Like their predecessors, early fifteenth-century university scholars continued to interpret Aristotle, comment on scripture and the Sentences of Peter Lombard, and produce countless quaestiones on a range of topics. However, as the literary historian Daniel Hobbins has compellingly shown, they also entered the public sphere with unprecedented intensity, addressing urgent social issues through concise treatises. Hobbins traces the rise of the medieval “public intellectual” in the prolific writings of Jean Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris.Footnote 1 Yet many other schoolmen also took up the pen to engage in public debate.
A glance at Hobbins’s summary table reveals the breadth of figures and subjects they explored.Footnote 2 His representative, though not exhaustive, overview highlights several professors of theology at the University of Vienna. The founding generation of the late fourteenth century includes Henry of Langenstein and Henry Totting of Oyta. The next generation, active in Vienna during the first third of the fifteenth century, is represented by Peter of Pulkau, Francis of Retz, and Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl.Footnote 3 Hobbins’s chart clearly illustrates that this second generation of Viennese theologians shared a strong focus on anti-Hussite polemics. Extensive research over the past two decades has revealed that the University of Vienna’s resistance to Wycliffism and Hussitism was a complex phenomenon.Footnote 4 Before outlining the aims of this study, it will be useful to provide an overview of this resistance movement.
The ideological dispute at the University of Prague over the work and reputation of the Oxford scholar John Wycliffe arose between the Czech minority of masters and the German majority. Tensions escalated in January 1409 when the Wycliffites, led by the Prague preacher Jan Hus, persuaded the Bohemian King Wenceslas IV to grant the Czech university nation three votes, while allocating only one vote to the other three corporations in university board decisions. Several hundred masters and students, unwilling to accept this radical change, left Prague in protest.Footnote 5
By initiating the king’s decree, known as the Decree of Kutná Hora, the Prague Wycliffites made numerous enemies both domestically and abroad. However, their real challenges only began when various levels of Church authorities began prosecution processes against Jan Hus, Jerome of Prague, and even (the deceased) John Wycliffe himself in Prague, Vienna, Bologna, and Rome. The culmination of these events occurred at the Council of Constance, where the verdicts sparked an anti-heretical campaign that the council pursued in both Constance and Bohemia until its dissolution in the spring of 1418.Footnote 6
Despite these efforts, the council’s attempts at religious pacification in Bohemia ultimately failed due to King Wenceslas’s passivity and King Sigismund’s reluctance to intervene against Wenceslas, his half brother. Meanwhile, intellectual dissent in Prague evolved into a popular movement that spread across all levels of Czech society. Nonconformists embraced the memory of the martyrs Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague (who were executed at the Council of Constance), adopted the Hussite practice of communion in both kinds (which the council also condemned), and many pushed the reformist agenda toward increasingly radical consequences.Footnote 7
The Viennese scholars followed the disputes over Wycliffe in Prague with great attention.Footnote 8 They took action whenever the opportunity arose. In Vienna and especially in Constance, they played active roles in court proceedings as witnesses, experts, or judges.Footnote 9 Their influence grew even further after the Council of Constance was dissolved, and the responsibility for combating the widespread heresy fell to the Roman King Sigismund, as the defender of the Church. Lacking a university of his own in Hungary, the king turned to the Viennese scholars in July 1418 for assistance in his struggle against the Wycliffites and Hussites, and they responded promptly to his call. The king’s advisor and four-time rector of the University of Vienna, the theologian Lambert of Geldern, likely served as the mediator in this process.Footnote 10
After the death of King Wenceslas in August 1419, Sigismund was determined to claim the Bohemian throne and cleanse the ancestral lands of their heretical reputation. To suppress religious dissent, he began preparation of a military campaign, which Pope Martin V elevated to a crusade in the spring of 1420. The Hussite political leadership rebelled, refused to recognize Sigismund as king, and launched an armed uprising.Footnote 11 They conditioned proposals of peace with the king and the Church on the acceptance of the Four Articles of Prague, which demanded freedom of preaching, lay communion in both kinds, the elimination of the clergy’s secular authority, and the punishment of mortal sins across all social classes.Footnote 12
Between 1420 and 1431, during the wars against the Hussites, Sigismund relied on his son-in-law and successor, Duke Albrecht V of Austria, known for his deep piety and unwavering loyalty to the Roman Church.Footnote 13 In 1423, when the duke became the margrave of Moravia—a territory within the Czech lands (Czech Crown)—he directly involved himself in both military conflicts and ideological disputes.Footnote 14 This further elevated the influence of Viennese scholars as key advisors in religious polemics. Theologians in Albrecht’s service not only wrote learned opinionsFootnote 15 but also played an active role in promoting the crusades as preachers. Among the most notable were Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl and Peter Reicher of Pirchenwart.Footnote 16
Despite the papal curia’s efforts, the crusading policy proved ineffective. By the mid-1420s, Hussite armies had begun expanding into neighboring regions, including the Duchy of Austria. In response, both political and intellectual elites across Europe increasingly considered an alternative approach: reconciling the Hussites with the Roman Church through the General Council of Basel. King Sigismund first discussed this possibility with the Hussites in the spring of 1429 at an international congress in Bratislava (Pressburg, Pozsony), then part of Hungary, which was also attended by delegations from the Universities of Paris and Vienna.Footnote 17
The prospect of a peaceful reconciliation between the Hussites and the Roman Church appeared increasingly feasible. After recognizing the futility of the crusader efforts at Domažlice in 1431, Cardinal Giuliano Cesarini, the papal legate, traveled to Basel. There, he and his associates extended an invitation to the Hussites to attend the council. Despite Pope Eugene IV’s condemnation of negotiations with declared heretics, and his subsequent dissolution of the Council of Basel in favor of a new council in Bologna, Cesarini remained resolute in his invitation.Footnote 18
After fruitless disputes over the Four Prague Articles in Basel, the legate Cesarini devised a plan to bring the Hussites back to the Church through a covenant known as the Compactata. The essence of this agreement was to grant Hussites the lay chalice as a special privilege, provided they made peace, accepted the conciliar interpretation of the non-eucharistic articles of Prague, and pledged obedience to the Roman Church. The genesis of this pioneering solution was facilitated by two great fifteenth-century philosophers, Nicholas of Cusa and Heymeric de Campo. After difficult negotiations, the council and the Bohemians both ratified the agreement in July 1436 in Jihlava, in the presence of Emperor Sigismund.Footnote 19
