both postils Abortivus and Gratiae Dei,
though they are the fruit of Milicius’ efforts in his community, have been overlooked in the
discussion on the significance of the preacher. Impressive adjectives used in connection to
Milicius are employed based on an analysis of a very tiny portion of his writings and on the
two biographies which clearly have church political intentions.
This study is a reaction to the disproportion between Milicius’ alleged significance and the
small number of analyzed sources. Its main question is whether sermons from both postils do
confirm the image of Milicius as a preacher inspired by apocalyptic visions, as a pre-Hussite,
as the Father of the Bohemian (Czech) Reformation and as a person bearing the other qualities
assigned to him. This study is not so much interested in comparing Milicius to his
contemporaries, whose writings have not been edited systematically either. Its first aim is to
add new material and a critical analysis of the current views of Milicius to the existing
research in an effort to give a more complete idea about the preacher.
The main sources for this study are the two postils Abortivus and Gratiae Dei, which Milicius
compiled for his disciples. On the basis of a general survey of all the sermons, twenty-seven
of them have been selected for a closer analysis and they form the foundation of this research.
In the first place sermons with an eschatological scope were chosen to get a more complete
impression of Milicius’ ideas about the end of time, the Last Judgment and eventually about
Antichrist. The second group contains sermons that present ideas about issues of church and
society. Here we meet with questions on the hierarchy of the church, poverty and the status of
secular power. Thirdly, the selection concentrates on some sermons that focus specific
attention on the role and place of the preacher in the church and society. The last group
contains sermons on the Bohemian saints. These sermons refer directly and exclusively to the
church in Bohemia and might therefore reflect more closely the contemporary circumstances
Milicius lived in.
The evidence that emerges from the selected sermons is divided in two parts with several
thematic groups which do partly overlap. The first part presents an analysis of Milicius’ idea
of the very alarming state of church and society. Here we speak about the church and the
hierarchy, the clergy, the place of secular power and eschatological awareness. In the second
part brings Milicius’ answers to the crisis, thematically divided in the work of the preacher
and evangelical life as lived by individual saints. This thematic analysis forms the heart of this
book and is presented in the fourth and fifth chapter.
5
We lead up to this by briefly looking at the circumstances in fourteenth-century Bohemia
during the reign of Charles IV. He was a ruler who had impressive ideas and did his utmost to
reestablish stability in the Holy Roman Empire. His enormous efforts, however, could not
eliminate social unrest. Chapter II presents a survey of the two biographies on Milicius. Both
biographies have their own agenda, depicting Milicius either as an apocalyptic preacher or as
an austere saint. In the first biography the author Matthias de Janow employed Milicius in
defending himself against accusations from church authorities. In the second, Bohuslaus
Balbinus, the editor of the extensive Vita, was trying to purge Bohemian history of suspicion
of heresy. This chapter also contains a brief overview of Milicius’ life related to other sources.
In the third chapter we turn to Milicius’ preaching activities, placing them within the
framework of the extensive European preaching movement from the twelfth century onwards.
The preaching movement became an important weapon in this new era for further
Christianizing the structures of society. This chapter also presents a dating of Milicius’ two
postils.
The chapters IV and V thematically introduces several topics from Milicius’ sermons in the
postils and creates the image of a preacher who was deeply rooted in the church of his day.
Finally, chapter VI presents a survey of research on Milicius mainly from the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. As it turns out, in all ages Milicius became a hostage of the times with
their political and social needs. Nationalist historiography wanted him to be the forerunner of
Hussitism, the „incarnation of the true Czech spirit,“ thereby proving that the Czech nation
has its own, independent roots. For the opposing side he was — precisely for the same reason
— a heretic and aberrant soul. In the course of the centuries, historiography lost some of its
ideological features which enabled a more detailed picture of Milicius to emerge.
Nevertheless, the need to appropriate him by means of historiography is still present.
A final remark has to be made about the spelling of the names. The basis of this problem is
very much connected to nationalistically biased historiography, which still has its influence
today. Many proper names and geographical names from the Bohemian context had both a
Czech and German spelling in the past. Prague was both Praha and Prag. Due to the course of
recent history we generally use only Czech names today and the use of German names is still
felt to be improper in the Czech Republic. In an attempt to free research from such hidden but
influential inclinations, this study uses predominantly the English and Latin spelling of names.
In cases where persons are well-known figures in European history like kings, popes,
emperors etc., their names are written according to the English spelling. The same method is
6
adopted for geographical names. The approach is different with names not generally known
outside the Czech context, like Milíč z Kroměříže. In such cases names are written according
to the Latin spelling, i.e. Milicius de Chremsir. The word „Bohemian“ is used here as a
reference to the territory of what is today the Czech Republic, whereas „Czech“ refers to the
Czech nation. Quotations of the Bible in English are taken from the Revised Standard
Version.
7
I

