"O Cursed Judas": Formal Heresy Accusations Against Jan Hus

Abstract

Heresy accusations against Jan Hus have two sources. First, they originated among the priests of Prague who felt threatened by his strident preaching of reform and his withering criticism of their failure to fulfill the obligations of office. Second, with Hus's ordinary, Archbishop Zbyněk, who regarded Hus as too popular, too radical, and increasingly disobedient to the will and authority of the archiepiscopal see. Zbyněk felt affronted. From these sources, complaints against Hus escalated to articles of grievance, which graduated to accusations of heresy eventually yielding formal charges. Heresy was considered a 'crimen mere ecclesiasticum'; meaning an offense reserved for judgment by the Church. The political and personal motivation producing these accusations aimed to discredit Hus, rein him in, and force submission to his superiors. If this tactic failed, his enemies sought to destroy him. The goal appears to eliminate his ability to create disruption in the prevailing religious practices and structures in medieval Bohemia. Between 1408 and 1415 there were at least 13 cycles of accusations lodged against Jan Hus. These did not include four separate writs of excommunication, a number of informal denunciations, or academic polemical writings. In the Hus case, politics refers either to a commitment to an article of faith or to corruption. In the former, it is the Nicene doctrine of "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church," which members are expected, indeed compelled, to recognize and obey the magisterium. In the latter, malice and power-mongering amount to corruption, which is quite different from the insistence on recognizing ecclesiastical authority. I shall refer to the former hereafter as the Nicene doctrine of the church and to the latter as corruption.