The Viennese masters played a role in the negotiations with the Bohemians over religious and political reconciliation, but they adopted a clear and distinct position. While they respected the University of Paris, sent representatives to the council, and aligned with Basel conciliarism, they were firmly opposed to the Hussites’ reintegration into the Church through concessions and compromises. In February 1433, when rumors began circulating in Basel that the council might grant the Hussites the lay chalice in exchange for their acceptance of the remaining points of contention, Thomas Ebendorfer of Haselbach, the Viennese representative and doctor of theology, promptly alerted his emissaries and requested their written opinion. In response, they sent a detailed list of reasons why the council should reject such a concession. Among their concerns, the Viennese masters noted the potential of undermining of the decrees of the Council of Constance, and of dishonoring of the war’s victims. Ebendorfer also took part in multiple Basel legations to Bohemia, and his diary reveals his persistent distrust and suspicion of the Hussite diplomats’ subtlety. Therefore, when the Basel legates visited Vienna in the spring of 1435, the university once again urged the council to deny the Bohemians the chalice.Footnote 20
Yet the Viennese masters and their allies in Basel, including the Mainz inquisitor Henry Kalteisen, were not satisfied with simply rejecting Cesarini’s unprecedented policy. Instead, they proposed an alternative to the Basel Fathers. Aligned with the long-standing efforts of the university and Duke Albrecht, they urged the council to implement a thorough reform of the Church, convinced that such a course would appease God and secure divine favor, ensuring victory over the Hussite heresy without resorting to disgraceful or contentious compromises.Footnote 21
International scholarship on Basel conciliarism has largely overlooked the Viennese conservative alternative of “reform and combat” to Cesarini’s experiment with the Compactata. Yet, the Viennese opposition to the conciliar mainstream stands as a striking example of the dedication of late medieval public intellectuals. Since this was a clash of ideological concepts, both sides favored concise apologias, relying on cogent arguments to defend their positions. However, the need for broader persuasion opened the door to less conventional literary genres with greater rhetorical impact. A notable example is the recently published, fictional text Dialogue of a Knight and a Monk on the Compactata from early 1436. Here, John Palomar, a close associate of Cesarini, used a simple literary form to persuade Albrecht of Habsburg’s subjects that the Compactata, with its concession of the chalice, represented a victory for the Church rather than a success for the Bohemians.Footnote 22
In this article, I focus on a source that also employs literary fiction but, in this case, represents the opposing perspective. It is an open letter in which “an assembly of barons and nobles in the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Duchy of Austria” urges King Sigismund to rise against the Hussites and exterminate them following the death of his half brother, Wenceslas.
This previously unknown exhortation is dated to 1419 in the only known manuscript. However, as I will explain below, such a dating is unlikely. Drawing on a literary and political contextualization of its contents, I argue that the letter reflects the skepticism of the Viennese doctors toward King Sigismund’s conciliatory policy in the summer of 1429. By that time, the monarch had initiated negotiations for a general truce with the Hussites in preparation for his planned coronation journey to Italy. Given that the text’s author employed literary fiction and symbolic communication to influence the king in a politically sensitive moment, I interpret the exhortation not only as a means of political agitation but also as an instance of experimental communication by public intellectuals amid the late medieval ecclesiastical crisis.
Doubts Regarding the Exhortation
Let us begin by examining the structure of the letter and its argumentation.Footnote 23 Formally, there is nothing unusual about it. Following the conventions of contemporary letter-writing (ars dictaminis), the exhortation opens with the identification of the addressee (inscriptio) and a salutation. It is addressed to Sigismund of Luxembourg, King of the Romans and Hungary, with his titles presented in the traditional form.Footnote 24 What is less conventional, however, is the identity of the sender, described as “an assembly of barons and nobles settled anywhere in the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Duchy of Austria.”
Folio 198v of Clm 17543 (Munich, Bavarian State Library), containing the exhortation.
Following the opening section is an arenga, which metaphorically justifies the letter. The author avoids long-winded rhetoric and quickly gets to the point, asserting that the thorns of heresy must be eradicated before they strangle the good fruit.
The majority of the letter is devoted to a narrative detailing the dramatic circumstances that led the author to take up the pen. The writer informs Sigismund that, following the tragic and painful death of his brother Wenceslas, the Roman and Bohemian king, the heretical mass of Hussites (heretica Hussitarum congeries) had become so powerful that the dignity of the city of Prague had been trampled upon and betrayed. Anyone who professes the true faith in this imperial city (in hac imperiali civitate) and its surroundings can hardly be certain of their safety. In what was once a happy and prosperous land, the wailings and lamentations of the poor and faithful of Christ now echo, so much so that women’s hearts may justly grieve over them with tears in their eyes. In these places, there is the sound of dismay and pain, the sound of lamentation and mourning, the sound of misery and woe, as the cursed schism and heretical iniquity swell. The once-pleasing city, mistress of a mighty people (civitas delectabilis et domina gentium robustorum), is now consumed by fire; temples and churches are plundered, and the people are slaughtered. This destruction is carried out by those who had previously expelled multitudes of venerable masters and students, and who have more recently driven the religious, and others professing the Catholic faith, from their homes.
The author clearly identifies the Prague reform preacher Jan Hus as the originator and leader of this wickedness (malicie fuit auctor atque rector Iohannes Hus). He pointedly asks who first invented such evil and answers that it was the cursed Hus, who, having neglected his own salvation, proved worse than many others and the worst for himself. Because of such hardened heretics, the faithful of Christ endure great suffering. Heretics seek war in times of peace and yearn for peace in times of war. The author once again laments the destruction of Bohemia and its “most charming and fertile land,” which not only produced earthly fruits but also yielded a wealth of knowledge. At the close of the narration, he repeats his sorrow over the ruin of the University of Prague, which in its prime had richly nourished its homeland with the diverse fruits of all forms of learning.