AN ISLAND OF STABILITY IN A TURBULENT EUROPE:
Bohemia in the Third Quarter of the Fourteenth Century

It has been said in many ways and by many voices that fourteenth-century Europe was a place
of glaring contradictions, great social turbulence and deep uncertainty.1 This century became
known as the Age of the Black Death, which at its climax, in the middle of the century, wiped
out between a fifth and a third of Europe’s population.2 Due to climate changes and limited
resources, hunger and starvation again became a reality for many after a period of stability and
growth in economic and material matters. Rome — the ancient heart of Christianity and
Western civilization — witnessed tyranny, anarchy and several uprisings and was abandoned
by the pope for most of the century. Its splendor and glory seemed to vanish as many buildings
and palaces were devastated. Even the emperor generally avoided facing the dangerous and
hostile situation in Rome, the city which still symbolized the unity of Latin Christendom. Italy
was disintegrating into minor states each controlled by its own nobility, who were unwilling
to co-operate with the unifying structures of church and empire. France and England were
draining one another’s powers in an ongoing war which caused many casualties. The papacy
established its seat in Avignon where it became a victim of French policy. For several years,
there was an open conflict between the papacy and Lewis IV who was elected emperor in
1314 because the church refused to recognize his rights and even proclaimed him to be a
heretic. This situation ended in 1346 when a new emperor was chosen — Charles IV of
Luxemburg, the future king of Bohemia. After the pope had finally moved back to Rome in
1377, the church became seriously divided over the elections of two popes in 1378. The unity
of the church, however, was threatened even earlier by radical Franciscans who partly
supported Lewis IV. Theologians such as Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham
profoundly doubted the authority of the pope and of the church hierarchy as such. Their
criticism found support not only among isolated groups on the peripheries of the continent,

1For a general survey of this period see: Denis Hay (ed.), Europe in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,
London/New York, 2nd edition, 1989; Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform 1250-1550, An Intellectual and
Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe, London 1980; R.N. Swanson, Religion and
Devotion in Europe c.1215-c.1515, Cambridge 1996.
8
but it initiated and stimulated one of the most important debates of the Middle Ages about the
nature of the church and its right to own property. The lay movement placed increasing
pressure on the church hierarchy to allow greater autonomy in spiritual matters. Mystics like
Eckhardt and Brigitte of Sweden criticized the church for its lack of faith and leadership. The
end of the century was marked by a number of events including the Great Schism that brought
with it considerable confusion that manifested itself, for example, in the serious heresy of
Wyclif’s followers in England, similar movements in Bohemia and the deposition of
Wenceslaus IV as emperor. The fourteenth century seems to have lacked a unifying force that
embodied and communicated the same sense of political harmony that had existed during the
High Middle Ages. The universe of scholastic theology and philosophy of that earlier period
was also missing in this new age. None of the powers that constituted medieval society seems
to have been able to convince the public of its leadership abilities and find new ways of
coping with the changing tides. The fourteenth century was a period of a slow but inevitable
disintegration of the social order that had been established in the twelfth century.
One part of Europe, however, is in some respects an anomaly among these developments. The
kingdom of Bohemia experienced this turbulent century as its most peaceful time in medieval
history. This peace was accompanied by substantial economic and cultural growth. The Black
Death epidemic of 1348 hardly inflicted the country nor did it leave any traces of extreme
suffering. The kingdom became a fully respected member of the community of the Holy
Roman Empire and a pillar of political stability on the European continent. Its capital Prague
became the residence of the emperor for almost thirty years resulting in a boom of
construction, not only in the city but all over the country. Today, many still view this period as
the climax and zenith of Czech history, the equal of which has not been seen since. By the end
of the century, however, social unrest and political uncertainty had spread over the country
and was a prelude to the revolutionary years of the Hussite movement.3

