Preachers, Partisans, and Rebellious Religion. Marcela K. Perett

of canon law, but rather a preamble to a cosmic battle between good and evil, in which neutrality was impossible. Only weeks after he had left Prague, Hus exhorted his followers there not to be led astray by the Antichrist, meaning the ecclesiastical synod in Prague, who had issued the final excommunication.¹⁴ Using this kind of indirect language, Hus advised his sympathizers to be wary of all decrees, regulations, and instructions that came from the same ecclesiastical body, in effect telling them to be selective about accepting its authority.

      Hus spoke more directly in a letter to his friend, colleague, and mentor Master Christian, in spring 1413, calling the pope “Satan” and “Antichrist” and his disciples (the cardinals) the “satellites of Antichrist.”¹⁵ This is one of the most explicit attacks on the pope and his cardinals, describing the church as completely captivated by the forces of evil, with “Satan incarnate” residing in the place of Peter (“in loco Petri resideat Sathanas cum 12 superbissimis dyabolis incarnates”).¹⁶ In another letter to the same master, Hus stated his resolve to fight against the Behemoth, whom he described as the pope and his masters, doctors, and lawyers, who “cover up the ugliness of the beast by a false name of sanctity.”¹⁷ Hus’s harsh pronouncement came on the heels of his refusal to accept a ruling by the theological faculty at the University in Prague. They put forth what they considered an orthodox definition of the church, but Hus instead clung to his own understanding of the church, inspired by Wyclif and recently formulated in his treatise De ecclesia. By stating that Satan resides in the place of Peter, Hus declared that he considered the authorities in Rome to be illegitimate.¹⁸ The conflict between Hus and the authorities was no longer an internal matter within the church, but a battle between the forces of good and evil.

      By calling the pope and cardinals the Antichrist, Hus distanced himself from the authorities, creating a divide between himself and his followers on the one side and the pope and cardinals on the other. Applying such damning words to the pope also helped clarify why the curia persecuted Hus in the first place: the pope and cardinals opposed goodness and could not help attacking an innocent man who threatened them. In fact, to be prosecuted and exiled by the Antichrist spoke exceedingly well of Hus and further underscored his innocence. His overall strategy served two ends: Hus was able to distance himself from the curia (creating his own faction) and, at the same time, to force the undecided to take a stand in the conflict.

       Hus as an Old Testament Prophet and Another Christ

      Every good narrative needs a hero, and Hus willingly cast himself in this role. In his letters from exile to his colleagues, noble supporters, and lay sympathizers, Hus employed Scriptures to present himself as an innocent victim of unrighteous persecution and interpolated contemporary events into his preconceived framework of a cosmic battle between the people of God and the forces of the Antichrist.

      Hus’s wish to sway the public opinion in his favor is best displayed in one of his open letters, written to the people of Prague in November 1413.¹⁹ A year into his life in exile, Hus continued to exhort his followers to persevere and emphasized the manifold rewards for those who did, along with the painful punishment for those who fell astray. But what were the letter’s addressees supposed to persevere in doing? When Hus visited the city, which was seldom because of the threat of an interdict, perhaps they could host him in a city filled with hostile clerics, but it would seem that Hus demanded something greater than help with travel arrangements. Hus needed his sympathizers to believe his interpretation of contemporary events and trust him when he told them who was a friend and who was an enemy.

      In speaking to laymen, Hus drew parallels between himself and various scriptural persons, as well as between his situation and various scriptural events. He thought that his recent persecutions and suffering were signs of his innocence, and he used the Bible to legitimize this claim. For example, in one letter (in which Hus also rejected the advice of the theological faculty in Prague to stop preaching), Hus argued that it was better to die well than to live poorly. He especially elaborated on the blessedness of suffering and mused about the heavenly reward it would ultimately bring, alluding to a number of New Testament passages.²⁰ When writing from exile in November 1413 to the inhabitants of Prague, Hus underlined the fact that, like him, the apostles also suffered unjust persecution.²¹ Writing from his jail cell in Constance, mere weeks before his death, Hus cited a similar passage: “Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and shall re proach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake. Be glad in that day and rejoice; for behold, your reward is great in heaven.” He saw himself as an apostle, stating that he would ultimately partake of the same crown of glory and imagining that they passed through fire in the same way that he soon would.²² In this schema, his suffering and persecution served as a proof that he was innocent.

