Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/536

 JOHN

468

JOHN

into Latin and published by Gel. Dobner in 6 vols., Prague, 1761-83) the Bohemian historian, Hajek von Liboczan (d. 1553), in view of these varying accounts, is the first to speak of two Johns of Nepomuk, who were put to death by order of King Wenceslaus: one, the queen's confessor, and martyred for refusing to violate the secret of the confessional, having been thrown into the Molilau in 13S3; the other, auxiliary Bishop of Prague, drowned in 1393 because he con- firmed the election of the monk Albert as Abbot of Kladrau. The later historians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries give more or less legendary de- tails of the imiversally accepted martyrdom of John, becau.se he refused to violate the secret of the con- fessional. Bohuslav Balbinus, S.J., in his "Vita b. Joannis Nepomuceni martyris " (Prague, 1670; "Acta SS.", Ill, May, 668-80) gives the most complete account. He relates with many details how on 16 May, 1383 (this date is already foimd in old accounts), John of Nepomuk, because he steadily refused to be- tray the confession of Queen Johanna to King Wen- ceslaus, was by order of the latter thrown into the Moldau and drowned. From the year 1675 the cathe- dral chapter of Prague repeatedly petitioned Rome for the canonization of Blessed John of Nepomuk, who enjoyed special veneration in Bohemia. In the years 1715-20 evidence was gathered and the cause exam- ined; in 1721 followed the beatification, and in 1729 the canonization. The acts of the canonization are based on the statements, according to which John died on 16 May, 1383, a martyr to the secrecy of the confessional. But ever since 1777, when the Augustinian Hermit, Athanasius a Sancto Josepho, sought to prove by the testimony of Archbishop Jenzenstein's written accusation, which did not be- come known till 1752, that John of Pomuk w-as put to death by Wenceslaus in 1393 for the reason given above, the controversy' has never ceased.

We still find defenders of the opinion advanced by Hajek, that there are two Johns of Pomuk. Most modern historians, however, are probably correct in regarding the vicar-general murdered in 1393 as the only historical personage. A few of these, however, do not look upon the confirmation of the election of the Abbot of Kladrau as the true reason for John's murder; they hold that Wenceslaus IV was already exasperated against John, because he would not vio- late the secret of the queen's confession, and took this opportunity for revenge. These details can in no way affect the validity of the canonization of the vicar-gen- eral, who had been recognized as a martyr immediately after his death. Consequently, when Protestant his- torians, as Abel, assert that the veneration of St. John Nepomucene was first introduced by the Jesuits to banish the cult of John Hus from Bohemia, their contention is both unhistorical and without justi- fication: the veneration of John of Nepomuk was widespread long before the Jesuits ever existed. St. John Nepomucene is patron saint of Bohemia. When in 1719 his grave in the Prague cathedral was opened, his tongue was found to be uncorrupted though shrivelled. His feast is celebrated on 16 May.

Acta SS., May, III, 668 sqq. ; Berghader. Protomartyr pami- tentuE (2 vols., Graz and Augsburg, 1736-61); Athanasius a S. Josepho, Dissertatio historico-chronohgico-critica de Joanne de Pomuk (Prague, 1777); Dobner, VindicicB sigillo confes- sionis divi Joannis Nepotnuc. protomarlyris pcenitentiw assertts (Pr.ague and Vienna, 1784); PtiBiTscHKA, Chronologische Gesch. rinhin.-u^. Vir (PniKnc, 1788); Idem, Vnusne an duo ecdesim fiir/r,iiin!if)■. ^cuMUDK, Gesch. des Lebens uml drr nffculluhiu Vrr, lu->,,ni ,lis ,rxl,n Martyrers des Beichtsieacis (Innsbruck, 188:ii; Ii.km. Shaliin fiber den hi. Johannes von Nepomuk in Xrils.hr. f„r l.i:lli. Theol. (1883), 62-123; Amrhein, Historisch-rlirotmUm. 1'iiirr.iuchungen iiher das Todcsjahr des hi. Johannes ron Nepomuk (VViirzburg, 1864);

NuRNBERGER in J ahrcsbericht der schlesisehen Cescllschiift fiir vaterliindische Kultur (1904), 17-35; Potthast, Bibl. hisl. medii (Fi'f, II (2nded.), 1400-1.

J. P. KiRSCH.

John of Antioch. — There are four persons com- monly known liy this name.

I. JoH.N, Patriarch of Antioch (428-41) at the time of the Council of Ephesus. He was a friend and had been a fellow-student of Nestorius. When the trouble about the word SeordKos began, he wrote and warned Nestorius not to make a disturbance, showing that this title of the Blessed Virgin had been constantly used by orthodox Fathers. Later, Nestorius wrote to him, enclosing Cyril of Alexandria's twelve anathemas and some of his own sermons, and defending himself. John then decided for his friend against his natural rival, "the Egyptian ". He was summoned to Ephe- sus by the emperor in November, 430, with all the other bishops. But when the council was opened in June, 431, he had not come. The Fathers waited for him some time; then two of his metropolitans (those of Apamea and Hierapolis) declared in his name that the council was to begin without him. It was thought that he did not wish to be present at the condemnation of his friend, so the first session was held in his absence. Six days later John arrived with a great number of his bishops, refused all invitations to take part in the council, and opened at his own lodging a rival synod, which defended Nestorius and condemned Cyril. This rival assembly (in which the emperor's commissioner, Candidian, took part) caused the great trouble at Ephesus (see Ephe.sps, Council of). From this time John took the side of Nestorius, declared his deposition unjust, refused to acknowleilge the new Bishop of Constantinople, Maximian, and was in schism with Alexandria and Rome. Later, he held a synod at Antioch, in which he anathematized Cyril and all his partisans. Eventually, however, he was reconciled. Emperor Theodosius II (408-50) sent a tribune, Aris- tolaos, to Antioch and then to Alexandria to make peace. John was persuaded to send one of his bishops, Paul of Emesa, to Alexandria with an orthodox pro- fession of faith in 433. Cyril accepted Paul's message and allowed him to preach at Alexandria. After a few more disputes about minor points, John, in April, 433, signed a formula, prepared by Cyril, condemning Nes- torius; so that Cyril was able to write to Pope Sixtus III (432-40) that peace was restored between the two Eastern patriarchates. The result of this was that many bishops in Syria declared that John had fallen away from the Faith, and broke communion with him. Towards these bishops (the first founders of the Nes- torian Church in East Syria) John used a policy of moderation and concession, as far as was possible without sacrificing the Faith of Ephesus, from which he did not again swerve. On the other hand there were Catholics, such as the deacon Maximus, who thought that the patriarch was too conciliatory to the heretics, and who threatened to make a schism on their side too. Cyril wrote to warn these zealots not to cause further complications, and loyally helped John to reconcile the Nestorian party by his letters. John did not again tamper with Nestorianisni. When a definite Nestorian schism organized itself at Edessa, it was by renouncing the obedience of Antioch. John even invoked the civil power to put an end to the schism, and so began the persecution of the Nesto- rians that ended in their escaping across the frontier to Persia. John died uninipeachalily orthodox in 441. (For all this see Ephksus, C(iuncil of, and Nestoiuanis.m.) Four letters of this .John of Antioch are extant (Mansi, "Cone. Coll.", V, 813-14; cf. P. G., LXXVIl, 1449-58).

II. John of Antioch, chronicler in the seventh cen- tury. He was a monk, apparently contemporary with Emperor Heraclius (61-41). He composed a chronicle (l<rTopta xponxjj) from .\dam to the death of