After the narrative section, the appeal takes center stage as the heart of the text. The author addresses the Roman King Sigismund as the defender and protector of the Roman Church and all Christians. He urges the monarch to rise up and pay attention to the lamentations and suffering of the faithful. In the name of the Catholic people (gens catholica), the author appeals to him with the antiphon: “Thou art come desirable, whom we awaited in the darkness. You have become a hope, a great consolation to those in tribulation.” The king is called upon to swiftly exterminate, with God’s help, the shameful schism and the multitude of the wicked, so that the Church and the people of Christ may prosper under his imperial reign. The complete destruction of this schism (tanti scismatis funditus extirpacio) is both pleasing to God and eagerly expected by the people. Once these challenges are resolved, peace will abound, as expressed in Psalm 90:11: “Thou shalt tread upon the adder and the basilisk, and shalt trample the lion and the dragon.” Thus, the author suggests that Sigismund will achieve glory and honor, securing eternal life. The letter is concluded with the date of writing, 15 June 1419 in Prague (Datum Prage in die sancti Viti. Sub anno 1419).Footnote 25
While the structure of the appeal letter aligns with that of contemporary manifestos,Footnote 26 it contains several notable inconsistencies. The possibility that the exhortation was written in Prague in June 1419 can be ruled out, as King Wenceslas IV only died on 16 August of that year. Therefore, the author, who mentions the king’s death, must have written the letter afterward. Additionally, the phrase sub anno used for dating is uncommon in correspondence and is typically found in annalistic literature. It is likely, then, that the year 1419 was assigned to the letter at a later stage.
In the exhortation, Sigismund refers to himself only as King of the Romans and Hungarians. Since he was crowned King of Bohemia on 28 July 1420, one might also date the letter to 15 June of that same year, but this presents a problem as well. At that time, no assembly of Bohemian-Austrian nobility could have appealed to Sigismund in Prague, as the city remained firmly in Hussite hands. Moreover, such an appeal would have been illogical on the eve of war—not only because Sigismund was already advancing on Prague with a large army determined to crush the heretics but also because the Austrian dukes’ troops were still in Austria in mid-June, only then preparing to cross the border and join the crusade.Footnote 27
Moreover, referring exclusively to Czech non-conformists as “Hussites” in 1419–20 seems inaccurate. While the term was already in use, it was seldom applied on its own. Contemporary Catholic sources more commonly referred to “Wycliffites” or “Wycliffites and Hussites.” It was only during the 1420s, amid scholarly polemics against the Four Articles of Prague, that “Hussites” became the dominant designation.Footnote 28
The dating of the exhortation to 1419–20 is also questionable due to the author’s statements that heretics seek war in times of peace and yearn for peace in times of war, and that the people will enjoy lasting peace only after Sigismund rises and the heretics are completely destroyed. Such claims suggest that by the time the exhortation was written, warfare had been ongoing for some time, and that negotiations for peace or a truce had already taken place—though the author viewed them with skepticism, hence his counsel of aggression to Sigismund. This context points to a later period rather than the turn of the 1410s and 1420s.
The narrative portion of the letter primarily serves as a lament (planctus) over the decline of imperial Prague, the devastation of the noble Czech lands, and, most notably, the destruction of Prague University. It is striking that the nobility repeatedly mourns the university’s downfall and the loss of scholarly pursuits, while expressing comparatively less sorrow over the hardships faced by religious institutions—despite their traditional role as custodians of noble family memory. This emphasis suggests that the author of the exhortation was more likely from an academic rather than a noble background.Footnote 29
The inconsistencies and doubts surrounding the exhortation might suggest that it is simply a stylistic exercise, imperfect in execution. However, the notion that the exhortation is an inauthentic literary work lacking public political intent is contradicted by the context in which its sole surviving copy is found—in a manuscript housed at the Bavarian State Library in Munich.
The codex, containing texts copied at the end of the fourteenth century and during the second half of the fifteenth century, originally belonged to the Augustinian canons in Schlehdorf, Upper Bavaria.Footnote 30 It is a miscellany, primarily consisting of biblical interpretations, sermons, and quaestiones on Aristotle’s Meteorologica, dated to 1427. The quaestiones likely originated at the University of Vienna, much like the interpretation of the Song of Songs, which we know for certain is based on university lectures.
In addition, the codex includes a collection of shorter, mostly pragmatic writings, including the exhortation.Footnote 31 The collection’s primary focus is from the second half of the 1420s to the 1430s. Thematically, the texts address topics such as war and peace with the Hussites, the Councils of Constance and Basel, the dispute over the occupation of the bishopric of Passau (1423–28), and the governance of the Austrian lands. Notable figures such as King Sigismund, Duke Albrecht V of Habsburg, and University of Vienna doctors—especially Nicholas of Dinkelsbühl—feature prominently. As such, the collection is distinctly Austrian in character.Footnote 32
If we focus solely on the texts that, like the exhortation, deal with the theme of the anti-Hussite struggle, we find three writings from a relatively short period. Directly following the exhortation in the codex is Sigismund’s unpublished German-language letter to Duke Albrecht V, dated early September 1430 from Straubing, Bavaria. Here, the king informs Albrecht of the war situation in western Bohemia.Footnote 33 Another previously unknown and unpublished letter from Sigismund, sent from Hungary to the Burgundian nobleman Louis II de Chalon-Arlay on 10 April 1429, also addresses the war against the Hussites. In this letter, the king reports on the congress in Bratislava and, due to the unsatisfactory outcome of the negotiations, announces a large-scale military campaign against the Hussites in which he requests Louis’s participation.Footnote 34 The third relevant text is a Latin commentary (Glossacio) by certain doctors on the resolution passed by the Hussite diet in late May 1429, which discussed Sigismund’s demands following the Bratislava negotiations.Footnote 35 Since most of the articles in the diet resolution addressed to Sigismund, along with the attached glosses by the doctors, concerned the issue of war and peace, this too shows a clear connection to the exhortation.
