12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Among the outstanding figures of the period of the “flowering of the Czech Reformation,” Peter Chelčický occupies a prominent, and in some respects à unique, position. Although not as well known as John Hus, from certain points of view Peter is more important, certainly more original, than the great Czech Reformer, insofar as in his radical biblicism he went far beyond the latter. Moreover, his influence lived on in the Unity of Brethren and affected the course of history more than Utraquism did. His unyielding and unequivocal insistence on the separation of church and state, and to a somewhat less degree his pacifism, raised him to the rank of a pioneer of the future types of Christianity.
1 Literature concerning Peter is still not extensive: among the most important are Goll, J., Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der böhmischen Brũer, 2 vols. (1878, 1882)Google Scholar; Krofta, K., Listy z n´bozženských dějin ćeských (Praha, 1936), 205–221Google Scholar; Goll, J., Chelčický a Jednota v XV. století (Praha, 1916)Google Scholar; Jastrebov, N. V., Etjudy o Petrě Chelčickom i jego vremeni (St. Petersburg, 1908)Google Scholar; E., Smetánka, ed., Petra Chelčiekého Siť viry (Praha, 1929)Google Scholar; K., Krofta, ed., Petra Chelčického O boji duchovnim a O trojim lidu (Praha, Světová Knihovna, 916–918)Google Scholar;. E., Smetánka, ed., Petra Chelčického Postilla, 2 vols. (Praha, 1900, 1903)Google Scholar; J., Straka, ed., Petra Chelčického Replika proti Mikuláši Biskupci Táborskému (Tábor, 1930)Google Scholar; V.Novotný-R., Urbánek, eds., české dějiny (Praha, 1930), III, iii, particularly pp. 882–989Google Scholar; J., Karásek, ed., Petra Chelčického Menší spisy, 2 vols. (Praha, 1891–1892)Google Scholar; Lenz, A, Petra Chelčického Učeni o sedmeře svátostí a poměr učení tohoto k Janu Viklifovi (Praha, 1889).Google Scholar
2 Lenz, , (img #)eni osedmeře svátosti, 20, n. 2; on p. 45Google Scholar he speaks of him as “a friar, if he had been one.”
3 Straka, , ed., Replika, 63.Google Scholar
4 Smetánka, , ed., Siť víry, 2Google Scholar
5 Karásek, , ed., Men ší spisy, I, 8.Google Scholar
6 Straka, , ed., Replika, 59.Google Scholar
7 Quoted in Novotný-Urbánek, , české déjiny, iii, iii, 895.Google Scholar
8 Goll, , Chelčický a Jednota, 295Google Scholar; Novotný-Urbánek, , České déjiny iii, iii, 606.Google Scholar
9 Ibid., 300ff; cf. Böhm, W., Friedriek Reiser's Reformation des K. Sigmund (Leipzig, 1876).Google Scholar
10 Novotný-Urbánek, , České dějiny, iii, iii, 610–612.Google Scholar
11 “Ad belli manque rectifleationem videntur tria esse necessaria, videlicet iusta vendicatio, licita auctorisacio et recta inteneio.” Goll, , Quellen und Untersuchungen, II, 52.Google Scholar Wyclif takes the same attitude, which corresponds with the teaching of Thomas Aquinas regarding the “just war,” namely, “causa insta, auctoritas principis, intentio recta.”
12 Sedlák, , Studie a texty (Olomouc, 1915), II, 327.Google Scholar
13 F., Ŝimek, ed., Jakoubek ze Stříbra, Vyklad na Zjevení sv. Jana (Praha, 1932), I, 572.Google Scholar
14 Ibid., II (Praha, 1933), 133.
15 Ibid., I, 528.
16 Ibid., I, p. LXX; the bull is dated February 18, 1422.
17 Ibid., I, 560.
18 Ibid., I, 571, 573.
19 Ibid., I, 515.
20 Quoted in Novotný-Urbánek, České déjiny, III, iii, 900.
21 Ibid., III, iii, 652ff.
22 O boji duchovním, 27.
23 Ibid., 8.
24 F., Šimek, ed., Postilla Jana Rokycany, 2 vols. (Praha, 1928–1929).Google Scholar
25 Šimek, , ed., Výklad, I, 535–538.Google Scholar
26 O boji duchovnim, 27.
27 Ibid., 7, 8, 17, 26.
28 Ibid., 55; also 63, 83, 128.
29 Ibid., 92.
30 Novotný-Urbánek, , České dějiny, iii, iii, 916.Google Scholar
31 O boji duchovnim, 163. This translation is extant, and was published by Svoboda, M., M. Jakoubka Překlad Viklefova Dialogu (Praha, 1909).Google Scholar
32 Šimek, , ed., Výklad, II, 47.Google Scholar
33 O trojíim lidu, 185–187.
34 Josef, Straka, ed., Petra Chelčického Replika proti Mikuláši Biskupci Táborskému (Tábor, 1930).Google Scholar
35 Ibid., 28.
36 Ibid., 40.
37 Ibid., 41.
38 Ibid., 41–42.
39 Ibid., 59.
40 J., Karásek, ed., Menší spisy, I, 17.Google Scholar
41 This work is not accessible to me in this country, and therefore I omit a discussion of it.
42 Emil, Smetánka, ed., Petra Chelčického Postilla, 2 vols., (Praha, 1900, 1903).Google Scholar
43 Ibid., I, 143, 298.
44 Ibid., I, 363.
45 Emil, Smetánka, ed., Sít víry (Praha, 1929).Google Scholar
46 Ibid., 46–47.