Expectations at the beginning of the fourteenth century in Bohemia were not as optimistic as
they became by the middle of the century. In 1306, the last king of the house of the

2For more on the Black Death see Klaus Bergdolt, Der Schwarze Tod in Europa, Die Große Pest und das Ende
des Mittelalters, München 1994.
3For general surveys of the fourteenth century in Bohemia see: K. Bosl, Handbuch der Geschichte der
Böhmischen Länder, Band I, Die böhmischen Länder von der archaischen Zeit bis zum Ausgang der
Hussitischen Revolution, Stuttgart 1967; Z. Fiala, Předhusitské Čechy (1310-1419) [Pre-Hussite Bohemia (1310-
1419)], Praha 1978. For the Hussite Movement and its roots see: František Šmahel, Husitská revoluce, I-IV,
9
Przemyslids, Wenceslaus III, was killed without leaving a successor to the Prague throne. De
facto the Przemyslids, who had ruled the country from the tenth century, had died out. This
left behind a vacuum of power since there was no natural heir, causing significant confusion
and warfare among every possible coalition of nobility and their rivals and enemies. This
ceased in 1310 when John of Luxemburg4 was chosen king of Bohemia, the result of his
marriage to the last female member of the Przemyslid household, Elisabeth. John was
nicknamed „the foreigner king“ because he spent the majority of his time traveling abroad.
Thus, he was unable to engage in matters of domestic politics which the Bohemian nobility
saw as a great advantage. He had the reputation of being a passionate fighter and took part in
most European battles of his day. This, together with his many visits to tournaments, may
have been the reason why he was regularly absent from Bohemia. This enabled the Bohemian
nobility to solve its own problems without destabilizing the country; in other words, there was
a king but he seldom interfered with the affairs of the nobility since he did not have the
opportunity to do so. The one time John tried to make himself manifest on the domestic scene,
all the noble families united in a coalition against him.
John was the son of Henry VII of Luxemburg who was elected Roman king in 1308 and
crowned emperor in Rome in 1312. It is necessary to take into account the ambitions of the
House of the Luxemburgs in order to understand the reasons for the connection between his
family and Bohemia. By the end of the thirteenth century the center of political power in
Europe had been moved to France. One of the clear signs of this balance of power was the
„Avignonese exile“ of the papal court, which lasted from 1306 till 1377. The rise of the
Luxemburg household on the European scene is also evidence of this. Before becoming
emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Henry VII had to compete with Albrecht of Hapsburg, a
descendant of a household that held old claims to the emperor’s throne. The political situation
in Europe was more in favor of Henry since France supported him. France, not being a part of
the empire, could not nominate a candidate for the emperorship. Both Henry and his son John
had very good relations to the king of France. This is seen by the fact that John’s son
Wenceslaus, the future emperor Charles IV, was educated at the French court. John finally
died in the Battle of Crécy in 1346, while fighting on the side of the French against the

Praha 1995-96. A terse survey of the church in this period can be found in: Anna Petitova-Bénoliel, L’Eglise a
Prague sous la dynastie des Luxembourg (1310-1419), Hilversum 1996.
4For John of Luxemburg see Jiří Spěváček, Jan Lucemburský a jeho doba 1296-1346 [John of Luxemburg and
His Times 1296-1346], Praha 1994, or an older work by the same author entitled Král diplomat, Jan
Lucemburský 1296-1346 [King Diplomat...], Praha 1982.
10