The texts from 1429–30 are clearly the most thematically aligned with the exhortation in the Munich manuscript. With this in mind, let us now focus on Sigismund’s Hussite policy at the close of the 1420s, as it will help establish a clearer context for both the content and dating of the exhortation.
Sigismund’s Controversial Policy
After Sigismund of Luxembourg was crowned King of the Romans and Germans in Aachen in the autumn of 1414, he began contemplating the prospect of receiving the imperial diadem in Rome. However, it was not until the late 1420s that he undertook serious preparations for an Italian campaign. To leave his territories for Italy, he needed a peace agreement with the Turks, the Venetians, and also with the Czech Hussites. By early September 1428, Sigismund’s diplomats had reached an agreement with the influential Venetian Republic. Later that year, he also secured a truce with the Turkish sultan and established diplomatic relations with Hussite representatives, setting the stage for his long-anticipated Roman campaign.Footnote 36
However, the king approached his dealings with heretics cautiously. He established contact with the University of Paris and sought its support in the matter. As early as 1427, the university had been debating “the matter of Bohemia, the general council, and the wars.” This comprehensive approach to the issue provided Sigismund with a legitimate framework to prioritize diplomacy in his struggle against the heretics.Footnote 37
On 14 December 1428, the Parisian masters issued a public plea, urging the convocation of a general council in Basel to address the dire condition of Christendom, which was under threat from the expansion of the Hussites on land and the Muslims at sea.Footnote 38 Nevertheless, the university also considered the possibility that the Hussites might come to Basel to have their four articles examined by the council. This is evident from the instructions the Sorbonne gave to its envoys, who, in early spring 1429, first traveled to the Austrian duke in Vienna before proceeding to Sigismund for a congress in Bratislava.Footnote 39
Following the Parisians’ instructions, Sigismund invited the Hussites to attend the Council of Basel at the conclusion of the meeting. However, the king’s immediate focus was elsewhere. He demanded that, by the time the council convened, the Hussites agree to a two-year general truce, which would include himself, his Bohemian and Hungarian subjects, and the neighboring territories of the Bohemian Crown.Footnote 40
This proposal was groundbreaking, as its scope far surpassed the localized truces that had been the norm up to that point. The Hussite diplomats in Hungary, however, did not give a definitive response. Instead, they deferred the matter to the assembly of Hussite factions scheduled to meet in Prague.Footnote 41
When the negotiations in Hungary were interrupted in early April, the king began playing a double game. In the official correspondences with the empire, Sigismund either remained silent about the armistice negotiations or claimed they had failed, adding that he and his princes and lords had begun preparing for a large-scale military campaign into Bohemia.Footnote 42 Sigismund planned to march into Bohemia, Lusatia, and Silesia with an army of 12,000 men from Hungary, the empire, Bavaria, Burgundy, and Silesia. This was what the Silesian envoys informed the city of Wrocław regarding the king’s intentions.Footnote 43
On 17 April, the monarch also informed the Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights about the campaign. However, already confident that the Hussites would deliberate on his proposals in Prague, he also notified the Grand Master that he was sending a delegation to Bohemia, hoping they would accept the truce and travel to Basel.Footnote 44 Thus, despite his warlike rhetoric, Sigismund still appeared to favor a peaceful resolution.
At the end of May, the Hussites convened in Prague to deliberate on the king’s proposals. Their response was outlined in thirteen articles, in which they set strict conditions for their participation in the council. They insisted that Orthodox Christians who took the communion in both kinds be included, and demanded that decisions in Basel be based on God’s law rather than the pope’s authority.
A significant portion of their response—eleven articles—focused on the terms of the truce. By introducing numerous exceptions, the Hussites effectively rejected a general ceasefire. They demanded that Sigismund’s adherents who had previously pledged, in writing, to join them but failed to do so be excluded from the truce. Likewise, they refused to halt hostilities against the Bavarians and the people of Meissen. The only truce they were willing to guarantee applied to Sigismund and his lands, as well as to Albrecht of Habsburg and his faction in Moravia. However, they imposed conditions on the Austrian duke, who, as Margrave of Moravia, was expected to entrust the region’s administration to a Bohemian or a Slav. Beyond these demands, the Hussites also sought certain privileges, including the right to procure supplies in truce zones when their armies were in the field, and to continue collecting payments from peasants in conquered territories.Footnote 45
On the feast of St. Vitus, 15 June, the Bohemians sent Sigismund the resolution of the diet from Prague, accompanied by a covering letter.Footnote 46 Not long after, the German version of the text likely reached the aforementioned doctors, one of whom added a commentary on the Hussite demands. Historians widely agree that the Glossacio represents the views of the Viennese doctors, and there is no reason to challenge this conclusion. Its content reflects the University of Vienna’s long-standing skepticism toward engaging with heretics. From the newly discovered draft of the glosses, it appears that their author regarded the Hussite position as a deceptive joke (totum ad illudendum).Footnote 47
The glossator dismissed the Hussites’ demands regarding the Council of Basel as deceptive, arguing that they were deliberately difficult to fulfill. He viewed the requirement to secure the participation of the Orthodox Greeks as a complex and time-consuming process. Believing the Hussites sought to delay proceedings until the two-year truce expired, he suspected them of intending to force an extension and create further obstacles. Convinced that they had no genuine interest in peace or attending the council, he saw their true motives as plundering, burning, and killing.Footnote 48 He detailed the reasons for his skepticism in the margins of the Hussite articles on the armistice.
He was particularly troubled by the Hussites’ insistence on exceptions, and their refusal to establish a universal truce. The Viennese scholar feared that if the Bohemians retained the right to wage war against certain individuals or regions even during peacetime, the entire homeland (patria) could ultimately be devastated. His logic was straightforward: by attacking those with whom they refused to make peace, the Hussites would also bring destruction to neighboring areas, as they could legally procure supplies there. The glossator argued that a full-scale war would be preferable, as it would allow for open retaliation.Footnote 49 He repeatedly asserted that the Hussites had no real intention of making peace but instead sought to inflict harm more easily and conveniently under the pretext of a truce.Footnote 50
King Sigismund was unlikely to have personally provided the Hussite resolution to the Viennese scholars or solicited their opinion. Given the sensitive nature of the armistice, he had no interest in involving more people than necessary. Since one of the resolution’s articles mentioned Duke Albrecht of Habsburg, it is likely that the scholars received the German version of the text from their liege lord.