      Hus’s persecution and suffering confirmed that he was, indeed, a chosen servant of God. Hus used Old Testament prophets, apostles, and Christ as examples to underscore this point. Referring to Luke 6:22–23, in which Christ stated that the world hated true prophets and loved false ones, Hus argued that the world’s hatred for him proved that he was, in fact, a true prophet.²³ This parallel was expanded in a letter, written in the vernacular to his friends in Bohemia from his jail cell at the end of June 1415, twelve days before his death. In it, Hus instructed the citizens of Prague to not be afraid if they saw his books burned in a public spectacle (in the manner of Wyclif’s books, burned by the archbishop in July 1410). The letter then listed a number of Old Testament prophets who had suffered a similar fate, such as Jeremiah, Baruch, and other, esteemed biblical figures.²⁴ Hus also alluded to Christian saints, such as John Chrysostom, twice accused of heresy by priests, but whose reputation God cleared after his death. By associating himself with those whose saintliness had stood the test of time, Hus appeared equally blameless and innocent, vindicated by God against all his earthly opponents.

      Hus also claimed that the circumstances of his persecution and arrest were similar to those of Jesus. The parallels began to appear shortly after Hus’s departure for exile in October 1412. In a letter written from an unknown location to the inhabitants of Prague, Hus addressed his audience in the vernacular. His words were reminiscent of the apostle Paul, speaking to those who love God in truth, await the Savior, and follow his law.²⁵ Of course, “following his law” meant acting in the manner determined by Hus. In the body of the letter, Hus encouraged his audience to resist the temptation to be afraid. It is left unclear what the audience might fear, presumably the clerics who persecute Hus. Not only should they not be afraid, Hus wrote, the faithful ought to rejoice in their trials.

      In a seamless transition, Hus turned from talking about his own troubles to the persecution of Christ, emphasizing the parallels between their situations. In Hus’s recounting of Christ’s life, Christ was called a heretic and was excommunicated, condemned, and crucified. In Hus’s view, Christ had endured heavy abuses from bishops, priests, and scribes. They called him a ravenous drinker, demoniac, and blasphemer, saying “this man is not from God” and exposing him as a slanderer. Hus’s paraphrase of Christ’s life emphasized Christ being a heretic, someone not from God, and someone excommunicated, all of which paralleled Hus’s experience. By this time, Hus had been exiled from Prague, banned from preaching, called a heretic, accused of spreading error and bad teachings, and excommunicated. Another reference to the life of Christ that paralleled Hus’s own life appeared in a letter written shortly before December 25, again to the inhabitants of Prague. In the letter, Hus advised the audience to ignore the ban on attending Bethlehem Chapel. “They have no reason to keep you away from the word of God being preached, especially now that I am away.”²⁶ But the main focus of the letter was for Hus to justify his departure from Bethlehem and from Prague. Citing instances when Jesus would deliberately elude his persecutors (like Hus, choosing to leave his hometown in order to preach elsewhere), Hus praised Jesus for his (and, implicitly, Hus’s own) foresight and cunning in avoiding his persecutors and fleeing the city.²⁷ In his own view, Hus fled in the same way and for the same (good) reasons as Jesus did. And because no one could possibly dispute Jesus’s infinite, divine wisdom and accuse him of cowardice, Hus’s actions were, by association, to be understood in the same (indisputably good) way.

      Hus’s manipulation of Scriptures must have caused quite a