Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/338

 CONSTANCE

292

CONSTANCE

civil authority (dependent among Christians on state of grace). More than once (e. g. 1411) Hus had ap- pealed to a general council, and when at the opening of the Council of Constance Emperor Sigismund and King Wenceslaus of Bohemia urged him to present himself, he was not unwilling; it was made up, he knew, of ardent reformers, and he could hojie by his eloquence to convert them to his own intense faith in the ideas of Wyclif. He left Prague, 11 October, 1414, in the company of three Bohemian nobles and assured of a safe-conduct {salvus conductus) from Emperor Sigismund. They entered Constance 3 November, where Hus took up his residence in a private house, and where (5 November) the safe-conduct was deliv- ered to him. The day after his arrival he appeared before John XXIII, who treated him courteously, re- moved the censures of excommunication and inter- dict, but forbade him to say Mass or to preach, also to appear at public ecclesiastical functions (his thor- oughly heretical and even revolutionary doctrines were long notorious and, as said above, had already been condemned at Rome). He appeared again before the pope and the cardinals, 2S November, declared himself innocent of a single error, and said he was ready to retract and do penance if convicted of any. He had continued, however, to violate the papal pro- hibition, said Mass daily and preached to the people present. Consequently he was the same day arrested, by order of the Bishop of Constance, and a little later (6 December) placed in the Dominican convent. On complaining of the unsanitary condition of his place of confinement he was transferred to the castle of Ciott- lieben, and later to the Franciscan convent at Con- stance (June, 1415). His examination went on dur- ing April and May, and was conducted by d'Ailly and Fillastre ; in the meantime he carried on an extensive correspondence, wrote various treatises, and replied to the charges of his opponents. His Bohemian friends protested against the arrest of Hus, and exhiljited the emperor's safe-conduct (but only after the arrest). Sigismund was at first wroth over the arrest, but later (1 Jan., 1415) declared that he would not prevent the council from dealing according to law with ]K'rsons accvised of heresy. The aforesaid condonuiation (4 May) of the forty-five propositions of Wyclif fore- shadowed the fate of Hus, despite the protests of Bo- hemians and Poles against his severe incarceration, the slanders against Bohemian faith, the delay of jus- tice, secrecy of the proceedings, and the violation of the imperial safe-conduct (Raynaldus, ad an. 1414, no. 10). The public trial took place on 5, 7, and 8 June, 1415; extracts from his works were read, wit- nesses were heard. He denied some of the teachings attributed to him, defended others, notably opinions of Wyclif, declared that no Bohemian was a heretic, etc. He refused all formulse of submission, again de- clared himself conscious of no error, nor, as he said, had any been proved against him from the Scrip- tures. He declared that he would not condemn the truth, nor perjure himself. His books were burned by order of the council (24 June). New efforts to obtain a retractation proved fruitless. He was brought for final sentence before the fifteenth session (6 July, 1415), at which the emperor :i>-isl''il. mid on which occasion thirty propositions, t;il;'n nn.-ily from the work of Hus "On the Church" 1 1 )c lAclcsia), were read publicly. He refused to retract anything and so was condemned as a heretic, deposed, and degraded, and handed over to the .secular arm, which in turn condemned him to peri.sh at the stake, at that time the usual legal punishment of convicted h(>retics. He suf- fered that cruel death with .sclf-pcis.se.ssion and courage and when aiiout to expire cried out. it is said: "Christ, Son of the living ( lud. have mercy on us!" His ashes were thrown into the Rhine. Owing largely to the dram- atic circumstances of his death, he became at once the hero of Bohemian patriotism and the martyr-saint of

multitudes in Bohemia and elsewhere who shared his demagogic and revolutionary principles. They were surely incompatible with either the ecclesiastical or the civil order of the time, and would at any period have bred both religious and civil anarchy, had they been put into practice. As to the safe-conduct of the emperor, we must distinguish, says Dr. von Funk (Kirchengeschichte, 3d ed., Freiburg, 1902, p. 495, and the more recent literature there quoted; also "Der Katholik", 1898. LXXVIII, 186-90, and K. Miiller, non-Catholic, in the "Hist. Vierteljahrschrift", 1898, 41-86) between the arrest of Hus at Constance and his execution. The former act was always ac- counted in Bohemia a violation of the safe-conduct and a breach of faith on the emperor's part; on the other hand they knew well, and so did Hus, that the safe-conduct was only a guarantee against illegal vio- lence and could not protect him from the sentence of his legitimate judges. (On the death penalty for heresy, see Ficker, " Die gesetzliche Einf iihrung der Todestrafe fur Haresie" in "MittheU. d. Inst. f. oest. Geschichts- forschung", 1888, 177 sqq., and Havet, "L'heresie et le bras seculierau moyen age jusqu'au XIIP siecle", Paris, 1881 ; see also Gosselin, "Temporal Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages ", I, 85-89). In the medieval German codes known as the Sachsenspiegel (about 1225) and the Schwabenspiegel (about 1275), heresy is already punishable with the stake. It is not true that the council declared that no faith should be kept with aheretic (see Pallavicino, " Hist. Cone. Trid.", XII, 15, 8; Hoflerin "Hist, polit. Blatter", IV, 421, and Hefele, "Conciliengesch.", VII, 227, also Baudrillart, op. cit., II, 1217). In the following year Jerome (Hieronymus) of Prague, the friend of Hus, suffered the same fate at Constance. He had come voluntarily to the council in April, 1415, but soon fled the city; afterwards, mind- ful of the fate of Hus, he obtained from the council a safe-conduct to return for his defence. He did not ap- pear, however, and was soon seized in Bavaria and brought in chains to Constance. In September, 1415, he abjured the forty-five propositions of Wyclif and the thirty of Hus, but did not regain his freedom, as his sincerity was suspected, and new charges were made against him. Finally, he was brought before the council, 23 May, 1416, one year after his arrest. This time he solemnly withdrew his abjuration as a sinful act and compelled by fear, and proclaimed Hus a holy and upright man. He was forthwith con- demned as a heretic in the twenty-fii'st session (30 May, 1416) and perished at the stake with no less courage than Hus. The humanist Poggio was an eyewitness of his death, and his letter to Leonardo of Arezzo, describing the scene, may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengesch.', VII, 280 sqq. The death of both Hus and Jerome of Prague affected strongly other humanists of the time; iEneas Sylvius (later Pius II) said that they went to their deaths as men invited to a banquet. The immediate consequences were grave enough, i. e. the long I'traquist wars. For an equit- able criticism of the defects in the trials of both Hus and Jerome see Baudrillart in " Diet, de th^ol. cath.", II, 1216-17. (See also Hussites.)

Jean Petit (Johantjcs Parriis) and Johann von Falk- ;| cnhcrg. — The question of the licity of tyrannicide oc- cupied the attention of the council. The Franciscan Jean Petit (Parvus) had publicly defended (in nine theses) the Duke of Burgundy for his share in the murder of Louis d'Orleans (23 Nov., 1407), on the ground that any subject might kill or cause to be killed a tyrannical ruler (Ker\'yn de Lettenhove, Jean sans peur et I'apologie du tyrannicide, Brussels, 1861). After several years of discussion this thesis was condcnmed at Paris in 1414 by the bi.shop, the in- quisitor, and tlie university. The Duke of Burgundy appealed to the Roman See. At Constance the mat- ter was discussed in the fifteenth session (6 July, 1415); many French doctors were eager for the for-