The glosses clearly reflect the Viennese university scholars’ general reluctance to negotiate with heretics, whom they considered both arrogant and, above all, deceitful. However, distrust was also present on the Hussite side. In May, some Hussite warriors refused to continue negotiations with Sigismund. Nevertheless, the majority of the Hussite community, led by Prokop Holý of Tábor, held a different view, and resumed talks with the king in Bratislava in early July.Footnote 51
Sigismund made it clear from the beginning that he was committed to reaching an agreement. Otherwise, he would not have sent twenty-four fattened oxen and sixteen large casks of wine to the Bohemian and Moravian heretics at his own expense.Footnote 52
As the discussion about the Hussite delegation’s participation in the Council of Basel was considered premature by both sides, it was postponed to a later date. The focus then shifted entirely to the armistice. Over time, both parties reached agreements on several points and began drafting a preliminary accord. This was a clear success for the king, but three of his demands remained unresolved. Sigismund insisted that the Hussites end their siege of Bohemian Catholic castles, that nobles who had pledged allegiance to them but later defected be included in the truce, and that the practice of collecting payments from peasants be abolished.
The effort to reach a consensus on these points was postponed until the Hussite assembly scheduled for 15 August, when they would revisit the issue. In the interim, both sides agreed to a short-term truce lasting until the feast of St. Lawrence (10 August) to facilitate further negotiations. By that time, Prokop Holý was expected to inform Sigismund whether the Hussites would lift the siege of the castles. Prokop’s report displeased the king. The Hussite forces refused to withdraw from the Catholic castles, and the short truce was not extended. Moreover, the Hussite diet was unable to reach a majority decision, and by the autumn of 1429, Sigismund’s hopes for a broader truce had faded. After months of diplomatic efforts, the king’s attempts ultimately ended in failure.Footnote 53
Sigismund’s risky diplomatic strategy caused significant damage to his reputation.Footnote 54 Publicly, he reassured everyone that he distrusted the Hussites and was preparing for a military campaign in Bohemia. However, when the opportunity presented itself in 1429, he did everything possible, up to the last moment, to reach an agreement with the Hussites and shift his focus to Italian politics. As a result, rumors of his actions began to spread across Europe, turning the entire affair into an international scandal that echoed throughout the empire, Bohemia, Poland, the papal curia, and northern Italy.Footnote 55
It is clear that the exhortation from the Bohemian and Austrian nobility, with its appeal to the king, fits well into the tense situation of 1429, when Sigismund’s controversial policy sparked numerous fears and rumors. The critical moment came in the second half of June, when the king received the Hussite response to his demands from Prague. With uncertainty surrounding his approach to the issues of war and peace in the upcoming negotiations with Prokop Holý, this situation directly fueled the anxieties.
The exhortation is, however, a highly unusual and experimental text—not in its formal structure, but in the way it cleverly employs literary fiction and symbolic communication to serve its agitational purpose. Even in June 1429, the nobility of the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Duchy of Austria cannot have appealed to Sigismund from Prague, as the city he valued still remained firmly under Hussite control. Nevertheless, the combination of fiction and reality worked together more effectively in this case than one might initially realize.
Bridging Fiction and Reality
If we place the exhortation between 1419 and 1420, we lack a convincing explanation for why the Bohemian-Austrian assembly addressed the king. However, a plausible reason emerges a decade later. By then, several Bohemian and Austrian lords had been engaged in conflict with the Hussites for years, which also led them to participate in the peace negotiations in Bratislava.
Among those present at Sigismund’s side were the Czech barons Oldřich of Rožmberk, Půta of Častolovice, Jan Městecký of Opočno, Hanuš of Kolovrat, and Jan and Vilém of Rýzmburk.Footnote 56 The identities of the nobles who accompanied Duke Albrecht of Austria to Hungary remain unknown. However, the lords of Lichtenstein, Hardegg, Reinprecht of Walsee, Leopold of Krayg, and the families of Puchheim, Maissau, and Neidberg/Neuberg were among those who bore the lasting consequences of the Hussite invasions of Austria.Footnote 57
When news of the Hussite diet’s resolution spread at the beginning of summer 1429, some Bohemian barons likely feared exclusion from the general truce, having previously failed to uphold their shameful agreements with the heretics. This concern is evident in King Sigismund’s appeal to Prokop Holý in July, urging him not to bar such nobles from the truce. Meanwhile, the Austrians grew anxious at the prospect that, despite the truce, they would continue to suffer material losses. The Hussites’ demands could allow raiders to cross the border in search of supplies, further destabilizing the region. As a result, both the Bohemian and Austrian nobility must have approached Sigismund’s peace negotiations with Prokop Holý apprehensively in the summer of 1429.
It seems unlikely, however, that the lords close to the king or his son-in-law needed to express their reservations and expectations by means of a public letter. Those who sought to influence the king’s opinion in this way were more likely those without direct access to him. Several clues suggest that these were Viennese scholars, who were both skilled writers and openly skeptical of dealings with heretics.
The exhortation claims that the Hussites seek war in times of peace and desire peace in times of war. This statement might be dismissed as a mere topos, were it not fully consistent with the perspective of the Viennese doctors in the Glossacio on the Hussite diet’s resolution. The doctors believed the Hussites had cunningly negotiated the truce merely to facilitate further destruction. They also saw the Hussites’ unrealistic demands for a future council as a deliberate attempt to prolong the controversial truce indefinitely. As a result, the Viennese doctors advocated for war, arguing that the entire patria should take up arms. The exhortation reinforced this stance, declaring that only the uncompromising eradication of the Hussite heresy could ensure lasting peace. Both the Glossacio and the exhortation also share a common rhetorical approach, exclusively referring to their adversaries as “Hussites.” The exhortation’s stylistic connection to the University of Vienna further explains why the Bohemian-Austrian nobility so deeply mourns the downfall of the University of Prague and recalls the exodus of masters and students following the Kutná Hora Decree. Last, the literary context of the Munich manuscript strongly suggests the letter’s Austrian origins.
One of the greatest challenges in interpreting the appeal letter is its contradictory dating, as recorded in the Munich copy: Datum Prage in die sancti Viti. Sub anno 1419 (“Given at Prague, on St. Vitus’s Day. In the year 1419″). The mention of King Wenceslas’s death in August 1419 makes it impossible for the exhortation to be written in Prague on 15 June of the same year, as the entry suggests. However, on that same day and from the same location, the Hussites sent a resolution of their diet accompanied by a covering letter to Sigismund in 1429.Footnote 58
This strongly suggests that the date and place of the exhortation’s publication carried symbolic weight. The bold resolution of the heretics, who dictated the terms of the truce to the king from the rebellious Prague on a significant feast day,Footnote 59 stands in stark contrast to an appeal by the monarch’s loyalists, with an identical date and sense of resoluteness, urging combat in defense of the lamented Prague. The Viennese doctors, as mentioned in the Glossacio, noted that the resolution had been sent to Sigismund,Footnote 60 indicating they were likely aware of the circumstances surrounding its transmission.
The reference to the year sub anno 1419 in the Munich manuscript does not contradict our hypothesis of a symbolic dating. Other writings in the codex are also dated using the sub anno formula, but it is clear that these are secondary entries, made when the documents were copied.Footnote 61 It is therefore highly likely that the year 1419 was added to the appeal to Sigismund by a later copyist, most likely influenced by the mention of Wenceslas IV’s death, without considering that the king died after 15 June.Footnote 62
Yet it is clear that the content of the exhortation draws more on the early days of the Hussite revolt than the situation at the end of the 1420s. However, by using a fictional premise, the author did not weaken his purpose; rather, he made it more powerful. By placing his appeal in the historical context of Bohemia after the death of Wenceslas IV—when Sigismund had yet to be crowned King of Bohemia—the author opened up new possibilities. This allowed him to confront the king with the dire situation in his lands, especially in Prague, and challenge him as the defender of the Church and future emperor to fight,Footnote 63 all without directly reproaching the monarch for his inaction and risking offense to his majesty.
The exhortation urges Sigismund to destroy the Hussites to ensure the stability of his imperial rule.Footnote 64 References to liturgical texts—the Easter hymn Cum rex gloriae and Psalm 90—even confer Christological dimensions upon Sigismund’s imperial majesty. In particular, this psalm had, since the Carolingian period, been interpreted in line with Augustine’s exegesis as the “imperial” Victory Psalm.Footnote 65 Furthermore, since the time of Frederick II, combating heresy had been one of the primary responsibilities of the Holy Roman Emperor.Footnote 66 Given that Sigismund paradoxically favored a controversial truce with the heretics over waging war to secure the imperial crown, the underlying criticism in the exhortation is clear. However, by situating the call to arms in the early days of Sigismund’s reign in Bohemia, the appeal appears both natural and justified.
In the unprecedented ecclesiological and political situation of 1429, the experimentation with fiction is understandable. However, new forms of experimental communication using fiction had already begun to emerge under the pressures of the ecclesiological crisis in the outbreak of the Great Western Schism. The literary historian Michael Van Dussen has documented this in a collection of six fictional letters from the early 1380s, known as Tetragonus Aristotelis. Footnote 67
The work details how the universities of Oxford, Prague, and Paris, along with the Roman community, decided to appeal to Pope Urban VI and Wenceslas, King of the Romans, urging them to resolve the Schism through a general council. First, the universities agreed that there was nothing illegitimate about Urban VI’s controversial election in April 1378. However, even if there had been misconduct, the rebel cardinals lacked the authority to judge the matter, as the right to elect and depose the pope had only been conferred upon them. In earlier times, as the universities explained to the Romans, the pope had been elected by the clergy, military, and inhabitants of Rome. Although the people had eventually ceded their electoral power to a small group of cardinals, they had never fully renounced their right. The universities therefore urged the Romans to reclaim the power granted to the cardinals, and, if they were unable to do so, to seek the assistance of the Roman king.Footnote 68
As a result, the Romans, along with the involved universities, appealed to King Wenceslas and Pope Urban for assistance. Drawing on historical precedents, the king was reminded that, as the Church’s patron, he had the right to influence the election of a pontiff and to administer justice when faced with wrongdoing. In practice, this meant convening a general council and ensuring the enforcement of its resolutions. Meanwhile, the pope was urged not to resist the council, as his opposition would lend credibility to the false claims of the schismatics. The correspondence culminated in a manifesto from King Wenceslas addressed to the people, declaring that he had received a petition (libellus) in the form of five letters from the universities and the Roman commune, and that he was prepared to deliver his judgment.Footnote 69
Although Tetragonus is an anonymous work, it is also the product of a public intellectual. Scholars have suggested that Vojtěch Raňkův of Ježov (Adalbertus Ranconis de Ericinio, d. 1388), a doctor of theology who studied and taught at Oxford and Paris before returning to Prague, could be the author. However, stronger evidence points to Henry of Langenstein. The German professor was forced to leave Paris in the autumn of 1382 due to the Great Schism, and two years later, he began teaching theology in Vienna.Footnote 70
However, what matters more than the author’s identity is his literary strategy. The compiler firmly defends the legitimacy of Urban VI, yet simultaneously advocates the resolution of the Schism through a council. This position was highly controversial in the German and Czech lands during the early 1380s. The empire’s leaders, including King Wenceslas, were staunchly loyal to Urban, who viewed the council as a direct threat to his legitimacy and, like his rival Clement VII, rejected its convening.Footnote 71 The anonymous scholar did not back down, and instead sought to impress the elites creatively by drawing on his own abilities. Like the author of the exhortation, he turned to epistolary fiction in a delicate situation, using it not only to make his non-conformist views more acceptable but also, undoubtedly, more compelling.
Neither Tetragonus Aristotelis nor the exhortation are forgeries in the modern sense of the term.Footnote 72 Rather, they are specific communication tools used in a crisis situation. Real interests and concerns gave rise to fiction in a challenging political context, allowing it to shape reality by influencing elite decision-making.Footnote 73 However, this was a form of constructive coercion, taking the shape of an educational lesson, rather than verbal aggression or invective. Both the exhortation and Tetragonus informed the Roman king not only of the causes and depth of the crisis, but also of his rights and duties in addressing it.
This clearly sets both texts apart from the more traditional and less experimental form of epistolary fiction found during the late medieval Church crisis—the Devil’s Letters. These satirical writings depict Leviathan, Lucifer, or Satan praising the recipients for their role in sustaining the Schism within the Church, and encouraging them to continue their “helpful” work.Footnote 74 Such a direct, confrontational style of satire was foreign both to the exhortation and the Tetragonus Aristotelis.
Conclusion
The exhortation from the Bohemian-Austrian nobility, urging King Sigismund to take action and destroy the Hussites, provides valuable insight into the intersection of politics, scholarly public activity, and literature.
The numerous connections between the exhortation and the Glossacio of the Viennese doctors from 1429 present both texts as politically significant reflections of the University of Vienna’s early skepticism toward King Sigismund’s conciliatory stance on the Hussites—a skepticism that would later extend to the Compactata policy of the Council of Basel.
On a cultural level, both the exhortation and Glossacio represent significant examples of the activities of public intellectuals in the early fifteenth century. According to Daniel Hobbins, the defining characteristic of public intellectuals is their engagement in debates beyond the boundaries of their specific academic discipline.Footnote 75 The exhortation and Glossacio clearly demonstrate this, written by theologians battling heresy but addressing the secular political issue of truce.
The exhortation and the Glossacio are, however, distinctive literary works. Rather than simply tracts, they represent more experimental forms of communication. The former is unconventional in its structure, while the latter departs from traditional argumentative methods. The author of the exhortation employed literary fiction, and likely symbolic communication, to advance his objectives. The unparalleled crisis of the Great Western Schism spurred public intellectuals to create innovative literary pieces that used fiction to challenge elites with non-conformist ideas. This trend of innovation continued to resonate throughout the political upheaval of the Hussite controversy, which, like the Great Schism, was an unprecedented crisis in its own right.
In summary, the previously unknown exhortation addressed to King Sigismund not only draws attention to the king’s controversial policies but also reflects the wider cultural shifts of the late medieval period. Among these are the literary innovations in communication and textual media that emerged from the contemporary ecclesiastical crisis.
Acknowledgments
This article is the outcome of the project no. 23-06902S “The Controversy over Wycliffe and his 45 Articles in a European Perspective” from the Czech Science Foundation (GA ČR), realized at the Institute of Philosophy of the Czech Academy of Sciences. This article has been produced with the assistance of the database Czech Medieval Sources online, provided by the LINDAT/CLARIAH-CZ Research Infrastructure (https://lindat.cz), supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic (project no. LM2018101). I thank both anonymous reviewers, as well as Maureen Healy, for their valuable suggestions on improvements to the text. I am also grateful to Martin Pjecha for his careful proofreading.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
Editorial Appendix
The nobility of the Bohemian Kingdom and the Austrian Duchy appeals to the Roman and Hungarian King Sigismund to address the rise of the Hussite heresy in Bohemia, particularly in Prague, following the death of the Bohemian and Roman King Wenceslas, urging him to eradicate the heretics.
A fifteenth-century copy: Munich, Bavarian State Library, Clm 17543, fol. 198v.
Excellentissimo principi, domino ac domino Sygismundo, Romanorum regi et semper Augusto ac regi Ungarie, Dalmacie, Croacie et cetera, cuius fama aurea per tocius mundi ambitum gloriari laudabiliter cernitur florere, domino nostro gracioso, congregacio baronum ac nobilium per regnum BohemieFootnote 76 et ducatum Austrie ubilibet constitutorum puro famulamine sinceraqueFootnote 77 cum subiecione firmiter preoblatis.
Evellenda sunt mali semina et spine veprium, dum licet, radicitus extirpande, ne robore sumpto placidis primiciis frugum fuerintFootnote 78 in dampnum.
Magnificentissime itaque princeps, tue serenitati presencium tenore duximus insinuandum, quod post lugubrem, ymo dolorosum et fletibundum decessum fratris tui ac domini nostri, domini Wenczeslay, Romanorum ac Bohemie regis, maledicta ac heretica Hussitarum congeries ad tantum invaluit, quod omnis decus et honor Pragensis civitatis penitus destitutus est et transversus seu abiectus. Ymo in hac imperiali civitate et in locis circumiacentibus vix aliquis fidem gerens orthodoxam poterit esse securus. Auditur namque in hac felici et opulenta terra tantus ploratus et ullulatus pauperum et Cristi fidelium, quod feminea precordia nimirum eis flebiliter poterint condolere. Resonat siquidem in hiis locis vox perturbacionis et angustie, vox lamentacionis et mesticie, vox calamitatis et miserieFootnote 79 propter magnam invalescenciam et validum incrementum huius maledicti scismatis et heretice pravitatis. Unde civitas delectabilis et domina gencium robustorum succenditur igni, templa et ecclesie Dei devastantur per spolia populusque igne crematur. Isti namque sunt, qui pridem honorificasFootnote 80 et merito honorandasFootnote 81 magistrorum, studencium turbas expulerunt. Isti quoque sunt, qui et nuper personas religiosas ceterosque viros katholicam fidem gerentes de suis habitacionibus eiecerunt.
VerusFootnote 82 etenim tante malicie fuit auctor atque rector Iohannes Hus. Quis nequiciosum nephas et supersticiosam maliciam primitus excogitavit? Maledictus Hus, qui proprie salutis existens immemor multis malis aliis peyor, sibi pessimus extiterat. Unde propter huiuscemodi obstinatos hereticos fidelis Cristi populus multas patitur penas. Nam ipsi in pace contra eos bella querunt et tempore belli pacem desiderant et affectant. O quanta iactura et dampnabilis ruina huius amenissime et fertilissime terre et Bohemorum, que non tantum fructus terrestres, ymo et scienciarum fructus uberrimos produxerat affluenter. O quam tempestuosa et detestabilis Pragensis universitatis desolacio, que tempore felicitatis omnis patriam omnigenis germinantis sciencie degustacionibus copiosissime saciavit.
Exurge igitur! Exurge o rex potentissime, o princeps benignissime, o domine virtuosissime, qui Romane ecclesie firmus advocatus existis nec non omnium cristicolarum potens defensor et protector. Animadverte, quesumus, gemitum et dolorem fidelium et proborum. Te etenim nostra cottidie vocant suspiria, te larga requirunt lamenta! Tibi quoque dicet gens katholica: “Advenisti desiderabilis, quem exspectabamus in tenebris. Tu factus es spes desperatis, magna consolacio in tormentis.”Footnote 83
Exurge igitur et festina ad huiusmodi nephandi scismatis et tantorum maleficiorum dignum exterminium validius Dei mediante suffragio properando, ut alma mater ecclesia ac fidelis Cristi populus sub imperiali tuo regimine feliciter gubernetur. Quid enim Deo laudabilius, acceptabilius aut placidius esse poterit, quid cristiano populo melius, dignius aut iocundius esse poterit, quam tanti scismatis funditus extirpacio, ut incomodis sedatis populus opulenta pacis affluencia salubriter perfruatur: “Super aspidem quidem et basiliscum ambulabis et conculcabis leonem et draconem.”Footnote 84 Fideles etenim cristicole “in manibus te portabunt, ne forte offendas ad lapidem pedem tuum.”Footnote 85 Sic et tandem consequeris nominis tui gloriam et honorem vitamque proinde mereberis perpetue duraturam.
Datum Prage in die sancti Viti.Footnote 86 Sub anno 1419.
Translation
To the most illustrious prince, lord, and ruler Sigismund, King of the Romans and ever exalted, as well as King of Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia, and other realms,Footnote 87 whose noble fame is seen to be worthily celebrated and to flourish throughout the entire world—to our gracious lord—from the assembly of barons and nobles established throughout the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Duchy of Austria,Footnote 88 offering steadfastly their pure service and sincere submission.
The seeds of evil must be uprooted, and the thorns of the briar, while it is still possible, torn out by the roots—lest, once they have grown strong, they harm the gentle beginnings of the fruitful harvest.
Therefore, most magnificent prince, by means of this letter we have thought it necessary to make known to your serenity that, after the mournful—indeed, grievous and tearful—death of your brother and our lord, Lord Wenceslas, King of the Romans and of Bohemia,Footnote 89 the accursed and heretical multitude of the HussitesFootnote 90 has grown to such strength that every dignity and honor of the city of Prague has been utterly destroyed and cast down. Indeed, in this imperial cityFootnote 91 and in the surrounding regions, scarcely anyone who adheres to the orthodox faith can now feel secure. For in this once blessed and prosperous land, there is now heard such wailing and lamentation from the poor and from the faithful of Christ that even tender hearts might justly be moved to weep in sympathy. The voice of disturbance and affliction resounds in these regions—the voice of lamentation and sorrow, the voice of calamity and misery—because of the great increase and powerful spread of this accursed schism and heretical depravity. Hence, the once delightful city, mistress of strong nations, is consumed by fire; the temples and churches of God are laid waste and plundered;Footnote 92 and the people are consumed in the flames. For these are the very men who, some time ago, drove out the honorable and rightly venerated crowds of masters and students;Footnote 93 and these likewise are they who have recently expelled religious persons and other men professing the Catholic faith from their dwellings.
For the true author and leader of such great wickedness was Jan Hus.Footnote 94 Who was it that first devised this nefarious crime and superstitious malice? Accursed be Hus, who, forgetful of his own salvation and worse than many other evil men, proved himself to be the very worst. Hence, on account of such obstinate heretics, the faithful people of Christ suffer many afflictions. For in times of peace they stir up wars against them, and in times of war they long for and seek peace. O what loss and damnable ruin has come upon this most pleasant and fertile land of Bohemia, which once produced in abundance not only the fruits of the earth but also the richest fruits of learning!Footnote 95 O how tempestuous and detestable is the desolation of the University of Prague, which in former days of prosperity so abundantly satisfied the homelandFootnote 96 with the manifold delights of every kind of knowledge.
Arise, then! Arise, o most mighty king, o most gracious prince, o most virtuous lord, who are the steadfast advocate of the Roman Church and the powerful defender and protector of all Christians.Footnote 97 Behold, we beseech you, the groaning and sorrow of the faithful and upright. It is you whom our daily sighs call upon; it is you whom our abundant lamentations seek! And to you the Catholic people also cry: “Thou hast come, o long-desired one, whom we awaited in darkness. Thou hast become hope to the despairing, and great consolation to those in torment.”Footnote 98
Arise, therefore, and make haste, through the help of God, to bring about with greater strength the worthy extermination of this detestable schism and of so many crimes,Footnote 99 so that the nurturing Mother Church and the faithful people of Christ may be happily governed under your imperial rule. For what could be more praiseworthy, more acceptable, or more pleasing to God—what could be better, more fitting, or more joyful for the Christian people—than the complete eradication of so great a schism, that, once the disturbances are quieted, the people may enjoy in safety the abundant wealth of peace? “Thou shalt tread upon the adder and the basilisk, and shalt trample the lion and the dragon.”Footnote 100 For the faithful followers of Christ “shall bear thee up in their hands, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone.” Thus, at last you shall attain the glory and honor of your name, and in consequence shall merit a life destined to endure forever.
Given at Prague, on the feast of Saint Vitus.Footnote 101 In the year of 1419.
